Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



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

In the Matter of                        )         
                              )    File No. EB-02-TC-083    
Bresnan Communications             )              
                              )    CUID No.  GA0034 (Jesup)
Complaint Regarding                )    
Cable Programming Services Tier Rates        )    


                            ORDER

     Adopted:  September 4, 2002        Released:  September 
6, 2002                                 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In this  Order, we dismiss a  complaint filed with 
the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") against 
the   rates  charged   by   the  above-referenced   operator 
("Operator")2  for  its   cable  programming  services  tier 
("CPST") in the community referenced above.  
 
             2.     Under    the     provisions    of    the 
Communications  Act3 that  were in  effect at  the time  the 
complaint was filed, the  Commission is authorized to review 
the CPST  rates of  cable systems  not subject  to effective 
competition upon  the filing of  a valid complaint.   At the 
time  the complaint  was filed,  Section 623(c)  (3) of  the 
Communications Act required that  complaints be filed within 
"a reasonable period of time"  following a change in rates.4  
The Commission determined that "a reasonable period of time" 
is 45 days.5   At the time the complaint was  filed, a local 
franchising  authority  ("LFA")  was   required  to  file  a 
complaint within  45 days  from the  date the  rate increase 
became effective.6

     3.   The referenced complaint was filed on November 28, 
1994 against  Operator's alleged October 28,  1994 CPST rate 
increase.  However, our review  of the record indicates that 
Operator did not  raise its CPST rates  until December 1994, 
after the  complaint was  filed.  Therefore, we  dismiss the 
referenced complaint  because it was  not filed in  a timely 
manner.

     4.   Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED, pursuant  to Sections 
0.111  and 0.311  of the  Commission's rules,  47 C.F.R.   
0.111  and  0.311,  that  the  complaint  referenced  herein 
against the CPST  rate charged by Operator  in the community 
referenced above IS DISMISSED.
     
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION 



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
                         
_________________________

1  Effective  March  25, 2002,  the  Commission  transferred 
responsibility for resolving cable programming services tier 
rate complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the 
Enforcement Bureau.  See Establishment  of the Media Bureau, 
the  Wireline  Competition  Bureau   and  the  Consumer  and 
Governmental   Affairs   Bureau,   Reorganization   of   the 
International Bureau  and Other Organizational  Changes, FCC 
02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002).
2  The term  "Operator" includes  Operator's successors  and 
predecessors in interest.
3 47 U.S.C. 543(c) (1996).
4 47 U.S.C. 543(c) (3) (1996).
5  See Implementation  of Sections  of the  Cable Television 
Consumer  Protection  and  Competition Act  of  1992:   Rate 
Regulation,  First Order  on Reconsideration,  Second Report 
and  Order,  and Third  Notice  of  Proposed Rulemaking,  MM 
Docket No. 92-266, 9 FCC Rcd 1164 at n. 314 (1994).
6 See, e.g., In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV, Inc., DA 
01-1811, 16 FCC Rcd 14753 (CSB 2001); In the Matter of 
TWFanch-One, DA 00-1292, 15 FCC Rcd 10665 (CSB 2000).