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) ) Rock Associates, Inc. ) CUID No. AK0011 (Kodiak) d/b/a Kodiak Cablevision ) ) Complaint Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier ) Rate Increase ) ORDER Adopted: November 29, 1996 Released: December 4, 1996 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a complaint about the rate the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its two cable programming services tiers, CPST1 and CPST2, in the community referenced above. Operator's response includes benchmark justifications filed on FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1210. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates after May 14, 1994. 2. Under the Communications Act, and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") must review a cable operator's rate for its CPST upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rate. Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its rate through either a benchmark showing or a cost-of- service showing. In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPST rate is not unreasonable. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Operators with valid CPST rate 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. Operators attempting to justify their rate for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form 393. To justify their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200. 4. On January 30, 1995, Operator filed a Motion to Dimiss ("Motion") the January 6, 1995 complaint. Operator asserts that the complainant inaccurately answered question number 7 on FCC Form 329 because the complainant included the rates for the Basic Service Tier. Operator also requests that the Commission find the complaint deficient on the grounds that the complainant failed to provide an adequate description of the cable programming services challenged, as required by Section 76.951(b)(6) of our rules and the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Additionally, Operator argues that the FCC Form 329 is deficient because it fails to request sufficiently descriptive information regarding cable programming services or associated equipment involved in the complaint, and if applicable, how the service or associated equipment has changed. 5. Operator's assertions do not persuade us that the complaint is invalid or should be dismissed. In general, we will find valid any complaint that states a claim on which relief can be granted and provides adequate information to allow us to process the complaint despite minor flaws or inaccuracies. We believe this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act. Because the complainant's response to question number 7 includes the rate for the CPST and the attached bill indicates that the complainant received the CPST, we conclude that the complaint objects to the CPST rate charged by the Operator and that the complainant believed that the CPST rate was unreasonable. Therefore, we find the complaint valid and deny Operator's Motion to Dismiss. 6. Operator asserts that its monthly rates for its CPST1 and CPST2 are justified because the rates are equal to or lower than the maximum permitted charges. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1210, we agree. We found no apparent errors in Operator's calculation of its maximum permitted CPST rates. Therefore, Operator's monthly rates for CPST1 and CPST2 for the periods under review are justified. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the rates for CPST1 and CPST2 charged by Operator after May 14, 1994 in the above-referenced community ARE NOT UNREASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the rates for CPST1 and CPST2 charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced in the caption during the period under review, IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Operator IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau