Federal Communications Commission DA 96-186f
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) 
Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. ) CUED No. PA2499 (Doylestown)
)
Complaints Regarding ) 
Cable Programming Services Tier ) 
Rate Increase )
ORDER 
Adopted: November 8, 1996 Released: November 12, 1996
By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau:
1. In this Order we consider a complaint concerning the May 1, 1996 rate increase 
of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. ("Suburban") for its cable programming services tiers ("CPST") 
in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Suburban's rate 
increase after May 14, 1994. We have already issued a separate order addressing the 
reasonableness of the Suburban's rate prior to that date.1 We conclude that Suburban's rate 
increase is not unreasonable.
2. The Communications Act2 authorizes the Federal Communications Commission 
("Commission") to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition 
to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. Under the 1992 Cable Act,3 the Commission 
must review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber. The filing of a 
valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its 
CPST rates.4 If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct
1 The Cable Services Bureau has already issued an Order addressing the reasonableness of Suburban's rate prior 
to May 14,1994. See In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., 10 FCC Red 6517 (1995). Because Suburban's 
CPST rate for this community, for the period September 1, 1993 through May 14, 1994 is under review by the 
Commission due to a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Suburban on June 5, 1995, we reserve the right to make 
further adjustments to Suburban's underlying CPST rates upon completion of our review. In this Order, we address 
only the rate increase which is the subject of the complaint in this proceeding.
2 Communications Act, Section 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(c)(3) (1996).
3 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat 1460 
(1992) ("1992 Cable Act").
  " 47 C.F.R. Section 76.956.
14956
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1860
rate and any refund liability.5 The Telecommunications Act of 19966 ("1996 Act") and our rules 
implementing the new legislation,7 require that complaints against the CPST rates be filed with 
the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received subscriber complaints. 
An LFA may not file a CPST rate complaint unless it receives more than one subscriber 
complaint within 90 days after such increase becomes effective.
3. On August 12, 1996, a valid CPST rate complaint was filed against the May 1, 
1996 rate increase implemented by Suburban in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, CUID No. PA2499. 
On June 21, 1996, the Township of Doylestown ("the Township"), the LFA, filed a complaint 
regarding the May 1, 1996 increase in Suburban's CPST rate in Doylestown. In its complaint, 
the Township certified that it has complied with the Interim Rules.8 The valid complaint from 
the LFA also triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its 
CPST rate with the LFA.9 Thus, in this case, Suburban is required to justify the increase in its 
CPST rate which is the subject of the Township's complaints. Suburban has chosen to justify 
its CPST rates through a cost of service showing on FCC Form 1220.10
4. Suburban's cost of service filing seeks to establish that its CPST rate increases are 
justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. According to information 
provided by Suburban in its cost of service showing, the franchise area comprised approximately 
2,920 CPST subscribers. In this review process, we analyzed Suburban's CPST cost of service 
showing to ensure that the rate increases were not unreasonable and to determine any associated 
refund liability.
5. In reviewing Suburban's cost of service showing, rate base and expense items have 
been evaluated to determine whether Suburban should be permitted to recover those items. 
Where a certain rate base or expense element was not supported, was excessive, or was unrelated
3 See 47 U.S.C. Section 957.
6 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 StaL 56 (February 8, 1996) ("1996 Act").
' See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,11 FCC Red 5937 
(1996) ("Interim Rules").
' See FCC Form 329 signed June 21,1996 by John P. Friel, Cable TV Representative, Township of Doylestown. 
' Id.
10 On October 9, 1996, we requested that Suburban provide a response to the Township's June 21, 1996 CPST 
rate increase complaint, in compliance with the 1996 Act See, Letter from Elizabeth W. Beaty to Robert A. Pfeiffer, 
Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. (October 9, 1996). On October 25, Suburban requested that we review Suburban's cost 
of service riling for Northampton CUID PA1948 that was filed with the Commission on September 30, 1994. 
Northampton CUID 1948 and Doylestown CUID PA2499 are in the same Suburban system. See, Letter from Debra 
Ann Pence to the Federal Communications Commission (October 25, 1996).
14957
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1860
to providing regulated cable service, such cost was disallowed in whole or in part. 11 Where 
reported costs were disallowed, we have made appropriate adjustments. Even with our 
adjustments and disallowances, however, we find that Suburban's monthly CPST rates have been 
justified. 12
6. Based on our review of Suburban's cost of service filing and supplemental 
information and applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that Suburban has 
justified its CPST rate increases.13
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the CPST rate increase implemented by Suburban on May 
1, 1996 in Doylestown .Pennsylvania, CUID PA2499, IS NOT UNREASONABLE.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 
47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaint against the monthly CPST rate increase implemented 
by Suburban on May 1, 1996 with respect to Doylestown, Pennsylvania, CUID PA2499, IS 
DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Elizabeth W. Beaty
Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
Cable Services Bureau
11 The Commission made clear that the fact that an operator has incurred costs does not necessarily establish its 
right to recover those costs from subscribers. See 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 Rulemaking ("Rate Order"), 8 FCC Red 5631, 5794 n.619 (1993).
12 Information regarding the specific adjustments made to Suburban's filing for Asset Valuation, Capitalized 
Losses and Accumulated Amortization, Direct Assignments of Other Cable Revenues, Cost Allocations, Rate of 
Return and its use of Equivalent Billing Units and the basis for such adjustments, can be found in the public files 
for CUID No. PA2499, which are available in the Cable Services Bureau's public reference room, or through the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS), 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, DC, 
20554, or by calling ITS at (202) 857-3800.
" This finding is based solely on the representations of Suburban. 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.
14958