******************************************************** 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 ) ) US Cable of Lake County d/b/a ) US Cable of West Texas ) CUID No. TX0134 (City of Fort Stockton) ) ) Order Denying Jurisdiction ) ORDER Adopted: January 17, 1997 Released: January 23, 1997 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we dismiss a complaint against a rate increase that US Cable of Lake County d/b/a US Cable of West Texas ("US Cable") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the City of Fort Stockton, Texas, CUID No. TX0134, on the grounds that the complaint does not trigger our jurisdiction On July 11, 1995, US Cable moved to have the complaint dismissed because it is defective. We conclude that US Cable's request for dismissal of the complaint is granted for the reasons discussed below. 2. Under the Communications Act, the Commission regulates the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the filing of a valid complaint. If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 3. On July 11, 1995, US Cable requested that the Commission dismiss the complaint on several grounds. According to US Cable, the complaint does not comply with the essential filing requirements of our rules for FCC Form 329 complaints. Specifically, US Cable argues that the Complainant did not serve US Cable with a copy of the corrected complaint after the Commission returned the original complaint as defective. US Cable further argues that the Complainant merely added additional factually incorrect information to the original complaint instead of filing a separate corrected complaint with the original complaint. US Cable also contends that the Complainant failed to sign and date the corrected complaint. Finally, US Cable contends that the subject of the complaint is the Basic Service Tier and that the Complainant is challenging a rate increase that took place before US Cable became subject to rate regulation. 4. Under the Commission's rules, "if the Commission dismisses an initial complaint without prejudice pursuant to  76.954, the complainant shall have one additional opportunity to cure the defect and file a corrected complaint." Our rules further provide that "failure to cure the defect and file a corrected complaint ... will result in dismissal of the complaint with prejudice." In general, we will find valid any complaint that states a claim on which relief can be granted and provides adequate information to allow us to process the complaint, despite minor flaws or inaccuracies. We believe that this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act. The complaint at issue, however, does not meet this standard. The Complainant failed to cure two defects that we identified in the original complaint. The Complainant did not respond in the affirmative or negative to questions No. 10 and 11 on the corrected complaint. In addition, the Complainant did not certify that the cable operator and local franchising authority were served with the corrected complaint or certify the accuracy of the information provided on the corrected complaint. For these reasons, we conclude that the refiled complaint is defective and does not trigger our jurisdiction to review US Cable's CPST rates. 5. 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 against the CPST rate increase charged by US Cable in the City of Fort Stockton, Texas, CUID No. TX0134 IS DISMISSED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321 that US Cable's Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED. 7. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau