Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3157
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of:
Cablevision of Newark
Petition for Declaratory Ruling
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.  CSR-4853-R
CUID No. NJ0476
ORDER
 Adopted:  July 10, 2007 Released: July 12, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
1. Cablevision of Newark (“Cablevision”) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling on 
October 7, 1996 to determine whether Cablevision is permitted to offset undercharges for its cable 
programming services tier (“CPST”) rates against overcharges for its basic service tier (“BST”) rates.  
For the reasons set forth below, we deny Cablevision’s Petition.  
2. The Commission addressed the issue of inter-tier offsets in Cencom Cable Income 
Partners (“Cencom”).1 In Cencom, the Commission explained why it does not allow such offsets: If 
both BST and CPST rates were within the Commission’s jurisdiction, we might have considered inter-
tier offsets when ordering refunds for overcharges on CPST where less than the maximum permitted rate 
has been charged on the BST.  However, the Communications Act set up a dual regulatory structure for 
cable services during the period at issue here, giving local franchising authorities jurisdiction to regulate 
BST and associated equipment rates, and until April 1999, giving the Commission jurisdiction to regulate 
CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint.2 While the Commission prescribed standards and 
procedures for local rate regulation,3 and is authorized to consider appeals from local rate orders,4 the 
Commission generally is not otherwise involved in local rate regulation and is not in a position to 
evaluate offsets between tiers as a matter of routine.  Absent an appeal, the Commission may be 
uninformed about local matters potentially affecting BST rates.  The Commission’s review of CPST rates 
was not coordinated with local rate review processes.5 In short, allowing inter-tier offsets would have 
created practical problems in determining the correct BST rates for offset purposes, further burdening the 
  
1 See Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 7948 (1997).
2 Communications Act § 623, 47 U.S.C. § 543. 
3 Communications Act § 623(b)(1), (3), 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(1), (3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.922, 76.923.
4 Communications Act § 623 (b)(5)(B), 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(5)(B); 47 C.F. R. § 76.944.
5 See Cencom, 12 FCC Rcd 7948, 7958.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3157
2
administrative processes of cable rate regulation.6  We see no reason to deviate from our general rule of 
prohibiting inter-tier offsets.7
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by 
Cablevision of Newark IS DENIED to the extent indicated herein.
4. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by § 0.283 of the Commission’s 
rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John B. Norton
Deputy Chief, Policy Division
Media Bureau
  
6 See id.
7 We most recently addressed this issue in Cablevision of New Jersey, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 24018 (2003).  In 
addition, all CPST complaint issues involving the referenced community, CUID No. NJ0476, were resolved by 
resolution.  See Cablevision Systems Corporation, 13 FCC Rcd. 15894 (1998).