******************************************************** 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 ) ) FrontierVision Operating Partners, L.P. ) CUID No. OH0068 (Wellston) ) Small System Filing to Support ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates ) ORDER Adopted: September 29, 1997 Released: September 30, 1997 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") on February 28, 1994 regarding the rates charged by the above captioned-operator ("Operator") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. On September 25, 1997, Operator filed FCC Form 1230 seeking to justify its CPST rate through the simplified small system cost of service procedures under the Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 93-215 ("Small System Order"). Operator acquired the above-referenced system from United Video Cablevision, Inc. ("UVC") on November 9, 1995. Operator is attempting to "grandfather" the system's small system status based on the number of subscribers which the system served, and which UVC served, in total, as of August 21, 1995, the effective date of the Small System Order. We will grant the above-referenced system small system relief under the Small System Order and, based on our review of Operator's FCC Form 1230 filing, deny the February 28, 1994 CPST complaint and find the CPST rate to be not unreasonable. 2. Under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, the 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 the Commission's rules, an operator may attempt to justify its CPST rate through a benchmark showing, a cost of service showing, or a small system cost of service showing. In any case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its rate is not unreasonable. 3. On March 24, 1994, Operator filed a Motion to Dismiss the February 28, 1994 complaint alleging that the complainant failed to meet the requirements of the Commissions rules as mandated in Section 76.951 of the Commission's Rules. 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 this approach best implements the mandate of the 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Act. Consequently, Operator's Motion to Dismiss is denied. 4. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. In a further effort to offer small cable companies administrative relief from rate regulation, the Commission amended the definition of small cable companies and small systems and introduced a simplified form of small system rate relief in the Small System Order. Cable systems serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers, and owned by a company having 400,000 or fewer subscribers, may elect to use the small cable system rate mechanism in lieu of other Commission rate processes, provided the Commission has not reached a final resolution on the rate complaints filed against the system. Operators attempting to justify their rates through small system relief must file FCC Form 1230. FCC Form 1230 requires that the Operator Selected Per Subscriber Monthly Programming Rate Per Channel (FCC Form 1230, Line A11) not exceed the Per Subscriber, Per Channel Monthly Programming Costs (FCC Form 1230, Line A6). If the maximum rate established on FCC Form 1230 does not exceed $1.24 per channel, the rate shall be presumed reasonable. 5. On September 26, 1997, Operator filed FCC Form 1230 seeking to justify its CPST rate through the simplified small system cost of service procedures under the Commission's Small System Order. In support of its rate justification on FCC Form 1230, (1) the Operator states that UVC "served approximately 162,000 subscribers" in August, 1995 and (2) the Operator's FCC Form 1230 indicates, on Line A2, that the system referenced above had a total of 2,387 subscribers. We find that as of the effective date of the Small System Order, August 21, 1995, UVC was a company with fewer than 400,000 total subscribers, and that the system referenced above served fewer than 15,000 subscribers, therefore making the system eligible for small system relief. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1230, we find that Line A11 does not exceed Line A6 and that the maximum rate (Line A10) does not exceed $1.24. We therefore find that Operator's actual CPST rate of $17.64, as reported on Line All, is not unreasonable. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.934 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.934, that Operator's request for small system relief, for its system in the community referenced above, IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CPST rate of $17.64 charged in the community referenced above IS NOT UNREASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against the February 28, 1994 CPST rate charged by Operator during the period under review in the community referenced above IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the Motion to Dismiss the February 28, 1994 complaint filed against the CPST rate charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS DENIED. 10. 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