10 FCC Red No. 17 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1592
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Northern Dakota County
Complaints Regarding Cable Cable Communications 
Programming Service Prices Commission, MN
City of Manteca, CA
Town of Ramapo, NY
City of Artesia, CA
Charles Warrender, CT
. Hardin County, KY
City of Henderson, KY
Bruce Coleman, KY
Don F. Tibbs, GA
Don F. Tibbs, FL
City of Canyon Lake, CA
Kenton/Boone Counties Cable
Television Board, KY
City of Lauderhill, FL
City of Monroe, NC
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: August 1,1995; Released: August 17,1995
By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:
1. This Order addresses requests for reconsideration1 op 
posing the Commission's decision to return complaints 
filed by petitioners regarding cable programming service (CPS) prices. The Commission returned 
the complaints on 
the grounds that they were not filed with the Commission 
within the period provided for by our rules. The petition ers listed above request reconsideration 
and argue that their 
complaints should be accepted as timely filed. For the 
reasons set forth below, we grant petitioners' requests for reconsideration where complainants 
attempted to file a 
complaint on the February 28, 1994 deadline by facsimile 
and/or postmarked their complaint by the deadline and, in either case, sought reconsideration 
of the rejection of their
complaints within the 30 day period provided by our rules. All other requests for reconsideration 
in this matter are 
denied.
2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), and Section 
79.950 el. seq. of our rules, the Commission must review 
CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint.2 The filing 
of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification 
of its CPS prices.3 The 
1992 Cable Act provides that such "complaints [must be] 
filed . . . during the 180-day period following the effective date of the [Commission's] regulations," 
and' that "com 
plaints [must be] filed within a reasonable period of time 
following a change in rates."4
3. The Commission adopted rules pursuant to the directives of the 1992 Cable Act, and 
those rules became 
effective on September 1, 1993. Under the Commission's 
rules, except with regard to small systems, parties seeking to challenge rates that were in effect 
on September 1, 1993 
must file a complaint with the Commission on or by 
February 28, 1994.5 Thereafter, parties challenge a rate change by filing a complaint with 
the Commission within 
45 days after receiving a bill from the cable operator that 
reflects the rate change.6
4. Under Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, any provision of the rules may be waived 
on petition if good 
cause is demonstrated.7 In order to establish good cause, a 
party must' provide a legitimate reason for not being able to file within the time specified.8 We shall 
use the same "good 
cause" standard to justify making an exception to our 
policy which is modeled after the Commission rules. As 
discussed below, we find that an exception is warranted in 
those situations where complainants made attempts to file a 
complaint by facsimile on the filing date of February 28, 1994, but were unable to complete 
the filing due to tech 
nical difficulties in reaching the Commission via facsimile. 
We also find an exception for complainants who postmarked their complaints by February 
28, 1994.
a. To trigger Commission jurisdiction over a cable 
operator's CPS rates, a complaint must be filed on 
FCC Form 329. Pursuant to FCC Form 329 instruc 
tions, a petitioner has the option to file a complaint via facsimile transmission or mail. 
Commission poli 
cy allows for facsimile filings by the due date.9 Many of those complainants who opted 
to use facsimile 
transmission on the day of February 28, 1994, were 
unsuccessful due to the unforeseeable problem of busy lines blocking access to 
the Commission 
throughout the day. Petitioners who attempted to file
1 Complainants have made their requests for reconsideration 
in the form of petitions and letters. Hereinafter, complainants 
shall also be known as petitioners.
2 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications 
Act, § 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 543(c) (1993); 47 C.F.R. § 
76.956.
3 47 C.F.R. § 76.956.
4 47 U.S.C. §543(c)(3).
3 Section 76.953 (a) of our rules states that:
Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, a com 
plaint regarding a rate for cable programming service or 
associated equipment in effect on September 1, 1993 must 
be filed by February 28,1994, except as provided in 
§76.934(c) with regard to small systems.
47 C.F.R. §76.953(a).
6 Section 76.953(b) states that:
...A complaint regarding a rate change for cable program 
ming service or associated equipment must be filed with 
the Commission within 45 days from the date the com 
plainant receives a bill from the cable operator that re 
flects the rate change. 
47 C.F.R. §76.953 (b).
7 47 C.F.R. §1.3.
8 El Paso Cablevision, Inc., 57 FCC2d 95, 35 RR2d 1405 (1975).
See also Meredith/New Heritage Strategic Partners, L.P. FCC
94-260 (released November 16, 1994).
9 Ventwa County Cablevision, DA 95-717 (released April 7,
1995).
