DA 95-1041 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 16
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of 
Plum Cable TV CUID No. PA1391 (Plum Borough)
Benchmark Filing to Justify Cable 
Programming Service Rate
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: May 4,1995; Released: May 9,1995
By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Di 
vision, Cable Services Bureau:
1. Here we consider complaints about the price Plum 
Cable TV ("Operator") was charging for its cable program 
ming service ("CPS") tier in the community referenced 
above. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its price 
through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This 
Order addresses the reasonableness of Operator's price only 
through May 14, 1994. At a later time we will issue a 
separate order addressing the reasonableness of the price 
after that date.1
2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992,2 and our rules implementing it, 
47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review 
CPS prices upon the filing of a complete and timely com 
plaint. The filing of a complete and timely complaint 
triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file 
a justification of its CPS prices.3 Under our rules, an 
operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a 
benchmark showing or a cost-of-service showing.4 In either 
case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its 
CPS prices are not unreasonable.5
3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect 
on September 1, 1993.6 The Commission subsequently re 
vised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.7 Operators 
with complete and timely CPS complaints filed against 
them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their
CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's 
initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through 
May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance 
with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.^ Oper 
ators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior 
to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must com 
plete and file FCC Form 393.* Generally, to justify their 
prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a 
benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 
1200 series. 10
4. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS price is justified 
by its benchmark filing because this price is less than the 
maximum permitted charge. Upon review, we have found 
no apparent errors that would result in Operator's actual 
CPS price exceeding its maximum permitted CPS price. 11
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 
0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that 
the complaints referenced herein against the cable pro 
gramming service price charged by Operator in the com 
munity referenced above ARE DENIED TO THE 
EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
JoAnn Lucanik
Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
Cable Services Bureau
1 The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the 
reasonableness of the price for CPS service after May 14, 1994 
under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent Oper 
ator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period 
under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report 
and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM 
Docket No. 92-266, FCC 94-38, 9 FCC Red 4119 (Second Order 
on Reconsideration), the maximum permitted CPS price deter 
mined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date 
on which Operator implemented its CPS price under the new 
regulations. See para. 3, infra.
2 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act"); 
Communications Act, § 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 543(c) (1993).
3 47 C.F.R. § 76.956.
4 47 C.F.R. § 76.956(b).
5 Id.
b Order in MM Docket No. 92-266. Implementation of Sections 
of the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 
Rate Regulation, FCC 93-372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).
7 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(b).
8 See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Red at 4190, 
paras. 150-152. 
* Id.
10 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsi 
deration. 9 FCC Red at 4189 n.195.
11 This finding is based solely on the representations of the 
operator. Should information come to our attention that these 
representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right 
to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as 
a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding 
not specifically addressed herein.
8180