********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of: )                  
                  )                  
NORTHEAST GWINNETT)       CSB-A-0409
CABLEVISION       )     CUID No. GA0328              
                  )                  
Petition for a Declaratory  Ruling         )
Regarding a Rate Order from the            )
City of Sugar Hill, Georgia   )      
                                     

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  May 18, 1998                          Released:  May 22, 1998  

By the Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

I.  INTRODUCTION

  1.    On June 11, 1997, Northeast Gwinnett Cablevision ("Gwinnett"), franchisee in the above
referenced proceeding, filed a Petition For Emergency Declaratory Ruling regarding the local rate order
of the City of Sugar Hill, Georgia ("the "City").  The City filed a motion to dismiss Gwinnett's petition,
together with a Motion For Extension Of Time And Leave To File Motion To Dismiss Petition For
Emergency Declaratory Ruling on July 11, 1997.  Gwinnett filed a reply to the motion to dismiss its
pleading on July 21, 1997.  For the reasons stated below, Gwinnett's petition is denied.

II.  THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

  2.    On March 10, 1997, the City Council unanimously voted not to approve the basic service
tier increase Gwinnett had proposed in the FCC Form 1210 that it had submitted to the City on or about
January 22, 1997.  By letter dated March 25, 1997, the City Manager advised Gwinnett that the City had
disapproved its cable rate increase.  He enclosed a copy of the pertinent part of the Council meeting
minutes which, although extremely brief, included reference to a Council Member's "concern that a rate
increase was being done when the service was so poor."  Neither the minutes entry nor the City Manager's
letter, addressed the substance of Gwinnett's rate filing.  Citing the Bureau's prior decision in Cablevision
VII, Inc., Gwinnett asks for a declaratory ruling that the City did not issue an appealable written decision,
pursuant to  76.936 of the Commission's Rules because the City's order was insufficient and failed to
address a cognizable basis for rejecting the requested rate increase.  
               
  3.    The City moved to dismiss Gwinnett's petition, arguing that the City had adopted a rate
order, and that the rate increase had been denied.  According to the City, Gwinnett should not be permitted
to circumvent the Commission's deadline for timely filing an appeal by claiming that no rate order was
issued.

  4.    In reply, Gwinnett argues that it was confused about the status of the rate order in light
of its brevity, the fact that local governments routinely vote at one point and release a formal resolution
at a later date, and that the City had apparently considered , but did not adopt, a more detailed resolution
at the May 1997 Council meeting.  Although continuing to argue that the City never released an
appropriate rate order, Gwinnett alternatively asks that the Commission waive its non-statutory deadline
for filing a rate appeal, citing the Commission's prior decision in Meredith/New Heritage Strategic
Partners, L.P.

III.  DISCUSSION
  
  5.    The Commission requires that an LFA issue a written decision to the public, and a public
notice of it, whenever the LFA ". . . disapproves, in whole or in part either the initial rates for the basic
service tier and accompanying equipment, or a request for an increase in those rates, or approves a
proposed rate over the objections of interested parties."  Any participant in a ratemaking proceeding at
the franchising authority level may file an appeal of the LFA's decision with the Commission within thirty
(30) days of the release of the text of the franchising authority's decision.  Although the Bureau has held
that written decisions must affirmatively demonstrate why an operator's proposed rates are unreasonable,
and that issues of service quality should be addressed outside the ratemaking context, the alleged
insufficiency of an LFA's rate order does not toll the filing deadline under the Commission's rules. 
Extremely brief LFA opinions have previously been recognized as final; their brevity in no way affects
the requirement that any appeal of them be made in a timely fashion.  Gwinnett's request for a declaratory
ruling that cable operators can determine unilaterally whether a rate order is sufficient is denied.   

  6.    Gwinnett  also has not shown good cause for waiving the Commission's deadline for
appealing the LFA's order.  Gwinnett offers no showing that it made a diligent effort to timely file an
appeal or even to ascertain the status of the disputed rate order in order to protect its right to appeal after
receiving the City Manager's letter.  This lack of diligence distinguishes Gwinnett's circumstances from
those in Continental Cablevision of Ohio, upon which it relies.  Although Gwinnett argues that local
franchising authorities should work cooperatively with cable operators, it bears responsibility for protecting
its own interests if it is unclear about the status of a rate order.  The Commission made it clear in its
decision in Meredith/New Heritage Strategic Partners, L.P that it will strictly apply the good cause
standard in connection with filing deadlines initiating adjudicatory proceedings, and it overruled precedent
to the contrary.  The petition submitted by Gwinnett, therefore, is untimely, and it will be denied.

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

  7.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition For Emergency Declaratory Ruling filed
June 11, 1997 by Northeast Gwinnett Cablevision IS DENIED.   

  8.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion For Extension Of Time And Leave To
File Motion To Dismiss Petition For Emergency Declaratory Ruling filed July 11, 1997 by the City of
Sugar Hill, Georgia IS GRANTED.

  9.    This action is taken by the Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority
delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules.  47 C .F. R.  0.321.

        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



        John E. Logan
        Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau