********************************************************    
                         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  )     
                  )     
Comcast Cablevision of  )     CUID No.  MI0311 (Genesee)     
Flint, Inc.       )     
                  )     
Complaint Regarding     )     
Cable Programming Services Tier Rates      )           
 

                          ORDER
      
        Adopted:  June 24, 1998                    Released:  July 1, 1998  

By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau:

  1.    In this Order we consider a complaint against the rates the above-referenced operator
("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced
above.  This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Operator's November 1, 1997 CPST rate increase.

  2.    Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission
("Commission") is authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective
competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable.  If the Commission finds a rate to be
unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability.   The Telecommunications Act
of 1996 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the new legislation ("Interim Rules"), require that
complaints against the CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA")
that has received more than one subscriber complaint. 

  3.     The LFA for the franchise area referenced above filed a complaint with the Commission
on April 8, 1998, against Operator's November 1, 1997 CPST rate increase from $15.56 to $16.49.  The
LFA verified that it received more than one subscriber complaint for the franchise area and that the first
complaint was received by the LFA on November 11, 1997.  The filing of a complete and timely LFA
complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates.  The
Operator has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are reasonable. 

  4.      To justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing,
operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series.  Operators are permitted to make changes to their rates
on a quarterly basis using FCC Form 1210.  Operators may alternatively justify adjustments to their rates
on an annual basis using FCC Form 1240 to reflect reasonably certain and quantifiable changes in external
costs, inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are projected for the twelve months following
the rate change.  Any incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates
at a later time.  

  5.    Operator filed FCC Form 1240 for the projected period November 1, 1997 through
October 31, 1998 to justify its CPST rates.  Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240, we find
Operator's actual CPST rate of $16.49, effective November 1, 1997, to be reasonable.     

  6.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED,  pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the CPST rate of $16.49 charged by Operator in the community referenced
above, effective November 1, 1997, IS REASONABLE.

  7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R.  0.321, that the referenced complaint IS DENIED.


       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



       Elizabeth W. Beaty
       Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
       Cable Services Bureau