********************************************************    
                         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                   )
                              )
TKR Cable Company             )    CUID No. NJ0018 (Long Beach)
                              )    
                              )
Order Denying Jurisdiction              )


                              ORDER

     Adopted:  January 24, 1997                        Released:  January 30, 1997  

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

     1.   In this Order we dismiss a complaint against the rate that the above-captioned
operator, ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service tier ("CPST") in Long Beach,
NJ on the grounds that the complaint concerns a rate that is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission ("Commission").  Under the Communication's Act, the Commission
regulates the rate for the CPST of cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the filing
of a valid complaint.  Under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, any complaint
regarding the rates for the basic service tier ("BST") is subject to the jurisdiction of the local
franchising authority.  The instant complaint is against the rate of the  BST and therefore, the
complaint does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction. 



     2.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 623(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(a)(2)(A) and (B), that the
complaint filed against the Operator in the community referenced in the caption is DISMISSED and
the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

     3.   This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


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