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-052    
Charter Communications             )              
                              )    CUID  No.    MO0362  (St. 
Louis County)
Complaints Regarding                    )    
Cable Programming Services Tier Rates        )    


                            ORDER

     Adopted:  July 16, 2002            Released:   July 17, 
2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In this  Order, we  dismiss complaints  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  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, the  Commission determined  that it  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.6   Section   76.953  of   the 
Commission's rules, in effect at  the time the complaint was 
filed, provides that complaints  against CPST rate increases 
must be filed  with the Commission within 45  days from that 
date.7

     3.   The first complaint, filed on October 3, 1994, was 
filed prematurely.  Complainant  indicates that she received 
the first  bill reflecting Operator's CPST  rate increase on 
September 16,  1994.  However,  the attached  September 1994 
bill shows no CPST rate  increase for the month of September 
1994.  Although Operator  provides notice  of a  future rate 
increase with the September  1994 bill, complainant does not 
include a  bill showing  the actual  rate increase.   In the 
second  complaint, complainant  indicates that  she received 
the first  bill reflecting Operator's CPST  rate increase on 
May 16, 1995.  However, the  attached May 1995 bill shows no 
CPST  rate increase  for the  month of  May 1995.   A second 
attached bill showing an April 1995 CPST rate increase would 
have been  received by complainant  some time in  April.  We 
cannot determine  if the complaint,  filed on June  2, 1995, 
was filed  within 45  days of  complainant's receipt  of the 
first  bill reflecting  the April  1995 CPST  rate increase, 
because complainant  did not indicate when  she received the 
April  1995   bill.  For  these  reasons,   we  dismiss  the 
referenced complaints because we are unable to conclude that 
the complaints were 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  complaints  referenced  herein 
against the CPST rates charged  by Operator in the community 
referenced above ARE 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 Implementation  of Sections  of the  Cable Television 
Consumer  Protection  and  Competition Act  of  1992:   Rate 
Regulation, Report and Order  and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, MM Docket  No. 92-266, 9 FCC Rcd 5631  at n. 333 
(1993).
7 47 C.F.R.  76.953 (1995).