******************************************************** 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) ) International Cablevision, Inc. )CUID No. NY0319 (Cheektowaga) d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications) ) ) Complaint Regarding) Cable Programming Services Tier) Rate Increases) ORDER Adopted: December 16, 1996 Released: December 19, 1996 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1.In this Order we consider a complaint concerning the August 1, 1996 rate increase of International Cablevision d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications ("Adelphia") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in Cheektowaga, New York, CUID No. NY0319. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Adelphia's rate increase of August 1, 1996. We have already issued an order addressing the reasonableness of the CPST rates prior to the implementation of the August 1, 1996 rate increase. We conclude that the August 1, 1996 rate increase of $2.33 for the rebuilt system 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 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the new legislation, require that complaints against the CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received subscriber complaints. An LFA may not file a CPST rate complaint unless, within 90 days after such increase becomes effective, it receives more than one subscriber rate complaint. 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 may 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. If actual and projected costs are different during the rate year a "true-up" mechanism is available to correct estimated costs with actual cost changes. The "true-up" requires operators to decrease their rates or alternatively permits them to increase their rates to make an adjustment for over or under estimations of these cost changes. 4.On November 5, 1996, a valid complaint was filed by the State of New York Department of Public Service (the "State"), the LFA in this case, regarding the August 1, 1996 increase in Adelphia's CPST rate in Cheektowaga, New York. The valid complaint from the LFA triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates with the LFA. As required by our rules, Adelphia filed a FCC Form 1240 with the State as justification for this rate increase. 5.In a response dated October 9, 1996, Adelphia alleges that the State's complaint should be denied because it failed to specify the service charges complained of by separating out subscribers' complaints about rates for basic service, individual channels, and FCC regulatory fees. The instructions on the FCC Form 329 specify that it is the local franchising authority's responsibility to make an initial determination of whether a rate increase pertains to the cable programming services tier. The FCC Form 329 filed on November 5, 1996, specified that the complaint pertained to the CPST. We find that the State has complied with our instructions and has operated in accordance with Commission rules. Therefore, we deny Adelphia's request to dismiss the complaint. 6.Upon review of the record before us, we find that Adelphia has provided sufficient evidence to support a CPST rate increase of $2.33. We conclude, therefore, that Adelphia's August 1, 1996 CPST rate increase is justified. 7.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that International Cablevision d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications' CPST rate increase of $2.33 for its rebuilt system which went into effect on August 1, 1996 IS 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 August 1, 1996 CPST rate increase charged by International Cablevision d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications in Cheektowaga, New York CUID No. NY0319 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau