WPCa 2BJ Z Courier3|xBoldCG TimesX@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@2 6F,  3|wCourierCourier Bold f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LCourierCourier BoldCG TimesCG Times Bold0.PRSx  @\DX@2vB p k(ka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2Y0vtKa2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 26  .  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 h'a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2!Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2/a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2 $O3 a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:$$#%<%Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left14 Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style 4G Y * Ã  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List*M0 Y XX` ` (#` CourierCourier BoldCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic?xxx,)x `7X8wC;,Xw PE37XPD7zC;,c!Xz_ pi7XdddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2Ef D1<LnBKB",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxRdتֽG}oy7jC:,<xXj\  P6G;XPW!@(#,<^h@\  P6G;hPd B22!XXX.B8d b2f vVZa",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L ?< FOR RECORD ONLY  ?< $//Appeal ORDER, Adelphia, Charlottesville, VA, DA 95157//$  ?< $/76.986 A La Carte Offerings/$ $76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions/$  ? <  X-  J(X01Í ÍX01Í Í #Xw PE37XP#Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ĐlU  X= -` `  hh,Vpp DA 95157  Y -In the Matter of: lpp)  Y -lpp)  Y -MULTICHANNEL T.V. CABLE COMPANYpp)  Y- d/b/a ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONSlpp)  Y-lpp)  Y-Interlocutory Appeal oflpp)  Yn-Local Rate Order of City lpp)  YW-of Charlottesville, Virginialpp)  Y)-R ORDER ă  Y- Adopted : February 6, 1995hh,V Released : February 7, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X- I.INTRODUCTION  Ys-1.` ` On November 3, 1994, MultiChannel T.V. Cable Company, d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications ("Adelphia"), filed with the Commission a Petition for Interlocutory Review of Initial Decision ("Petition") of the preliminary rate order adopted by the City of  Y.-Charlottesville, Virginia (the "City").\.N Y -#Xw PE37XP#эOther filings in this proceeding include Respondent's Response to Petition for Interlocutory Review of Initial Decision filed by the City on November 15, 1994, and a Reply to Response to Petition for Interlocutory Review filed by Adelphia on November 31, 1994.\ In a Resolution, adopted October 19, 1994 (the "local order"), the City made an initial determination that Adelphia's collective offerings of certain  Y -a la carte channels be treated as a regulated tier of service. 4N Y&-#Xw PE37XP#эSee Petition Exhibit 1. Adelphia offered 31 channels on an individual or a la carte basis which it referred to as "CableSelect" channels. It offered all of the CableSelect channels collectively in a 31 channel package called "CablePlus" or in a 17 channel package"(0*0*0*(" called "CableValue." " y0*0*0*!"Ԍ Y-ԙ2.` ` In the Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection  Y-and Competition Act of 1992: Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order,  Y-MM Docket No. 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Reconsideration Order"), the Commission provided that as part of their review of basic service tier rates, local authorities may make an initial decision addressing only the regulatory status of any a la carte package  Y-at issue.y Y-#Xw PE37XP#эSecond Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4217. The Commission further provided that the local authority's initial decision may be appealed to the Commission within 14 days and that the issuance of an initial decision on a la  Ye-carte issues will toll the time period within which local authorities must decide local rate  YN-cases.aN, Y+ -#Xw PE37XP#эId.a  X - II.DISCUSSION  Y - 3.` ` Adelphia objects to the City's finding in the local order that the CableSelect  Y -channels must be included as regulated channels for purposes of the local order. Adelphia argues that the City exceeded its authority in determining that its a la carte services should be treated as regulated channels. Adelphia argues that the City applied the wrong legal standard when it relied on the 15 interpretive guidelines announced by the Commission in March 1994 to determine the regulatory status of Adelphia's a la carte channels and unfairly gave  Yh-"retroactive effect" to these guidelines.h Y-#Xw PE37XP#эPetition at 9. In the Second Reconsideration Order, the Commission set out 15 guidelines "that local authorities and the Commission should consider in assessing in an individual case whether an a la carte package enhances consumer choice and does not  Y-constitute an evasion of rate regulation."  