**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. ) CUID No. PA1703 (Colwyn)

)

Complaint Regarding )

Cable Programming Services Tier Rates )

and Petition for Reconsideration )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

## AND RATE ORDER

**Adopted: July 25, 2000 Released: July 26, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1\. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
(\"Petition\") filed by the above- referenced operator (\"Operator\") of
our Order, DA 95-1229 (\"Prior Order\")[^1] which granted a complaint
filed against the rate charged by Operator for its cable programming
services tier (\"CPST\") in the community referenced above. On July 12,
1995, Operator filed its Petition along with a petition for stay of our
Prior Order (\"Stay\"), which was granted by our Order, DA 95-1795.[^2]
On November 17, 1998, Operator filed a supplement to its Petition
(\"Supplement\") and in response to a Cable Services Bureau (\"Bureau\")
staff request, Operator filed additional supplemental information on
September 1, 1999.[^3] In our Prior Order, we stated that our findings
\"do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS
service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations.\"[^4] In this
Order, we grant Operator\'s Petition in part, modify our Prior Order and
vacate the Stay as moot. We also address the reasonableness of
Operator\'s CPST rates in effect after May 14, 1994.

2\. Under the Communications Act,[^5] the Federal Communications
Commission (\"Commission\") is authorized to review the CPST rates of
cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates
charged are not unreasonable. The Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992[^6] (\"1992 Cable Act\") required the
Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by
a subscriber or local franchising authority (\"LFA\"). The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (\"1996 Act\")[^7] and our rules
implementing the legislation (\"Interim Rules\"),[^8] required that a
complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission by an LFA
that has received more than one subscriber complaint.[^9] The filing of
a complete and timely complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable
operator to file a justification of its CPST rates.[^10] The Operator
has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are
reasonable.[^11] If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable, it
shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability.[^12]

3\. Operators must use the FCC Form 393 to justify rates using a
benchmark methodology prior to May 15, 1994. Operators must use the FCC
Form 1200 series to justify rates for the period beginning May 15,
1994.[^13] Cable operators may also justify quarterly rate increases
based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain
external costs and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210.[^14] Operators
may justify their rates on an annual basis using FCC Form 1240 to
reflect reasonably certain and quantifiable changes in external costs,
inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are projected for
the twelve months following the rate change.[^15] Any incurred cost that
is not projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a
later time.[^16]

4\. In its Petition and in supplemental information, Operator points out
two clerical errors in the FCC Form 393 information which the Bureau
reviewed for our Prior Order. Specifically, Operator alleges that the
number of channels on the CPST was 26 rather than 23, increasing
Operator's maximum permitted rate (\"MPR\") to \$11.37, rather than the
CPST MPR of \$10.76 calculated in our Prior Order.[^17] Secondly,
Operator provided information that the franchise fee charged by the LFA
during the pertinent time period was five percent rather than three
percent, reducing the actual CPST rate charged to \$10.79 rather than
\$11.02,[^18] when franchise fees are excluded. We conclude that
Operator provided sufficient information concerning the correct channel
count and franchise fee percentage to warrant the modification of our
Prior Order. Therefore, we will grant Operator's Petition in part.
Because Operator's actual CPST rate of \$10.79, effective February 18,
1994[^19] through May 14, 1994, does not exceed its MPR of \$11.37, we
find Operator's actual CPST rate of \$10.79, effective February 18, 1994
through May 14, 1994, to be reasonable. We will modify our Prior Order
to the extent indicated herein and vacate the Stay as moot. We decline
to address any additional issues raised in Operator's Petition.

5\. Upon review of Operator\'s FCC Form 1200, we find Operator's actual
CPST rate of \$10.79, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable.[^20]

6\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that Operator\'s Petition for
Reconsideration IS GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

7\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.32l and 1.106 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.321 and 1.106, that In the Matter of
Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., DA 95-1229, 10 FCC Rcd 6501 (1995), IS
MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

8\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the stay of DA 95-1229,
granted in the Matter of Battlefield Cable TV Co., et al., DA 95-1795,
10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995), IS VACATED.

9\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the CPST rate of \$10.79,
charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective
February 18, 1994 through May 14, 1994, IS REASONABLE.

10\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the CPST rate of \$10.79,
charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective
May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE.

11\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the complaint referenced
herein against the CPST rate charged by Operator in the community
referenced above IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: *See* In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., DA 95-1229, 10
    FCC Rcd 6501 (1995).

[^2]: *See* In the Matter of Battlefield Cable TV Co., et al., DA
    95-1795, 10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995).

[^3]: *See* letter dated September 1, 1999 to the Cable Services Bureau
    from Seth A. Davidson, counsel for Operator.

[^4]: Prior Order at n. 1.

[^5]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    §543(c) (1996).

[^6]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^7]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^8]: *See* Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).

[^9]: *See* Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    Section 543(c) (1996).

[^10]: *See* Section 76.956 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §76.956.

[^11]: Id.

[^12]: *See* Section 76.957 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.957.

[^13]: *See* Section 76. 922 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.922.

[^14]: Id.

[^15]: Id.

[^16]: *Id*.

[^17]: Operator originally argued in its Petition that the CPST channel
    count was 24. In its Supplement, Operator argued that the real CPST
    channel count was 26.

[^18]: Operator's original FCC Form 393 stated the actual CPST rate as
    \$11.02, exclusive of franchise fees.

[^19]: The first valid complaint against Operator's CPST rate was filed
    with the Commission on February 18, 1994.

[^20]: These findings are 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 any 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.