increase becomes effective, it receives subscriber complaints. This standard requires more than one subscriber rate complaint. The provisions under the 1996 Act became effective upon its enactment on February 8, 1996.

3. The Commission has received valid complaints concerning Adelphia's CPST rate in effect from September 1, 1993 through September 30, 1995,o and against the CPST rate increase that Adelphia implemented on October 1, 1995. Accordingly, these complaints trigger the Commission's jurisdiction to review Adelphia's CPST rates under the 1992 Cable Act.

4. On August 19, 1996, Metropolitan Dade County ("County"), the LFA, filed a complaint with the Commission regarding Adelphia's $1.40 CPST rate increase of June 1, 1996 in the above-referenced franchise area. This complaint is therefore subject to the requirements of the 1996 Act. The County asserts that it has received more than one complaint against Adelphia's CPST rate increase, thereby triggering the Commission's jurisdiction to review this complaint. The complaint from the LFA also triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rate increase with the LFA.In response to the County's complaint, Adelphia filed an FCC Form 1240 with the County to justify its June 1, 1996 CPST rate increase.'

5. Adelphia's FCC Forms 1220, 1210, and 1240 filings seek to establish that its CPST rate, including subsequent increases, is below the maximum permitted rate and is justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. According to information provided by Adelphia in its FCC Form 1220 cost of service showing, the franchise area comprised approximately 60,435 CPST subscribers at the time of the December 9, 1994 filing. Adelphia provided 33 CPST channels at that time. In this review process, we analyzed Adelphia's CPST cost of service showing, and subsequent FCC Form 1210 ard 1240 filings, to ensure that the initial CPST rate, and subsequent rate increases, were not unreasonable and to determine any associated refund liability.

6. In reviewing the cost of service showing, rate base and expense items have been evaluated to determine whether Adelphia should be permitted to recover those items. Where a certain rate base or expense element was not supported, was excessive, or was unrelated to

s See Communications Act, Section 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(c)(3) (1996).

• The Commission received the first valid complaint against Adelphia on September 20, 1993.

? The Commission received a complaint against Adelphia's CPST rate increase on October 6, 1995.

See Letter from Leslie J. Brown, Assistant General Counsel, Adelphia Cable Communications, to Mario E. Goderich, Cable Television Coordinator, Metropolitan Dade County (August 8, 1996).

providing regulated cable service, such cost was disallowed in whole or in part.1o Where reported costs were disallowed, we have made appropriate adjustments. Even with our adjustments and disallowances, however, we find that Adelphia's monthly CPST rate has been justified."

7. Based on our review of Adelphia's cost of service filing, and subsequent FCC Form 1210 and 1240 filings, and applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that Adelphia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $12.75 charged from September 1993 to September 30, 1995, the monthly CPST rate of $13.52 charged from October 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996, and the CPST rate of $14.92 implemented on June 1, 1996.

8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $12.75 charged from September 1993 to September 30, 1995, the monthly CPST rate of $13.52 charged from October 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996, and the monthly CPST rate of $14.92 implemented on June 1, 1996, ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.

9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaints against the initial CPST rate, and the subsequent monthly CPST rate increases implemented by Adelphia, with respect to CUID No. FL0375, ARE DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

10 The Commission made clear that the fact that an operator has incurred costs does not necessarily establish its right to recover those costs from subscribers. See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Rate Order"), 8 FCC Red 5631, 5794 n.619 (1993).

" Information regarding the specific adjustments made to Adelphia's filing for Asset Valuation, Capitalized Losses and Accumulated Amortization, Direct Assignments of Other Cable Revenues, Cost Allocations, Rate of Return and the basis for such adjustments, can be found in the public files for CUID No. FL0375 which are available in the Cable Services Bureau's public reference room, or through the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20554, or by calling ITS at (202) 857-3800.

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

1. In this Order we consider a complaint concerning the May 1, 1996 rate increase of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. ("Suburban") for its cable programming services tiers ("CPST") in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. This Order addresses only the reasonableness of Suburban's rate increase after May 14, 1994. We have already issued a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the Suburban's rate prior to that date.' We conclude that Suburban's rate increase is not unreasonable.

2. The Communications Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. Under the 1992 Cable Act, the Commission must 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

1

The Cable Services Bureau has already issued an Order addressing the reasonableness of Suburban's rate prior to May 14, 1994. See In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 6517 (1995). Because Suburban's CPST rate for this community, for the period September 1, 1993 through May 14, 1994 is under review by the Commission due to a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Suburban on June 5, 1995, we reserve the right to make further adjustments to Suburban's underlying CPST rates upon completion of our review. In this Order, we address only the rate increase which is the subject of the complaint in this proceeding.

* Communications Act, Section 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(c)(3) (1996).

3

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act").

rate and any refund liability. The Telecommunications Act of 1996$ ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the new legislation,' require that complaints against the CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received subscriber complaints. An LFA may not file a CPST rate complaint unless it receives more than one subscriber complaint within 90 days after such increase becomes effective.

3.

On August 12, 1996, a valid CPST rate complaint was filed against the May 1, 1996 rate increase implemented by Suburban in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, CUD No. PA2499. On June 21, 1996, the Township of Doylestown ("the Township"), the LFA, filed a complaint regarding the May 1, 1996 increase in Suburban's CPST rate in Doylestown. In its complaint, the Township certified that it has complied with the Interim Rules. The valid complaint from the LFA also triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rate with the LFA. Thus, in this case, Suburban is required to justify the increase in its CPST rate which is the subject of the Township's complaints. Suburban has chosen to justify its CPST rates through a cost of service showing on FCC Form 1220.0

4. Suburban's cost of service filing seeks to establish that its CPST rate increases are justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. According to information provided by Suburban in its cost of service showing, the franchise area comprised approximately 2,920 CPST subscribers. In this review process, we analyzed Suburban's CPST cost of service showing to ensure that the rate increases were not unreasonable and to determine any associated refund liability.

5. In reviewing Suburban's cost of service showing, rate base and expense items have been evaluated to determine whether Suburban should be permitted to recover those items. Where a certain rate base or expense element was not supported, was excessive, or was unrelated

See 47 U.S.C. Section 957.

• Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (February 8, 1996) ("1996 Act").

See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996) ("Interim Rules").

See FCC Form 329 signed June 21, 1996 by John P. Friel, Cable TV Representative, Township of Doylestown.

to providing regulated cable service, such cost was disallowed in whole or in part." Where reported costs were disallowed, we have made appropriate adjustments. Even with our adjustments and disallowances, however, we find that Suburban's monthly CPST rates have been justified. 2

6. Based on our review of Suburban's cost of service filing and supplemental information and applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that Suburban has justified its CPST rate increases.

13