********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

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



  In the Matter of                 )
          )
   InterMedia Partners         )     CUID No.  SC0112  (Aiken)   
        )          
       Complaints Regarding)              
      Cable Programming Services Tier)    
     Rate Increase)

                             ORDER

    Adopted:  December 6, 1996Released:  December 10, 1996

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

      1.  In this Order we consider complaints concerning the January 1, 1996 CPST rate
increase of InterMedia Partners on behalf of Robin Cable Systems d\b\a\ Palmetto CableVision
("InterMedia") for its cable programming sevices tier ("CPST") in Aiken, South Carolina, CUID No.
SC0112.  InterMedia has chosen to attempt to justify its CPST rates through a cost of service
submission on FCC Form 1220.  This Order addresses only the reasonableness of InterMedia's rate
increase that became effective on January 1, 1995.  We conclude that the CPST rate increase
InterMedia implemented on January 1, 1995 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.  Under the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, ("1992 Cable Act"), the Commission must
review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber.  The filing of a valid
complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST
rates.  If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and
any refund liability.  

      3.  The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.  The
Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.  Generally, to justify
their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use
the FCC Form 1200 series.   Cable operators may also justify rate increases based on the addition
and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210. 
FCC Form 1210 must be filed at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go into effect where
the Commission has found the CPST rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing,
or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. 
       
      4.  InterMedia's FCC Form 1220 cost of service filing of February 1, 1995 seeks to
establish that its CPST rate increase is justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. 
According to information provided by InterMedia in its cost of service showing, the franchise area
comprised approximately 8,578 CPST subscribers.  In this review process, we analyzed InterMedia's
CPST cost of service showing to ensure that the rate increases were not unreasonable and to
determine any associated refund liability.  

      5.  Rate base and expense items have been evaluated to determine whether InterMedia
should be permitted to recover those items.  Where a certain rate base or expense element was not
supported, was excessive, or was unrelated to providing regulated cable service, such cost was
disallowed in whole or in part.  Where reported costs were disallowed, we have made appropriate
adjustments.  Even with our adjustments and disallowances, however, we find that InterMedia's
monthly CPST rates have been justified.  
     
      6.  Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filing and applying the
Commission's most current rules, we find that InterMedia has justified its CPST rate increase.

      7.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the January 1, 1996 CPST rate increase implemented by InterMedia 
in Aiken, South Carolina, CUID No. SC0112, IS NOT UNREASONABLE.
     
      8.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaints against the monthly CPST rate increase implemented
by InterMedia on January 1, 1995 with respect to Aiken, South Carolina, CUID No. SC0112, ARE
DENIED.   

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


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