**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) File No. EB-02-TC-056

US Cable )

) CUID No. NY1241 (Mayville)

Withdrawal of Complaint Regarding )

Cable Programming Services Tier Rates )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: September 4, 2002 Released: September 6, 2002**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:[^1]

1\. In this Order, we grant a cable programming services tier (\"CPST\")
subscriber's request to withdraw a complaint filed with the Federal
Communications Commission (\"Commission\") against the rates charged by
the above-referenced operator (\"Operator\")[^2] for its CPST in the
community referenced above. On October 16, 1995, the Cable Services
Bureau issued an Order, DA 95-2098 (\"First Order\")[^3] that resolved a
complaint against the CPST rates in effect through May 14, 1994. In the
First Order, the Cable Services Bureau stated that its 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]

2\. On November 6, 1995, Operator filed a petition for reconsideration
of the First Order. On November 22, 1995, while the Petition was
pending, the subscriber submitted a request to withdraw the complaint.
No other valid complaints were filed against Operator's CPST rates in
the referenced community. On December 5, 1995, Operator supplemented its
Petition with a motion to dismiss the complaint due to lack of
jurisdiction, based on the subscriber's request to withdraw the
complaint. On May 21, 1998, the Cable Services Bureau issued an Order,
DA 98-952[^5] (\"Second Order\") resolving the Petition. However, in the
Second Order, the Cable Services Bureau did not address the subscriber's
request to withdraw the complaint. We hereby grant that request, and we
dismiss the complaint against the CPST rates in effect beginning May 15,
1994.[^6]

3\. Our further review of the record indicates that the total overcharge
per subscriber calculated in the First Order is *de minimis* and it
would not be in the public interest to order a refund. Therefore, we
modify the First Order to exclude any refund liability.

4\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that the complaint
referenced herein, against the CPST rates charged by Operator beginning
May 15, 1994 in the community referenced above, IS DISMISSED.

5\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that *In the Matter of
US Cable Corporation*, DA 95-2098, 10 FCC Rcd 11426 (CSB 1995) IS
MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: Effective March 25, 2002, the Commission transferred
    responsibility for resolving cable programming services tier rate
    complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement
    Bureau. *See* *Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline
    Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
    Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational
    Changes*, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002).

[^2]: The term \"Operator\" includes Operator's successors and
    predecessors in interest.

[^3]: *In the Matter of US Cable Corporation*, DA 95-2098, 10 FCC Rcd
    11426 (CSB 1995).

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

[^5]: *In the Matter of East Arkansas Cablevision, Inc*., DA 98-952, 13
    FCC Rcd 13240 (CSB 1998).

[^6]: Under the Commission's rules, the authority to regulate CPST rates
    arises when a valid complaint against those rates is filed, and our
    jurisdiction is predicated on the existence of a valid rate
    complaint. *See, e.g., In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co.,
    Inc*., DA 98-1053, 13 FCC Rcd 13862 (CSB 1998) *and In the Matter of
    MediaOne, Inc.*, DA 98-895, 13 FCC Rcd 11122 (CSB 1998). *But see,
    In the Matter of Vision Cable of Wilmington, et al.*, DA 95-623, 10
    FCC Rcd 5142 (CSB 1995) (\"*Vision Cable*\"). In *Vision Cable*, the
    Cable Services Bureau refused to allow the withdrawal of a complaint
    after an order resolving the complaint had been released. However,
    the instant case is distinguishable from *Vision Cable*, because, in
    the instant case, no order has been released concerning the post May
    14, 1994 CPST rates.