ÿWPC><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx<åkkxxx"k<((xxxxxWIxkWWWWWWWWWW(x‘7jC:,4yoXjô\  PŽ6G;XPþþþþþþþÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþþþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿà?‘7nC:,<ÃXnô4  pŽ–ÂG;Xþþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþþþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@V"G($,}¥hGϾ¦ PìE37ûhPþþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÀA’6uC;,DE:Xu‚&_â xìð¦7ûXXþþþþþ þÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ\B“5hC:,Tr¡Xhô*f9 xŽr G;XXþþþþþþþÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþþþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÀ¶X F($,DãhF‚&_â xìð¦7ûhXþþþþþþþÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¸ÿÿ‰?xxx,k—¿ôxÐ `É“7ûX€þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÁÁÁ` ` ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÁÁÁÁhh#ÁÁÀÀ(ÁÁ@°*ÁØÿÿÿÿi)Ø ƒÁ€ÀÀ(ÁÂh-ÂÆ(#Æ Tech InitInitialiFOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//Viacom Cable, Red Bluff, CA, MO&O, DA 95©272//$ $/76.922 Rates for cable programming service tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates/$ Ô ©aá<ÔÁàßìCÁà ÃÑ#¼eô™  p7¼sQ¬Ž¼#ÑBefore theƒ Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁFederal Communications Commission Ô ©a¡á<ÔÁàeì)ÁWashington, D.C.Ä Äƒ Ô ©aµá<Ô Á`(#=ÁÑ#XPô\  PŽ6QyoXP#Ñà ÃDA 95©272Ä Äƒ Ô Y¨ Ã-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑIn the Matter ofÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,Á) Ô Y‘ Ã-ÔÁ€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,Á)ÁÀÀVÁ CUID Nos. CA0093, CA0094 Ô Yz Ã-ÔViacom CableÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,Á)ÁÀÀVÁÁÁ Ô Yc Ã-ÔRed Bluff, CaliforniaÁÁ )ÁÀÀVÁÁÁ Ápp¬ÁÁÈÈ×ÁÁ  ÁÁxx-ÁÁÐ Ð XÁ Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,Á) Ô Y5Ã-ÔBenchmark Filings to SupportÁhh,Á)ÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á Ô YÃ-ÔCable Programming Service PriceÁhh,Á)ÁÀÀVÁÁÁ Ápp¬ÁÁÈÈ×ÁÁ  ÁÁxx-ÁÁÐ Ð XÁ Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,Á Ô ‘XÙÃ-ÔÁ€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁà ÃÄ Äà ÃMemorandum Opinion and OrderÄ Ä Ô Y«Ã-ÔAdopted: February 17, 1995Áhh,ÁÁÀÀVÁÁÁReleased: February 21, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: Ô ‘X8Ã-Ôà ÃÃÃIntroductionÄ ÄÄÄ Á€Á1. Here we consider complaints about the price Viacom Cable ("Viacom") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the City of Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0093, and Tehama County©Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0094. Viacom has chosen to attempt to justify its price through benchmark showings on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Viacom's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later date we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the Ô Y€ Ò-Ôprice after that date.Ö–g‘€ NÔ Yù"Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent Ô ’YË$Ã-Ôà ÃÄ ÄViacom has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the ÃÃSecond Order Ô ’Y¶%Ã-Ôon ReconsiderationÄÄ, ÃÃFourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed RulemakingÄÄ, Ô ’Y¡&Ã-ÔMM Docket No. 92©266, FCC 94©38, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("ÃÃSecond Order on Ô ’YŒ'Ã-ÔReconsiderationÄÄ"), the maximum permitted CPS prices determined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date on which Viacom implemented its CPS prices under theÔ"w(0*0*0*°°¨(ð"Ô Ô ’YÃ-Ônew regulations. ÃÃSee ÄÄ para. 3, ÃÃinfraÄÄ.Ñ#ôxþ6X@ɹ`7û¾X@#ÑÑ#XPô\  PŽ6QyoXP#Ñ Further, to the extent that the prices for the period ending May 14, 1994 are found to be excessive, reductions in Viacom's prices for the period after May 14, 1994 may be required to reflect the fact that Viacom's prices during the earlier period, which are used as the starting point to calculate its prices for the prospective period, Ô “X6´-Ôwere unreasonablÑ#XPô\  PŽ6QyoXP#Ñe. Ãà See ÄÄ47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.922(b)(4)(C).–ÖÔ"€ !0*0*0*°°¢!ÿ"ÔŒÔ YÒ-ԙРÈé ÐÁ€Á2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,ÖÖ!x4Ô ’YÒÒ-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ Pub. L. No. 102©385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act, ÀÀ 623(c), ÃÃas Ô ’Y½Ã-ÔamendedÄÄ, 47 U.S.C. ÀÀ 543(c) (1993).Ö and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an Ô Y»Ò-Ôobligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.Öf黿x4Ô Y+ Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.956.fÖ Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a Ô YÒ-Ôcost©of©service showing.