10 FCC Red No. 14 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1425
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
TCI Cablevision CUID No. FL0366 (Little Torch Key) 
of Florida, Inc.
Benchmark Filing to Support 
Cable Programming Service Price
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: June 23, 1995; Released: June 30, 1995
By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Di 
vision, Cable Services Bureau:
1. Here we consider a complaint about the price the 
above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its 
cable programming 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 p.rice 
after that date. 1
2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992,' 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 393.9 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 equal to or 
lower 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."
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 
0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that 
the complaint referenced herein against the cable program 
ming service price charged by Operator in the community 
referenced above IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDI 
CATED 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.
6 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 Oper 
ator. Should information come to our attention that these re 
presentations 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.
7239