*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 13029.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  2719 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  ) 
 )  CUID  No.  OR0132  (Eugene) 
 TCI  Communications  ) 
 ) 
 Complaint  Regarding  ) 
 Cable  Programming  Services  Tier  Rates  ) 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  November  16,  2001  Released:  November  21,  2001 


 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Cable  Services  Bureau: 
 1.  In  this  Order  we  consider  a  complaint  against  the  August  25,  1994  rate  increase  by  the 
 above-  referenced  operator  ("  Operator")  for  its  cable  programming  services  tier  ("  CPST")  in  the  community 
 referenced  above.  Under  the  Communications  Act,  1  at  the  time  the  complaint  was  filed,  the  Commission 
 was  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")  2  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  upon  the  cable  operator  to 
 file  a  justification  of  its  CPST  rates.  3  If  the  Commission  finds  the  rate  to  be  unreasonable,  it  shall  determine 
 the  correct  rate  and  any  refund  liability.  4 


 2.  Section  76.961  (b)  of  the  Commission's  rules  5  limits  the  calculation  of  refund  liability  to  a 
 period  which  begins  on  the  date  a  valid  complaint  was  filed.  In  the  instant  matter,  Complainant 
 discontinued  service  prior  to  the  filing  date  of  the  complaint  and  there  is  no  indication  in  the  record  that 
 Complainant,  an  Adult  Foster  Care  Home,  represents  a  class  of  subscribers  that  would  benefit  from  a 
 determination  of  the  reasonableness  of  Operator's  CPST  rate  increase.  Operator  could  not  incur  any  refund 
 liability  based  on  the  complaint  even  if  we  were  to  find  that  Operator  had  overcharged  the  subscriber  -there 
 would  not  be  any  class  of  subscribers  to  provide  refunds  to.  It  would  not  be  a  judicious  use  of 
 Commission  resources  to  attempt  to  resolve  CPST  rate  complaints  that  could  only  result  in  a  finding  of  no 
 refund  liability.  Resolution  of  such  complaints  would  have  no  consequences  other  than  to  put  additional 
 strain  on  limited  Commission  resources  which  are  better  put  to  resolving  pending  complaints  and  appeals  of 
 orders  which  involve  potential  or  actual  refund  liability.  Therefore,  we  will  dismiss  the  referenced 
 complaint. 


 1  Communications  Act,  Section  623(  c),  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §543(  c)  (1996). 
 2  Pub.  L.  No.  102-  385,  106  Stat.  1460  (1992). 
 3  47  C.  F.  R.  §76.956. 
 4  47  C.  F.  R.  §76.957. 
 5  47  C.  F.  R.  §  79.961  (b). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  2719 
 2 
 3.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  Section  0.321  of  the  Commission's  rules, 
 47  C.  F.  R.  §  0.321,  that  the  complaint  referenced  above  IS  DISMISSED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 William  H.  Johnson,  Deputy  Chief 
 Cable  Services  Bureau 
2