Öép x4Ô Y®Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.956(b).Ö In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its Ô YvÒ-ÔCPS prices are not unreasonable.Ö€ëv! x4Ô ’YHÒ-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ ÃÃId.ÄÄ€Ö Ô YHÒ-ÔÁ€Á3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.Ö2¿HÔ x4Ô ’YÍÒ-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ ÃÃOrder ÄÄin MM Docket No. 92©266, ÃÃImplementation of Sections of the Cable Television Ô ’Y¸Ã-ÔConsumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate RegulationÄÄ, FCC 93©372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).2Ö Ô Y1Ò-ÔThe Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.Ö®ë1[x4Ô ’Y=Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ ÃÃÄÄÃÃSee Second Order on ReconsiderationÄÄ at 4119ÃÃÄÄ; 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.922(b).ÃÃÄÄ®Ö Operators with valid CPS complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in Ô YÕ Ò-Ôcompliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.Ö¹ëÕ x4Ô ’Y” Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ ÃÃSee Second Order on Reconsideration ÄÄat 4190, paras. 150©152.¹Ö Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must Ô Y§ Ò-Ôcomplete and file FCC Form 393.Ö€ ë§ Áx4Ô ’Y$Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ ÃÃId.ÄÄ€Ö Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200Ô"t 0*((°°xð"Ô Ô YÒ-Ôseries.ÖÑ ëx4Ô ’YyÒ-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.922(b)(6); ÃÃsee also Second Order on ReconsiderationÄÄ at 4189 n.195.ÑÖ Ô"é{ 0*((°°ÿð"Ô Ô ‘XéÃ-ÔÃÃà ÃProcedural MattersÄ ÄÄÄ Á€Á4. The first valid CPS complaints in the franchise areas addressed in this Order were completed and served on Viacom and received by the Commission on the dates set forth in Appendix A. Á€Á5. Viacom filed its first FCC Form 393 filings in the franchise areas addressed in Ô YHÃ-Ôthis Order on December 21, 1993.ÃÃÄÄ Viacom filed amended FCC Form 393 filings for both franchise areas on June 27, 1994 in response to a Cable Services Bureau Order citing Ô Y Ò-Ôcommon deficiencies observed in benchmark filings generallyÖ Ô x4Ô ’Y“ Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ ÃÃCable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, ÄÄDA 94©526, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Ô Y~ Ã-ÔBur. 1994).Ñ#ôxþ6X@ɹ`7û¾X@#ÑÖ and on February 8, 1995 in response to a Cable Services Bureau Public Notice offering operators the opportunity to make Ô Yì Ò-Ôoptional supplemental filings.Öü ‘ì dx4Ô ’WÒ-ÔÑ#XRo=¡  x7.ÎQE:XX#Ñ Public Notice: Cable Services Bureau Announces Optional Procedures with Respect to Ô ’YêÃ-ÔPending Pre©May 15 Benchmark Cases, Ñ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑDA 94©1556 (Dec. 29, 1994); ÃÃsee also Public Notice: Cable Services Bureau Announces Extension of Time to File Under Optional Ô ’Y¾Ã-ÔProcedures Plan witÄÄÃÃh Respect to Pending Pre©May 15 Benchmark CasesÄÄ, DA 95©87 (Jan. 20, 1995).üÖ Ô ‘X¾ Ã-Ôà ÃÃÃDiscussionÄ ÄÄÄ Á€Á6. Viacom asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $11.84 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filings because its price is approximately equal to the maximum permitted Ô YbÃ-Ôcharges as calculated in the filings. However, uà ÃÃÃÄ ÄÄÄpon review we have determined that Viacom has not correctly calculated its maximum permitted price, and it is therefore appropriate to make the following adjustment to Viacom's calculations in Form 393: Á€ÁÁ` ` «Áa. In its amended filings of June 27, 1994, Viacom states that it calculated the Ô YïÃ-ÔÂX€ÂInflation Adjustment Factor (Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 127, and Form Á(#(#‚Á393, Part II, Worksheet 4, Line 401) using data it relied on when it set its CPS price. If Viacom had done so correctly (i.e., if it had completed Form 393 with accurate data, including the most recent inflation data available as of the time it set its price), and if based on this data Form 393 indicated that its price was reasonable, then Ô ’Y|Ã-ÔViacom would have successfully justified its price under paragraph 94 of the ÃÃThird Ô ’YgÒ-ÔOrder on ReconsiderationÄÄ.ÖR žg½x4Ô ’YÕ$Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÃÃÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ Third Order on ReconsiderationÄÄ, MM Docket Nos. 92©266 andÃÃÄÄ 92©262ÃÃ, ÄÄ FCC 94©40, 9 Ô ’YÀ%Ã-ÔFCC Rcd 4316 (1994) ("ÃÃThird Order on ReconsiderationÄÄ").