8801
DA 95-1592 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 17
by facsimile, argue that the inadequacy of the Com 
mission's "doorway" should not preclude them from 
being heard.10 Extraordinary circumstances beyond 
the control of the complainants precluded complain 
ants from successfully filing via facsimile on Feb 
ruary 28, 1994. In these situations, we find good 
cause exists to accept those complaints attempted to 
be filed by facsimile on February 28, 1994, even 
though the actual filing was not completed until after 
that date.
b. The second group of petitioners argue that their 
complaint was timely filed because it was postmarked 
by February 28, 1994. Although it is established 
Commission precedent that the filing date is the date 
by which a document must be received,11 in this case 
it is in the interest of subscribers and in keeping with 
the intent of the 1992 Cable Act to accept those 
complaints postmarked by the filing date of February 
28, 1994. The rate complaint form does not clearly 
state that a rate complaint challenging a irate that was 
in effect on September 1, 1993 has to be received by 
the Commission by a date certain. The form states 
only that the complaint must be filed by February 
28, 1994.12 On the other hand if the complainant is 
challenging a rate increase, the form specifically 
states that the complaint must be received by the 
Commission within 45 days from the date the com 
plainant first received a bill showing the rate in 
crease.13 We recognize the confusion that 
complainants may have experienced due to the am 
biguity of the term "filing date" in the one instance 
and the term "received by" in the other instance.14
c. Accordingly, petitions for reconsideration will be 
granted if the petitioner attempted to postmark or fax 
a complaint by the February 28, 1994 deadline, and 
if the petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration 
within 30 days from the date the late-filed complaint 
was returned.15 These petitioners are listed in Attach 
ment A. Petitions for reconsideration which were not 
filed 30 days after a late-filed complaint was returned, 
are hereby denied. Those Petitioners are listed in 
Attachment B.
1994,17 and in various publications and outreach materials 
made available by the Commission staff. Accordingly, this 
petitioner's request for reconsideration is hereby denied.
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 
0.321, 1.7, and 76.953(a) and (b) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.321, 1.7, and 76/953(a) and (b), that 
the requests for reconsideration noted in Attachment A are 
GRANTED, and the request for reconsideration noted in 
Attachment B and Attachment C are DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Meredith J. Jones
Chief, Cable Services Bureau
5. One petitioner, listed in Attachment C, claims to have 
limited access to cable rate regulation information and did 
not discover the existence of the February 28, 1994 dead 
line until it expired. We do not believe that lack of aware 
ness of our rules constitutes good cause sufficient to 
warrant granting a waiver of our rules.16 The complainant 
has not presented adequate grounds for a waiver, since 
notice of the deadline was provided on FCC Form 329 
itself, in the Commission's Public Notice of February 25,
10 See, e.g. Request for Reconsideration from Northern Dakota 
County Cable Communications Commission ("Dakota"), filed 
April 1, 1994, at p.l.
11 We take special note that although it has been consistent 
Commission practice to consider documents filed when the 
document is received at the location designated by the Commis 
sion, this practice was not codified in 47 C.F.R. §1.7 until after 
the February 28, 1994 deadline.
12 See Instruction 6 on FCC Form 329.13 Id.
14 We will not accept these reasons in the future because any
ambiguity surrounding the term "filing date" has been resolved 
in 47 C.F.R. § 1.7, which states that documents are filed when 
received at the location designated by the Commission.
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 (f) states that a petition for reconsideration 
shall be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice of 
the final Commission action.
16 See Meredith/New Heritage Strategic Partners, L.P. FCC 
94-260 (released November 16, 1994).17 See Cable Television Service Registrations Report No. 981 
(released February 25, 1994).
8802
10 FCC Red No. 17 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1592
ATTACHMENT A
NAME NAME CUID
OF OF NO.
COMPLAINANT OPERATOR
FCC RETURN 
DATE
PETITION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION 
FILING DATE
City of Artesia Insight
Cablevision
Town of Ramapo TKR
CA1294 4/14/94
NY0448 3/25/94
4/26/94
4/4/94
City of Manteca Continental
Cablevision
CA0817 3/29/94 4/8/94
Hardin County Telecable Radcliff KY0330
Renaissance CATV KY1124 
ofKY
3/24/94
Bruce Coleman Tel-Corn, Inc. KY0268 3/29/94
4/4/94
4/12/94
City of Canyon King 
Lake Videocable
CA0699 3/24/94 4/6/94
Kenton/Boone 
Counties Cable 
Television Board
TKR KY0748 3/28/94 4/14/94
Don F. Tibbs
Northern Dakota 
County Cable 
Commission
Wometco
Cablevision
Continental
Cablevision
'
GA0169 7/1/94
FL0758 7/1/94
MN0515 3/25/94
MN0516
MN0517
MN0518
MN0519
MN0520
MN0521
7/22/94
7/22/94
4/4/94
8809
DA 95-1592 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red NO. i?
ATTACHMENT B
NAME NAME CUD) FCC RETURN PETITION FOR
OF OF NO. DATE RECONSIDERATION
COMPLAINANT OPERATOR FILING DATE
Charles Warrender Century Norwich CT0039 3/24/94 5/5/94
Corporation
City of Henderson TCI KY0144 3/29/94 8/26/94 
CityofMonroe Time Warner NC0575 3/29/94 7/14/95
8804
10 FCC Red No. 17 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1592
ATTACHMENT C
NAME
OF 
COMPLAINANT
NAME
OF 
OPERATOR
cum
NO.
FCC RETURN 
DATE
PETITION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION 
FILING DATE
City of Lauderhill American d/b/a 
Continental
FL0815 3/24/94 4/6/94
8805