*Pages 1--3 from Microsoft Word - 10470.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1760 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter ) ) Century Cable TV ) CUID No. CA0579 (Redondo Beach) ) Petition for Reconsideration ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: July 23, 2001 Released: July 25, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration (" Petition") of our Order, DA 94-1627 (" Prior Order") 1 filed with the Federal Communications Commission (" Commission") by the local franchising authority (" LFA") for the above- referenced community on February 6, 1995. 2 In our Prior Order, we dismissed complaints filed against the cable programming service tier (" CPST") rates implemented by the above- referenced operator (" Operator") beginning September 1, 1993. In this Order, we deny the LFA’s Petition. 2. Under the Communications Act, 3 at the time the referenced complaints were filed, the Commission was authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged were not unreasonable. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 4 (" 1992 Cable Act") required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber or LFA. The filing of a complete and timely complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. 5 The Operator has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are reasonable. 6 If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 7 1 See In the Matter of Century Cable TV, 10 FCC Rcd 1710 (1995). 2 See Letter dated February 2, 1995 from Mr. Ken Simmons, Assistant City Manager, City of Redondo Beach to the Federal Communications Commission. Although this letter format does not conform to the requirements of 47 C. F. R. §§ 1. 49, 1. 51 and 1. 52, we will address the merits of the LFA’s letter as a petition for reconsideration. 3 Communications Act, Section 623( c), as amended, 47 U. S. C. §543( c) (1996). 4 Pub. L. No. 102- 385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992). 5 See Section 76. 956 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. §76. 956. 6 Id. 7 See Section 76. 957 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 76. 957. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1760 2 3. On September 1, 1993, Operator eliminated its entire CPST by moving all of its channels to a single basic services tier (" BST") and to an a la carte tier, which consisted of four channels that could also be purchased individually. In our Prior Order, we treated Operator's restructured four channel a la carte tier as an unregulated new product tier (" NPT") pursuant to our Going Forward Order. 8 Thus, we found that Operator did not have any CPST rates that were subject to regulation and consequently we dismissed the pending complaints. 4. In its Petition, the LFA asserts that Operator’s September 1, 1993 restructuring constitutes an evasion of rate regulation and violates the criteria established in the Going Forward Order. 9 We disagree. In the Going Forward Order, the Commission established criteria for the creation of NPTs, which cannot include channels taken from regulated tiers. However, the Commission concluded that cable operators would be permitted to treat certain packages, in existence as of the Going Forward Order, as NPTs, so long as such packages involve only a small number of migrated channels. The Commission stated that ". . . we think it is fair, in light of the uncertainty created by our test, to allow cable operators to treat existing packages as NPTs even though it would not qualify under the rules we establish today, provided that such packages involve only a small number of migrated channels." 10 5. Consistently, the Commission has found that the movement of six channels or less to an a la carte tier constitutes a small number of channels as envisioned by the Going Forward Order. 11 Our Prior Order specifically relied on a series of orders which analyzed Operator’s migrated channels and found that Operator’s movement of four channels from a regulated tier to an a la carte tier did not constitute an evasion of rate regulation. 12 The LFA has provided no new information or arguments to persuade us to deviate from our decision in the Prior Order that Operator's four channel a la carte tier may be treated as an NPT under our Going Forward Order and is not subject to regulation. 13 Therefore, we will deny the LFA’s Petition. 8 Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket Nos. 92- 266 and 93- 215, Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 1226 (1995). 9 The LFA’s second argument, that the Prior Order is inconsistent with In the Matter of Century Southwest Cable TV Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, California, DA 94- 1553, 10 FCC Rcd 1006 (1994), is without merit, as that order was subsequently vacated. See In the Matter of Century Communications Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 18009 (1997). 10 Going Forward Order at ¶ 51 (1995). 11 See, for example, In the Matter of Comcast Cablevision of Arkansas, 13 FCC Rcd 16682 (1998); In the Matter of Falcon Cable TV, 10 FCC Rcd 998 (1994); and In the Matter of Falcon Holding Group, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 7267 (1995). 12 See, for example, Century Cable TV, Huntington, West Virginia, LOI- 93- 49, DA 94- 1314, 9 FCC Rcd 7337 (1994); Century Cable TV, Morgantown, West Virginia, LOI- 93- 34, DA 94- 1358, 10 FCC Rcd 115 (1994); Century Cable TV, Muncie, Indiana, LOI- 93- 18, DA 94- 1354, 10 FCC Rcd 99 (1994); Century Cable TV, Owensboro, Kentucky, LOI- 93- 45, DA 94- 1361, 10 FCC Rcd 127 (1994); and Century Cable TV, Yuma, Arizona, LOI- 93- 39, DA 94- 1360, 10 FCC Rcd 123 (1994). 13 See Section 76. 987 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 76. 987. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1760 3 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0. 321 and 1. 106, that Operator's Petition for Reconsideration of In the Matter of Century Cable TV, DA 94- 1627, 10 FCC Rcd 1710 (1995) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau 3