********************************************************    
                         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.NJ0496 (Logan)
                  )     NJ0516 (Pilesgrove)      
                  )     NJ0518 (Commercial)      Lenfest
Atlantic, Inc.    )           NJ0520 (Maurice River)   
                  )           NJ0521 (Elk)    
                  )           NJ0522 (Elmer)     
Order Denying Jurisdiction    )                  NJ0525 (Upper Pittsgrove)
                  )     NJ0569 (Lawrence)
                  )     NJ0599 (Deerfield)
                  )     NJ0600 (Upper Deerfield)
                  )     NJ0612 (Mannington)


ORDER
        
          Adopted:  February 20, 1998                 Released:  February 25, 1998   

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

        1.    In this Order we dismiss complaints filed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities,
the Local Franchising Authority ("LFA") for the communities referenced above, against the rates that the
above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST")
in the communities set forth above because the complaints concern rates that are outside the jurisdiction
of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission").  Each of the complaints was filed with the
Commission on December 5, 1994.

         2.     Under the Communications Act, the Commission is authorized to review the CPST rates
of cable systems not subject to effective competition upon the filing of a valid complaint. In its
January 23, 1998 response to the complaints, Operator indicates that its CPST rates in the communities
referenced above did not change between September 1, 1993 and mid-February 1995.  Operator also
states that no channels were dropped from its CPSTs in the communities referenced above during that
time.  Section 76.953 of the Commission's rules in effect at the time the complaint was filed states that
a complaint must be filed within 45 days from the date the complainant receives a bill from the Operator
that reflects a rate change.  Based on our review, we conclude that the complaints referenced herein were
not filed within 45 days of a rate change because no rate change, implicit or otherwise, occurred in the
above-referenced communities between September 1, 1993 and February 15, 1995.  Consequently, the
complaints do not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction.
         
         3.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints against the rates for CPST charged by Operator in the
communities referenced above during the period under review ARE DISMISSED.

         4.     This action is taken pursuant delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321.

                                            FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



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