********************************************************    
                         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 Plainfield, Inc. )    CUID No.  NJ0124 (North Plainfield)     
                         )              NJ0126 (Plainfield)
                              )              NJ0130 (South Plainfield)
                              )
Order Denying Jurisdiction              )


                              ORDER

     Adopted:  January 11, 1999                             Released:  January 14, 1999  

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

     1.   In this Order we dismiss a complaint against the rate that the above-captioned operator
("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the communities referenced
above because the complaint concerns a rate that is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications
Commission ("Commission").  Under the Communications Act, the Commission regulates the CPST rates of
cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the filing of a valid complaint.  Our review reveals that
the complaint filed against Operator, while asserting that it challenges a CPST rate, challenges only a rate for
Operator's "Value Pac," a new product tier ("NPT") and not a CPST rate.  Consequently, the complaint does
not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction. 

     2.   In its complaint, the LFA questions Operator's rate increase for its Value Pac service from
$4.48 to $5.62.  In Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket Nos. 92-966.  Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and
Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Going Forward Order"),  the Commission established
criteria for the creation of NPTs, which cannot include channels taken from regulated tiers.  The Commission
concluded, however, that cable operators could treat packages of channels in existence at the time of the Going
Forward Order as NPTs, so long as such packages involved only a small number of migrated channels.  Upon
review, we find that Operator's Value Pac tier is a NPT under our Going Forward Order and therefore not
currently subject to rate regulation.  


     3.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 623(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(a)(2)(A) and (B), that the complaint against
the NPT rate charged by Operator in the communities referenced above IS DISMISSED.

     4.   This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.

     
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Margaret M. Egler
                         Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
                         Cable Services Bureau