Second Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4214. Adelphia further argues that its a la carte packages comply with the provisions of the 1992 Cable Act, which it contends encourages cable operators to unbundle programming services from regulated tiers and offer them on a perchannel basis and that the packages comply with the Commission's a la carte rules in effect  Y -at the time the packages were created. 8  Y -#Xw PE37XP#эSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 58365838. The City responds that it properly exercised its authority and correctly applied the Commission's guidelines on a la carte packages in concluding that the channels in Adelphia's package should be treated as regulated channels.  Y-4.` ` The Adelphia a la carte services at issue were first offered to subscribers on August 30, 1993, when Adelphia restructured the service offerings on its Charlottesville system. Adelphia states that beginning August 30, 1993 it began offering all "nonbasic" services on an a la carte basis. Adelphia states that its August 30, 1993 restructuring"k 0*((l" involved eliminating its 17 channel "satellite service" cable programming service tier and its 14 channel "expanded satellite" cable programming service tier and offering all 31 channels both on an individual basis and as a package of 17 channels called CableValue or as a package of 31 channels called CableSelect that Adelphia alleges are not subject to rate"9: 0*((L" regulation.  Y-5.` ` The regulatory status of such an offering has previously been addressed by the  Y-Commission. In Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. South Dade County, Florida, LOI9342, DA 941277 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Nov. 18, 1994), we resolved the regulatory status of  Y-a similar a la carte offering by Adelphia on its South Dade County, Florida system. X-#Xj\  P6G;xXP#э Adelphia's South Dade system restructured its offering to create 32 channels offered on  X-an individual or package basis.#x6X@`7X@# In  Yx-Adelphia Cable Partners we found that Adelphia's retiering on its South Dade County system constituted an evasion of rate regulation. We therefore found that Adelphia's South Dade a la carte package must be treated as a rateregulated cable programming service tier and that the channels composing it must be counted as rateregulated channels for purposes of rate justification as of September 1, 1993.  Y -6.` ` Adelphia's Charlottesville a la carte package closely resembles its South Dade  Y -a la carte package which was the subject of our order in Adelphia Cable Partners. Accordingly, the regulatory status of Adelphia's Charlottesville package at issue in this petition should be the same. We find that the City's conclusion that the channels in Adelphia's a la carte package must be included as regulated channels is consistent with letter  Y-of inquiry orders issued by the Bureau, and in particular in Adelphia Cable Partners.  Yj-Therefore, we hereby deny Adelphia's Petition.Njb Y}-#Xw PE37XP#эAdelphia's argument that the City has no authority to determine the regulatory status of a la carte service offerings is without merit. The City's rate order was adopted on  YO-October 19, 1994. In the Second Reconsideration Order, effective May 15, 1994, the Commission provided that "local authorities may make any necessary a la carte  Y#-determination as part of their final decision setting rates for the basic tier. Second  Y-Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4217. Contrary to Adelphia's contention, this provision does not delegate the Commission's jurisdiction over cable programming service tier rates to local authorities. Rather, it allows local authorities to make a determination concerning the number of regulated channels that is necessary to accomplish their review of basic service tier rates. We note that we need not address Adelphia's argument with respect to the  Yo -"retroactive" application by the City of the 15 guidelines set forth in the Second  YZ!-Reconsideration Order in light of the fact that we deny Adelphia's petition based on the precedent established in our letter of inquiry orders on the a la carte issue. N  XS- "<0*(("  X-III.ORDERING CLAUSES  Y-  Y-7.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review of the local order, with respect to the issue of the regulatory status of Adelphia's a la carte package, is  Y- DENIED .  Yx-8.` ` This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.321. ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Meredith J. Jones  Y-x` `  Chief, Cable Services Bureau