********************************************************    
                         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 of Maryland, L.P.)  CUID No.  MD0060 (North Anne Arundel
County                          )
   d/b/a North Arundel Cable TV )
                                )
Complaint Regarding             )
Cable Programming Service Price )

                              ORDER

     Adopted:  February 25, 1997             Released:  March 3, 1997   

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

     1.   Here we consider a complaint about the price Intermedia Partners of Maryland, L.P.
d/b/a North Arundel Cable TV ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service tier
("CPST") in North Anne Arundel County, Maryland, CUID No. MD0060.  Operator responded to
the complaint by letter requesting that the complaint be dismissed because Operator is subject to
effective competition and thus its CPST rate is not subject to regulation by the Federal
Communications Commission  ("Commission").  

     2.   Under the Communications Act, the 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 rates to be unreasonable, it shall determine correct rates
and any refund liability.  

     3.   A valid complaint was filed with the Commission on September 20, 1993 against the
CPST rate charged by Operator.  The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of
the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST prices.  Under our rules, an operator may
attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a cost-of-service showing.  In
either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPST prices are not unreasonable. 
Similarly, where the operator claims that it faces effective competition, the Commission's Rules
require the cable operator to produce information that rebuts the presumption that it is not subject
to effective competition.
     
     4.   Operator's claim of effective competition is based on the competing provider test for
effective competition set forth in Section 76.905 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section
76.905.  Only the rates of cable systems that are not subject to effective competition may be
regulated.  One basis upon which a cable system is deemed subject to effective competition is where
the franchise area is: 1) served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming
distributors ("MVPDs") each of which offers comparable programming to at least 50 percent of the
households in the franchise area; and 2) the number of households subscribing to multichannel video
programming other than the largest MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise
area.  

     5.   We have previously issued a decision in which we have applied the competing
provider test to the Anne Arundel County franchise area.  See In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc.
("Prior Order").  In the Prior Order we found that Jones Intercable, Inc. ("Jones") and Operator were
unaffiliated MVPD distributors that offer comparable multichannel video programming in the same
franchise area.  We also found that Jones was the largest MVPD in the franchise area and that
Operator, as the next largest MVPD, served at least 33% of the households in the franchise area. 
Consequently, we determined that Operator and Jones satisfied the requirements for effective
competition contained in Section 76.905. 

     6.   In our Prior Order, we found that effective competition exists in the Anne Arundel
County franchise area.  Encompassed within that franchise area is the community identified by
CUID No. MD0060 (North Anne Arundel County).  Therefore, our Prior Order renders the subject
complaint against the Operator moot.

     7.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint against the cable programming service tier rate charged by
Operator in North Anne Arundel County, Maryland,  CUID No. MD0060, IS DISMISSED. 

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



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