10 FCC Red. No. 22 Federal Communications Commission DA 95-2163
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Cablevision Systems Corporation
CUIDNO.NY0192 
(Southampton)
Benchmark Filing to Support 
Cable Programming Service Price
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: October 13,1995 Released: October 26,1995
By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance 
Division, 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 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
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 
Operator 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 determined 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.
5 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).
of a complete and timely complaint. 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/ 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.* The 
Commission subsequently revised 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.8 Operators attempting to 
justify their prices for the period prior to May 15,1994 
through a benchmark showing must complete 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 equal to or lower than the maximum permitted 
charge. Upon review, we have found no apparent errors
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.
9 Id.
10 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(bX6); see also Second Order on 
Reconsideration, 9 FCC Red at 4189 n.195.
11565
10 FCC Red. No. 22 Federal Communications Commission DA 95-2163
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 programming service price charged by 
Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED 
TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
JoAnn Lucanik
Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
Cable Services Bureau
" This finding is based solely on the representations of 
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.
11566