**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Comcast Cablevision of Indianapolis, ) CUID Nos. IN0152 (Perry)

Inc. ) IN0153 (Wayne)

) IN0154 (Ranklin)

Complaints Regarding Cable ) IN0155 (Washington)

Programming Service Tier Rates ) IN0156 (Lawrence) ) IN0157 (Warren)

) IN0201 (Decator)

) IN0202 (Pike) ) IN0266 (Warren Park)

) IN0375 (Brown)

) IN0446 (Guilford)

) IN0447 (Lincoln)

) IN0448 (Center)

) IN0622 (Clay)

) IN0623 (Delaware)

) IN0624 (Fall Creek)

**ORDER**

**Adopted: January 11, 1999 Released: January 14, 1999**

By the Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable
Services Bureau:

In this Order we consider complaints concerning the rates of the
above-captioned operator (\"Operator\") was charging for its cable
programming services tier (\"CPST\") in the rebuilt and existing systems
in the communities referenced above. Operator\'s response includes
benchmark justifications filed on FCC Forms 1200, FCC Forms 1210 and FCC
Forms 1240. We have already issued an order (\"Final Resolution\")[^1]
that resolved all pending complaints against the Operator\'s rates
charged from September 1, 1993 through July 14, 1994. This Order
addresses the reasonableness of Operator\'s CPST rates beginning July
15, 1994.

2\. Under the Communications Act,[^2] 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 (\"1992 Cable Act\"),[^3] and our rules in
effect at the time the complaints were filed, required the Commission to
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 rate and any refund liability.[^5]

3\. The Commission\'s original rate regulations took effect on September
1, 1993.[^6] The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations
effective May 15, 1994.[^7] Cable operators with valid CPST complaints
filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their
CPST rates were in compliance with the Commission\'s initial rules from
the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their
rates were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994
forward.[^8] Cable operators attempting to justify their rates for the
period prior to May 15, 1994 using a benchmark showing must complete and
file FCC Form 393.[^9] Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to
justify their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 using a
benchmark showing.[^10] Cable operators may also justify rate increases
based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain
external costs, and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210.[^11] FCC Form
1210 must be filed at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go
into effect where the Commission has found the cable programming service
rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where
there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate.[^12] Operators may
alternatively justify adjustments to 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.[^13] Any incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with
interest and added to rates at a later time.[^14]

4\. In reviewing Operator\'s FCC Form 1200 we found that Operator had
justified its maximum permitted rate (\"MPR\") of \$9.48. Because
Operator\'s actual CPST rate of \$9.42, effective July 14, 1994, is less
than the MPR, we find it to be reasonable.[^15]

5\. Upon review of Operator\'s FCC Forms 1210 for its existing system,
we find that Operator has correctly calculated its MPRs. Therefore, we
find that Operator\'s actual CPST rates, effective October 1, 1994
through June 16, 1996, are reasonable. On its FCC Form 1210, covering
the period December 31, 1995 through June 30, 1996, we find that
Operator has also justified its MPR of \$11.35, effective July 1, 1996.
However, Operator increased its rate from \$10.42 to \$11.22 on June 17,
1996, prior to the effective date of its new MPR. Therefore, we find
that Operator\'s CPST rate of \$11.22 is unreasonable, effective June
17, 1996 through June 30, 1996, and reasonable, effective July 1, 1996.
Because the discrepancy is *de minimis*, we find that it would not be in
the public interest to order a refund. Upon review of Operator\'s FCC
Form 1240s, filed to justify Operator\'s CPST rates effective November
1, 1996 and November 1, 1997, we find that Operator\'s has justified its
MPRs. Consequently, we find that Operator\'s CPST rates, effective
November 1, 1996 and November 1, 1997, are reasonable.

6\. Upon review of Operator\'s FCC Forms 1210 and 1240 for its rebuilt
system, we find that Operator has justified its MPRs and that its CPST
rates, for the period under review, are reasonable.

7\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly CPST rates
charged by Operator in its existing system in franchise areas referenced
above, from July 14, 1994 through June 16, 1996, ARE REASONABLE.

8\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of
\$11.22 charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise
areas referenced above from June 17, 1996 through June 30, 1996, IS
UNREASONABLE.

9\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of
\$11.22 charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise
areas referenced above effective July 1, 1996 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 monthly CPST rate of
\$13.38 charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise
areas referenced above effective November 1, 1996 IS REASONABLE.

11\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of
\$13.99 charged by Operator in the existing system in the franchise
areas referenced above effective November 1, 1997 IS REASONABLE.

12\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly CPST rates
charged by Operator in the rebuilt system in the franchise areas
referenced above, effective November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1997,
ARE REASONABLE.

13\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly CPST rates of
\$14.92, charged by Operator in the rebuilt system in the franchise
areas referenced above, effective November 1, 1997, IS REASONABLE.

14\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the complaints referenced
herein against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the franchise areas
referenced above ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Margaret M. Egler

Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]:     ^?^ See In the Matter of Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
    Final Resolution of Cable Programming Service Rate Complaints, 11
    FCC Rcd 4029 (1995).

[^2]:     ^?^ Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47
    U.S.C. Section 543(c) (1996).

[^3]:     ^?^ Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^4]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. Section 76.956.

[^5]:     ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. Section 76.957.

[^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. Section 76.922(b); *see also* Second Order on
    Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92-266, FCC 94-38, 9 FCC Rcd
    4119, 4190 (1994) (\"*Second Order on Reconsideration*\").

[^8]:     ^?^ *Id.*

[^9]:     ^?^ *Id.*

[^10]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(b)(6); *see Second Order on
    Reconsideration,* *supra at 4183, paras. 135-138; supra* at 4190,
    n.136; *see also* Public Notice \"Questions and Answers on Cable
    Television Rate Regulation\" (April 26, 1994).

[^11]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(d).

[^12]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. Section 76.960.

[^13]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(a).

[^14]:     ^?^ Id.

[^15]:     ^?^ 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.