NOTICE


*************************************************************************
             

                         NOTICE


*************************************************************************

This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect.  

If the original document contained--

                    *  Footnotes
                    *  Boldface & Italics

--this information  is missing in this version

The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too.

If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version.

For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021.

File  pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous.

*************************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of            )
           )
Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc.       )       
           )   CUID No.  VA0150 (Roanoke)
           )    
Complaint Regarding         )    
Cable Programming Services Tier        )
Rate Increase         )


                                      ORDER

     Adopted:  October 31, 1996        Released:  November 6, 1996  

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

     1.    In this Order we consider a complaint concerning the March 1, 1996 rate increase
by Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc. ("Cox") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST")
in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, CUID No. VA0150.  Cox has chosen to justify its rate increase
on a previously filed FCC Form 1240. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Cox's
CPST rate increase of $1.70 that became effective March 1, 1996.  We have already issued a
separate order addressing the reasonableness of the CPST rates prior to the implementation of the
rate increase.  We conclude that, for the reason discussed below, the rate increase Cox
implemented on March 1, 1996 is not unreasonable.  

     2.  Under the Communications Act, 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.  If the Commission finds the rate
unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. The 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and our rules implementing the new legislation, require that
complaints against the CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a franchising authority that
has received subscriber complaints.  A franchising authority may not file a CPST rate complaint
unless, within 90 days after such increase becomes effective, it receives subscriber complaints.
This standard requires more than one subscriber rate complaint. The provisions under the 1996
Act became effective upon its enactment on February 8, 1996.                                      
                                                                      
     3.    To justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark or
cost of service showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series.  Operators are permitted
to make changes to their rates on a quarterly basis using FCC Form 1210.  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.  Any
incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later
time.      

     4.    On August 26, 1996, the franchising authority, the City of Roanoke, filed a
complaint against Cox's March 1, 1996 CPST rate increase.  In its complaint the City of Roanoke
certifies that it has received subscriber complaints regarding the CPST rate increase within 90
days after the date of the increase first appeared on the subscribers' bills.  As required by our
rules, the City's complaint also included a copy of the rate justification that Cox submitted to the
franchising authority.
                                                                     
     5.    Upon review of the record before us, we find that Cox has provided sufficient
evidence to support its CPST rate increase of  $1.70.  

     6.    ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that monthly CPST rate increase of $1.70 charged
by Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc., in CUID No. VA0150, Roanoke, Virginia, beginning
March 1, 1996, IS NOT UNREASONABLE.

     7.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. Section 0.321 that the City of Roanoke's complaint against the CPST rate, effective
March 1, 1996, charged by Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc., in CUID No. VA0150, City of
Roanoke, Virginia, IS DENIED.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



     Elizabeth W. Beaty
     Chief,  Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
     Cable Services Bureau