******************************************************** 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 Indianapolis, Inc. ) CUID No. IN0556 (Marion County) ) ) Complaints Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates ) 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 consider a complaint concerning the rates of the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the rebuilt and existing systems in the community referenced above. Operator's response includes benchmark justifications filed on FCC Forms 1200, FCC Forms 1210. We have already issued an order ("Final Resolution") that resolved all pending complaints against the Operator's rates charged from September 1, 1993 through July 14, 1994. We subsequently issued an order ("Prior Order") in which we found that Operator's CPST rate increase effective November 1, 1996 was unreasonable. In addition, on April 7, 1997 the Operator filed a Petition for Reconsideration of our Prior Order, which was granted on January 12, 1998. Further, we have issued a separate order ("Order") in which we found that Operator's rate increase effective November 1, 1997 was reasonable. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates from July 15, 1994 through October 31, 1996. 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. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), and our rules in effect at the time the complaints were filed, required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Cable operators with valid CPST complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPST rates were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their rates were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. Cable operators attempting to justify their rates for the period prior to May 15, 1994 using a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form 393. Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 using a benchmark showing. Cable operators may also justify rate increases based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210. FCC Form 1210 must be filed at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go into effect where the Commission has found the cable programming service rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. 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. 4. In reviewing Operator's FCC Form 1200 we find that Operator has justified its maximum permitted rate ("MPR") of $9.48. Because Operator's actual CPST rate of $9.42, effective July 14, 1994, is less than the MPR, we find it to be reasonable. 5. Upon review of Operator's FCC Forms 1210 for its existing system, we find that Operator has correctly calculated its MPRs. Therefore, we find that Operator's actual CPST rates, effective October 1, 1994 through June 16, 1996, are reasonable. On its FCC Form 1210, covering the period December 31, 1995 through June 30, 1996, we find that Operator has also justified its MPR of $11.35, effective July 1, 1996. However, Operator increased its rate from $10.42 to $11.22 on June 17, 1996, prior to the effective date of its new MPR. Therefore, we find that Operator's CPST rate of $11.22 is unreasonable, effective June 17, 1996 through June 30, 1996, and reasonable, effective July 1, 1996. Because the discrepancy is de minimis, we find that it would not be in the public interest to order a refund. 6. Upon review of Operator's FCC Forms 1210 for its rebuilt system, we find that Operator has justified its MPRs and that its CPST rates, for the period under review, are reasonable. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rates charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise area referenced above, from July 14, 1994 through June 16, 1996, ARE REASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $11.22 charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise area referenced above from June 17, 1996 through June 30, 1996, IS UNREASONABLE. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $11.22 charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise area referenced above effective July 1, 1996 IS REASONABLE. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rates charged by Operator in the rebuilt system in the franchise area referenced above, for the period under review, ARE REASONABLE. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret M. Egler Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau