********************************************************    
                         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                        )
                                   )
Bresman Communications Company          )   CUID No.  MI0009 (Tilden)
                                   )
Complaint Regarding                     )            
Cable Programming Services Tier              )
Rate Increase                           )
                                 
                             ORDER

     Adopted:   January 15, 1997        Released:  January 21, 1997   

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

     1.   In this Order we consider complaints about the rate the above-captioned operator
("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier, CPST, in the community
referenced above.  Operator's response includes benchmark justifications filed on FCC Form 393,
FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1210.  This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Operator's
CPST rates from February 13, 1995 to present. 

     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.   Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 393, FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1210,
we found no apparent errors in Operator's calculation of its maximum permitted CPST rates. 
Therefore, Operator's monthly  rates for CPST for the periods under review are justified.  

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the rates for the CPST charged by Operator from November 30, 1993 through
December 12, 1994 in the above-referenced community ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.
     6.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the rates for CPST  charged by
Operator in the franchise area referenced in the caption during the period under review, ARE 
DENIED.

                                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



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