********************************************************    
                         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                        )    CUID Nos.      NJ0134 (Mine Hill)  
                                                                      )         
     NJ0136 (Roxbury)
CSC TKR, Inc.                      )              NJ0137 (Stanhope)        
                                   )              NJ0154 (Victory Gardens) 
Order Denying Jurisdiction                   )                  


                             ORDER

          Adopted:  April 21, 1999         Released:  April 27, 1999     

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

     1.   In this Order we dismiss complaints filed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the
Local Franchising Authority ("LFA") for the communities referenced above, against the rates that the above-
captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the
communities set forth above because the complaints concern rates that are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission ("Commission").  Each of the complaints was filed with the Commission on
September 8, 1994.

     2.   Under the Communications Act, the Commission is authorized to review the CPST rates of
cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the filing of a valid complaint. 
      The LFA for the franchise areas referenced above filed complaints with the Commission on September
8, 1994 against Operator's August 15, 1994 CPST rate increases in the franchise areas referenced above.  We
dismiss these complaints because the complaints were not timely filed with the Commission.  Section 623(c)(3)
of the Communications Act requires that complaints be filed within "a reasonable period of time" following a
change in rates.  We determined that a "reasonable period of time" is forty-five days.  In order to facilitate
subscriber knowledge of the nature and extent of a rate increase and provide evidence of subscribership and
the rate and service involved, we determined that we would compute the time period for filing a complaint from
the date the complainant receives a bill from a cable operator that reflects the rate change.  Section 76.953 of
the Commission's rules, in effect at the time the complaints were filed, provides that complaints against CPST
rate increases must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from that date.  That provision does not apply
to a complaint filed by a local franchising authority ("LFA") which does not receive a bill.  The LFA must file
a complaint within 45 days of the date the rate increase becomes effective.  

     3.   Operator's response to the complaints indicate that the CPST rates in the communities
referenced above did not change between July 14, 1994 and November 1994.  Operator also states that no
channels were dropped from its CPSTs in the communities referenced above during that time.  Based on our
review of the record, we find that the complaints filed on September 8, 1994 were not filed within 45 days of
a rate change because no rate change, implicit or otherwise, occurred in the above-referenced communities
between July 14, 1994 and November 1994.  Because the complaints were not timely filed, they do not trigger
the Commission's jurisdiction, and we hereby dismiss the referenced complaints.
     
     4.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. 0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the
communities referenced above ARE DISMISSED.

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


                              
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 




                              Patrick A. Boateng
                              Acting Chief,  Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
                                   Cable Services Bureau