******************************************************** 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 ) CUID Nos. GA0006 (Dublin) ) IL0580(Madison) ) KY0676(Florence) ) MI0084(Alpena) TCI Communications, Inc. ) NJ0123(Mount Olive) ) NJ0125(Morristown) ) NJ0133(Dover) ) NJ0138(Netcong) ) NJ0139(Wharton) ) NJ0147(Chatham) ) NJ0148(East Hanover) ) NJ0175(Rockaway) ) NJ0243(Jefferson) ) NJ0536(Boonton Twp.) ) NV0085(Lyon) Order Dismissing ) OH0245(East Palestine) Complaints ) PA1794(Dayton) ORDER Adopted: September 4, 1997 Released: September 8, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we dismiss complaints against the rates the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the communities referenced above because the complaints were not timely filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission"). Complaints against the CPST rates charges in the above-referenced communities were filed with the Commission on the dates set forth in Appendix A attached hereto. Operator either did not respond to the complaints or filed information supporting a dismissal of the complaints. 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. Section 623 (c) (3) of the Communications Act requires that complaints be filed within "a reasonable period of time" following a change in rates. We determined that a "reasonable period of time" is forty-five days. In order to facilitate subscriber knowledge of the nature and extent of a rate increase and provide evidence of subscribership and the rate and service involved, we determined that we would compute the time period for filing a complaint from the date the complainant receives a bill from a cable operator that reflects the rate change. Section 76.953 of the Commission's rules in effect at the time the complaints were filed provides that complaints against CPST rate increases must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from that date. That provision does not apply to a complaint filed by a local franchising authority ("LFA") which does not receive a bill. The LFA must file a complaint within 45 days of the date the rate increase becomes effective. In either case, complaints received prior to the date of a rate increase are not valid. Based on our review of the record, we find that the complaints referenced in Appendix A were not timely filed and we hereby dismiss those complaints. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced in Appendix A ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau APPENDIX A CUID NO.COMMUNITY DATE COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY FCC GA0006 Dublin1/9/95 IL0580 Madison 5/18/95 KY0676 Florence 3/31/95 MI0084 Alpena2/27/95 NJ0123 Mount Olive 9/8/94 NJ0125 Morristown 9/8/94 NJ0133 Dover 9/8/94 NJ0138 Netcong 9/8/94 NJ0139 Wharton 9/8/94 NJ0147 Chatham 9/8/94 NJ0148 East Hanover9/8/94 NJ0175 Rockaway 9/8/94 NJ0243 Jefferson 9/8/94 NJ0536 Boonton Township 9/8/94 NV0085 Lyon 1/23/95 OH0245 East Palestine 7/6/95 PA1794 Dayton8/31/94