10 FCC Red No, 23 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1426 Before the fete W«htaftmi.D.C 20554 NC0196 Morehead,NC NH0015 Plymouth, NH In the matter of Vision Cable of Morehead City State Cable TV Corp. Withdrawal of FCC Form 329 Rate Complaints MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 23,1995; Released: June 27,1995 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In each of the cases noted above, the local franchising authority (LFA) or another complainant filed a complaint with this Commission alleging that the prices charged for cable programming, service tier (CPS) services in its community were unreasonably high. These complaints, and the cable operators, filing dates, and withdrawal dates, are noted at Attachment A. Later, these complainants wrote to the Commission to withdraw their CPS complaints.1 In each of these communities mere was only one complainant who filed with this Commission to complain about CPS rates. Our jurisdiction to regulate CPS rates arises with the filing of a valid complaint against those rates. We will allow the withdrawal of these complaints, anM our review of these filings will therefore be terminated 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 1 The dates of all withdrawal letters are noted in Attachment A. 2 Pub. L. No. 102-385,106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act, § 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. 543O (1993) (Cable Act of 1992). Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid 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. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.' The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.6 Operators with valid 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 me 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.7 Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May IS, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form 393.* In each case captioned above, the operator did file either an FCC Form 393 benchmark rate justification submission, or a cost of service rate justification submission. 4. This Commission has now received from the single complainant in each of the captioned communities a letter stating that it wishes to withdraw its CPS rate complaint against the operator. Under our rules, this Commission's authority to regulate CPS cable rates arises 1 47 CF.R§ 76.956. 4 47CF.R.§76.956(b). 5 Order in MM Docket No. 92-266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93-372,58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2,1993). 6 See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 9 FCC Red 4119 (1994) (BenchmarkOrder): 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(b) 'See Benchmark Order. 9 FCC Red at4190. paras. ISO- 152. 'Id. 12281 10 FCC Red No. 23 Federal Communfcationg Commiiiion Record DA 95-1426 when a valid complaint against those rates is filed. In each case noted here, the complainant is the only complainant against this operator in this community. Our mandate is to "protect subscribers of any cable system that is not subject to effective competition from rates that exceed the rates that would be charged if such a system were subject to effective competition."9 While our rules forbid collusive agreements between operators and local franchising authorities regarding forbearance from rate regulation, there is no evidence of such an agreement here. We will accordingly allow these complainants to withdraw their complaints. Because our review of the rate justification showings is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, and because in every case listed here, the operator no longer faces a rate complaint, we are terminating our review of those filings. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329 rate complaints against cable programming service rates in the above-noted communities IS GRANTED, and the review of the resulting rate justification filings IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION JoAnnLucanik Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau Attachment A CPS Complaint Withdrawals CUID No.. Local Frandysnn Operator Complaint Complaint Authority/Complainant Fil«i10 NC0196Morehead.NC Vision Cabte 01/03/94 03/1195 NH0015 Plymouth. NH Stale CaWe 02/2S/95 06/02/95 TV Corp. * Conference Report on the Cable Act of 1992, at 62. See also. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation. MM Docket No. 92-266. Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakmg, 8 FCC Red 5631 (1993) (Rate Order) at 5669. '" The date given is the date the complainant first filed a complaint. In some cases, the complainants filed duplicate complaints at later dates. 12282