******************************************************** 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 ) ) Marcus Cable Partners, L.P. ) CUID No. WI0497 (Village of Union Grove) ) ) Complaint Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates) ORDER Adopted: August 27, 1997 Released: September 3, 1997 By the Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a complaint concerning the rates of the above-captioned operator ("Operator") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. Operator has chosen to justify its CPST rates in effect on September 1, 1993 through a cost of service showing on FCC Form 1220. Operator has filed FCC Forms 1210 and 1240 to justify its rates from May 15, 1994 forward. We find that the CPST rates implemented by Operator beginning September 1, 1993 are 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. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), and our rules in effect at the time the complaint was filed, required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Cable operators with valid CPST 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. Cable operators attempting to justify their rates for the period prior to May 15, 1994 using a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form 393. Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 using a benchmark showing. Cable operators may also justify rate increases based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210. FCC Form 1210 must be filed at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go into effect where the Commission has found the cable programming service rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. Operators may alternatively 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. 4. In reviewing Operator's FCC Form 1220, we evaluated its cost of service showing to determine whether the Operator should be permitted to recover its investments and expenses as filed. Where a certain rate base or expense element was not justified under our rules, such cost was disallowed in whole or in part. Where a reported cost was disallowed, we have made appropriate adjustments. Even with our adjustments and disallowances, however, we find that the Operator's monthly CPST rates in effect on September 1, 1993 have been justified and are reasonable. 5. Upon review of Operator's FCC Forms 1210 and 1240, we find that Operator has justified its CPST rates effective September 1, 1993 to May 31, 1996. We also find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $14.41 effective June 1, 1996 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rates charged by Operator in the community referenced above, from September 1, 1993 to May 31, 1996 ARE NOT UNREASONABLE. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $14.41 charged by Operator in the community referenced above, effective June 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 CPST rates charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret M. Egler Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau