WPCI 2BJZ Courier3|w:Wx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M 399_1 lpt1ional)HL4MPCA0.PRSx  @\9rbX@26?F Z 3|wCourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New RomanHP LaserJet 4M 399_1 lpt1ional)HL4MPCA0.PRSx  @\9rbX@2vpkkla8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 22 vt$a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 d   Za2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2q A    a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2  sTech 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) . 2paa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2(3a7TechnicalTechnical 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:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx Yy-#Xw PE37XP#эxOther filings in this proceeding include the City's Request for Acceptance of LateFiled Pleading in Response to Petitions for Interlocutory Review of Initial Decision Under  76.986 and Response to Petition for Interlocutory Review of Initial Decision ("Answer"), filed by the City on September 19, 1994; an Opposition to Request for Acceptance of LateFiled Pleading and Reply to Response to Petition for Interlocutory Review of Initial Decision Under Section 76.986, filed by Century on September 29, 1994; and a Reply to Opposition to Request for Acceptance of LateFiled Pleading and Reply to Response to Petition for Interlocutory Review of Initial Decision under  76.986, filed by the City on October 6, 1994. In its Opposition and Reply Century correctly notes that the City's Answer was filed late. Our rules require that opposition be filed within 15 days after the appeal is filed, which  Y -was August 9 and September 9, 1994, in the instant case. See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation,  Yg -Report and Order, MM Docket 92266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 573031 ("Rate Order"). We need not strike the City's Answer from the record, however, because the result we reach herein is based on grounds other than those set forth in the City's Answer. In particular, our  Y$-decision herein is based on our previous order in Century Cable TV, Muncie, Indiana, LOI  Y-9318, DA 941354 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Dec. 2, 1994) ("Century Muncie"). See para.  Y-5, infra. By letters dated July 11, 1994 and August 22, 1994, the City made initial determinations that for the purpose of evaluating Century's Forms 393 and 1200, respectively, the channels contained in  Y-Century's "Century Select" package are subject to rate regulation.> Yh-#Xw PE37XP#эxThe Century Select channels are offered in a package or on an individual ("a la carte") basis.  Y-x2.` ` In the Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Second Order on Reconsideration and Fourth  Ya-Report and Order,  MM Docket No. 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second  YL-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  Y -regulatory status of any a la carte package at issue. > Yg-#Xw PE37XP#эxSecond 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 carte issues will toll the time period within which local authorities must decide local rate cases.  X - II.xDISCUSSION  Y- x3.` ` Century objects to the City's findings in its initial decisions that the channels comprising the Century Select a la carte package must be included as regulated channels. "hI0*(( " Century contends that the City's initial decisions are "wholly conclusory" and fail to offer any basis for the determination that the a la carte package should be treated as a rateregulated tier in evaluating Century's Form 393 and Form 1200. Century also contends that  Y-the City's jurisdiction to decide issues regarding a la carte service is contrary to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") which  Y-limits local regulatory jurisdiction to basic service.> Y-ԍ July 25 Petition at 3; See Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  623 (c), 47 U.S.C.  543 (c) (1992).  Century further argues that the 15 interpretive guidelines announced by the Commission in March 1994 to determine the  Y_-regulatory status of a la carte channels cannot be applied retroactively._d> Yt -#Xw PE37XP#э July 25 Petition at 34. 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  Y1-constitute an evasion of rate regulation."  Second Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 42144217. The City responds that  76.986(b) of the Commission's Rules allows local franchising authorities to notify operators of initial decisions regarding treatment of a la carte channels without issuing a  Y -written decision underlying the initial determination. > Y-ԍ Answer at 6. The City contrasts this provision with  76.936 which, it argues, requires a written decision whenever a local franchising authority disapproves initial rates for a basic service tier. In addition, the City contends that it properly applied the Commission's guidelines on a la carte packages and concluded that the channels in Century's Select package should be treated as rateregulated channels.  Y -x4.` ` Century's a la carte package at issue, consisting of CNN, Turner Network Television, TNN and the Discovery Channel, was first offered to subscribers on September 1, 1993, when Century restructured the service offerings on its Muncie system. Century states that its September 1, 1993 restructuring involved offering four channels that previously had been offered on its former cable programming service tiers on an individual basis and also as the Century Select package that it alleges is not subject to rate regulation.  Y-x5.` ` The issue raised by Century's appeal already has been resolved in one of our  Y-letter of inquiry orders, Century Muncie.L@ > Y!-ԍ See footnote 1, supra.L In Century Muncie we found we could not say that it was clear that the Century Select package offered by Century on its Muncie, Indiana system was not a permissible nonrate regulated offering under our rules. We further concluded that in light of the prior confusion over what constituted a permissible nonrate regulated a la carte offering, it would be inequitable to subject Century to refund liability or to require Century to restructure its tiers so as to return the channels offered in the a la carte package to regulated tiers. Instead, we found that the Century Select package may be treated"~ 0*((|"  Y-as a new product tier under the Commission's Implementation of Sections of the Cable  Y-Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Sixth Order  Y-on Reconsideration and Fifth Report and Order, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 93215, FCC  Y-94286 (released November 18, 1994) ("Going Forward Order"). > Y:-#Xw PE37XP#эxNew product tiers are cable programming services that, subject to certain conditions,  Y#-are not rate regulated. Going Forward Order at  1637. In the Going Forward Order, the Commission reconsidered its regulatory treatment of collective offerings of a la carte channels. Specifically, the Commission determined that such packages are cable programming service tiers within the meaning of Section 3(1)(2) of the 1992 Cable Act and  Y -therefore will be subject to our general rate regulation rules. Id. at  51. However, the Commission also stated that with respect to packages created between April 1, 1993 and September 30, 1994, where it is not clear that a particular package was not a permissible offering under the a la carte rules in effect at the time it was created, the package may be  Yo -treated as a new product tier. Id.  Y-x6.` ` We find that the City's determinations in its two initial decisions that the channels comprising Century's a la carte package must be included as regulated channels is  Yg-inconsistent with the action taken in Century Muncie. We further find that, in accordance  YR-with Century Muncie, Century's a la carte package should not be treated as a rateregulated tier of service. Accordingly, Century's Petitions are granted. We are remanding this issue  Y& -to the City so that it can enter orders consistent with our findings in Century Muncie. & > Y-#Xw PE37XP#э We need not address Century's argument with respect to the conclusory nature of the  Yp-initial decisions or the retroactive application of the 15 guidelines set forth in the Second  Y[-Reconsideration Order, in light of the fact that we grant Century's Petition and remand the  YF-City's initial decision. In addition, Century's argument that the City has no jurisdiction to determine the regulatory status of a la carte service offerings is without merit. The City's  Y-initial decisions were adopted on July 11, 1994 and August 22, 1994. In the Second  Y-Reconsideration Order, effective May 15, 1994, the Commission provided that "local authorities may make any necessary a la carte determination as part of their final decision  Y-setting rates for the basic tier. Second Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4217. This provision 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.  Y} -  " W 0*((n "  X-  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: