**Before the**

**Federal Comunications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of ) )

Insight Communications ) CUID No. KY0427 (City of Shelbyville) )

)

Complaint Regarding Cable Programming )

Services Tier Rates )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: March 26, 2001 Released: March 27, 2001**

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

1\. In this Order we consider complaints filed against the rates charged
by the above-referenced operator (\"Operator\")[^1] for its cable
programming services tier (\"CPST\") in the community referenced
above.[^2] On December 14, 1993, a complaint was filed by the local
franchising authority (\"LFA\") with the Federal Communications
Commission (\"Commission\") against Operator's September 1, 1993 CPST
rate. On December 23, 1993, Operator filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On December 29, 1993, the LFA filed an opposition to the
motion. On September 27, 1994, the Commission received a second
complaint from the LFA against Operator's alleged August 15, 1994 CPST
rate increase. In response to the complaint, Operator filed a motion to
dismiss on January 18, 1995. In this Order we deny Operator's motion to
dismiss the December 14, 1993 complaint and grant Operator's motion to
dismiss the September 27, 1994 complaint. We also address the
reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates beginning December 14, 1993.

2\. At the time the above-referenced complaints were filed, the
Commission was authorized under the Communications Act,[^3] to review
the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition
upon the filing of a valid complaint. In its motion to dismiss the
December 14, 1993 complaint, Operator argues that the LFA failed to fill
in line 8 (Previous Monthly Rate) of the FCC Form 329 and failed to
attach a copy of a bill to the complaint. Because the LFA was
complaining about the September 1, 1993 CPST rate and not a subsequent
rate increase, filling in the Previous Monthly Rate on line 8 was not
necessary. Also, because the LFA is not an individual subscriber, it did
not need to include a copy of a bill. We will deny Operator's motion to
dismiss the December 14, 1993 complaint. The second complaint was filed
on September 27, 1994 against an alleged August 15, 1994 rate increase.
At the time the complaint was filed, Section 623 (c) (3) of the
Communications Act required that complaints be filed within \"a
reasonable period of time\" following a change in rates.[^4] We
determined that \"a reasonable period of time\" is 45 days.[^5] An LFA
must file a complaint within 45 days of the date the rate increase
becomes effective. Our review of the record indicates that no rate
increase took effect between September 1, 1993 and October 1, 1994.
Therefore, the September 27, 1994 complaint was not timely filed with
the Commission and will be dismissed.

3\. Operators with complete and timely 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 CPST rates were
in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.
Operators attempting to justify CPST rates for the period prior to May
15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form
393. Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify rates for
the period beginning May 15, 1994.[^6] Operators may file a FCC Form
1210 to justify quarterly rate increases based on the addition and
deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs and
inflation.[^7]

4\. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 393, we find Operator's actual
CPST rate of \$14.77, effective December 14, 1993 through July 14, 1994,
to be reasonable. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200, we find
Operator's maximum permitted rate (\"MPR\") of \$14.65 to be reasonable.
Because Operator's actual CPST rate of \$14.77 exceeds its MPR, we find
Operator's actual CPST rate of \$14.77, effective July 15, 1994 through
September 30, 1994, to be unreasonable. Because Operator elected to
defer refund liability for overcharges associated with its FCC Form
1200, for the period May 15, 1994 through July 14, 1994, pursuant to the
Commission's rules,[^8] Operator's refund liability for the FCC Form
1200 does not begin until July 15, 1994. We determine that the total
refund liability for the period from July 15, 1994 through September 30,
1994 is *de minimis*, and it would not be in the public interest to
order a refund. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 covering the
period July 1, 1994 through September 30, 1994, we find Operator's
actual CPST rate effective October 1, 1994, to be reasonable.

5\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.321, that the CPST rate of \$14.77,
charged by the Operator in the community referenced above, effective
December 14, 1993 through July 14, 1994, IS REASONABLE.

6\. 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 \$14.77, charged by the
Operator in the community referenced above, effective July 15, 1994
through September 30, 1994, IS UNREASONABLE.

7\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.321, that the CPST rate effective October 1, 1994,
charged by the Operator in the community referenced above, IS
REASONABLE.

8\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.321, that the Operator's motion to dismiss the
December 14, 1993 complaint IS DENIED and Operator's motion to dismiss
the September 27, 1994 complaint IS GRANTED.

9\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.321, that the December 14, 1993 complaint IS GRANTED
TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN and the September 27, 1994 complaint IS
DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Kathleen F. Costello, Acting Chief

Financial Analysis and Compliance Division

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: The term \"Operator\" includes Operator's predecessors in
    interest.

[^2]: The complaints were filed using CUID No. KY0428. The correct CUID
    number for the City of Shelbyville is KY0427.

[^3]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    Section 543(c) (1996).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §543 (c) (3) (1995).

[^5]: *See* Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
    Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, First Order
    on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92-266, 9 FCC Rcd 1164 at n.314
    (1994).

[^6]: *See* Section 76.922 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §76.922.

[^7]: *Id*.

[^8]: *See* Letter dated June 13, 1994 from Trudi McCollum-Foushee, Vice
    President-Legal, Crown Media to the Federal Communications
    Commission. The Commission's rules provide for a refund liability
    deferral period beginning May 15, 1994 and ending July 14, 1994, if
    timely requested by Operator, for any overcharges resulting from
    Operator's calculation of a new MPR on the FCC Form 1200. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §76.922(b)(6)(ii). However, Operator will incur refund
    liability between May 15, 1994 and ending July 14, 1994 for any CPST
    rates charged above the FCC Form 393 MPR approved by the Commission.
    47 C.F.R. §76.922(b)(6)(ii).