**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Midwest Cablevision ) CUID No. MN0085 (Pipestone)

)

Multimedia Cablevision ) CUID No. NC0188 (Nash County)

)

Complaints Regarding )

Cable Programming Services Tier Rates )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: November 16, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1\. In this Order we dismiss complaints filed with the Federal
Communications Commission (\"Commission\") against cable programming
services tier (\"CPST\") rate increases by the above-referenced
operators in the communities referenced above. The complainants are
various hotels and motels in the respective communities referenced above
that are charged bulk discount rates for the CPST. At the time the
complaint was filed, the Commission was authorized by the Communications
Act[^1] to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to
effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not
unreasonable.[^2]

2\. Section 623 (d) of the Communications Act required that a cable
operator\'s rate structure be uniform throughout a geographic area.[^3]
The Commission concluded that Section 623(d) did not preclude the
establishment by cable operators of reasonable categories of customers
and service.[^4] The Commission found that uniform, non-predatory bulk
discounts to multiple dwelling units, including hotels, could form a
valid basis for distinctions among subscribers.[^5] The Commission
required that all multiple dwelling buildings in a franchise area
receive the same bulk discount rate structure. [^6] Following the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the uniform rate
requirement no longer applied to bulk discounts to multiple dwelling
units, so long as the prices were not predatory.[^7]

3\. Therefore, at the time the complaints were filed, a valid complaint
by a hotel against its bulk discount CPST rates, at a minimum, would
need to allege that the rate charged was higher than the maximum
permitted regular residential CPST rate, or that the complainant was
being charged a higher rate than other subscribers in the same class or
category. Because none of the referenced complaints made allegations
that would call into question the reasonableness of the rates in issue
under the Commission\'s policies, we find that the complaints do not
meet the minimum showing required to process the complaints. Therefore,
we will dismiss the complaints.

4\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l 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 communities
referenced above, ARE DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    §543(c) (1996).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).

[^3]: Id. at §543 (d).

[^4]: In the Matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable
    Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate
    Regulation, MM Docket 92-266, FCC 93-177, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 at ¶ 423
    (1993).

[^5]: *Id.*

[^6]: *Id.* at ¶ 424.

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