Ñ#ôxþ6X@ɹ`7û¾X@#Ñ RÖ However, the figures Viacom used are not consistent with data on which it should have relied in setting its CPS price. Specifically,Ô"R# 0*((°°Mð"Ô Viacom used data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce on August 31, 1993, to complete Lines 122 and 125, but used earlier data to calculate the Inflation Factor on Line 123. Furthermore, Viacom claimed an Adjustment Time Period extending through November 1993 (Line 124), which is inconsistent with an attempt to justify rates based on August 1993 data. Viacom's calculation of the Inflation Adjustment Factor is thus incorrect.Æ(#Æ Á€ÁÁ` ` «Áb. We must therefore recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor on the basis Ô YHÒ-ÔÁ€Áof the most accurate data currently available for the date on of which Viacom filed.ÖrÔHx4Ô ’YÁ Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑÃÃÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ SeeÄÄ 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.922(b)(9)(iii) (if a cable operator fails to justify its rates, rates Ô Y¬ Ã-Ômust be adjusted in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of analysis).Ñ#ôxþ6X@ɹ`7û¾X@#ÑrÖ Ô Y1Ã-ÔÁ€ÁOn its amended Forms 393, Viacom entered 14 months on Line 124, indicating that Á(#(#‚Á„Ô Y Ã-ÔÁ€Áthese filings were as of the end of November 1993. On July 29, 1994, the ÁÐ Ð XÁÁ(#(#‚Á„Ô Y Ã-ÔÁ€ÁDepartment of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Á(#(#‚Á„Ô Yì Ã-ÔÁ€ÁProduct Price Index (GNP©PI) figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and Á(#(#‚Á„Ô YÕ Ã-ÔÁ€Á125.7 for the third quarter of 1993. Using these GNP©PI figures, we calculate an Á(#(#‚Á„Ô Y¾ Ã-ÔÁ€ÁInflation Adjustment Factor through November 1993, the base date Viacom used in Á(#(#‚Á„Á€Ájustifying its rates, of 1.032. This adjustment is consistent with the Inflation Á€ÁAdjustment Factor that Viacom used in its optional filing of February 8, 1995. Á€ÁÁ` ` «Ác. In its February 8, 1995 optional filing, Viacom reduced the number of Á€Ásatellite channels as of the initial date of regulation that it used to calculate the Á€Ábenchmark on Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 121 from 24 to 23 and also Á€Áreduced the number of satellite channels as of September 30, 1992 that Viacom used Á€Áto calculate the benchmark on Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 2, Line 220 from 20 to Á€Á19. We rely on these revisions to recompute Viacom's maximum permitted rate. Á€Á7. Because of these errors, we conclude that Viacom has failed to demonstrate that its price for the CPS tier was not unreasonable. We will therefore set prices for this tier, Ô Y“Ã-Ôincorporating the adjustments discussed above. These adjustments have the effect of ÁÐ Ð XÁ„reducing the maximum permitted monthly CPS tier price for each franchise area to the levels set forth in Appendix B. Ô ‘X7Ã-Ôà ÃÃÃConclusionsÄ ÄÄÄ Á€Á8. Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that Viacom's showing supports the maximum reasonable CPS tier price for each franchise area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee) for the period from the filing of the earliest complaint in each franchise area Ô YÄ Ò-Ô(as set forth on Appendix A) to May 14, 1994.ÖÔ¤Ä dx4Ô YÙ%Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ This finding is based solely on the representations of Viacom listed in paragraph 5, Ô ’YÂ&Ã-ÔÃÃsupraÄÄ, and the modifications described in paragraph 6, ÃÃsupraÄÄ. Should information come toÔ"Â&0*((°°Ø&ð"Ô our attention that these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.Ö We further determine that we will orderÔ"Ä 40*((°°Ï!ÿ"Ô appropriate refunds pursuant to Section 76.957 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.957, in order to reimburse subscribers for the amount they paid in excess of a reasonable price. Á€Á Á€Á9. We further conclude that Viacom must reflect in its FCC Form 1200 rate filings for the period after May 14, 1994 the fact that Viacom's price during the earlier period was Ô YvÒ-Ôunreasonable.Ö»v4x4Ô Y[ Ò-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ We reviewed Viacom's FCC Form 1200 rate filings and confirmed that Viacom calculated its rates for the period after May 14, 1994 using the rates that we find in this Order to be unreasonable.Ö We reserve the right to make further adjustments to Viacom's prices for the period after May 14, 1994, upon completion of our review of Viacom's FCC Form 1200 rate filings. Á€Á10. We further conclude that Viacom has submitted in good faith an optional Ô Y Ò-Ôsupplemental filing in response to our December 29, 1994 Public Notice.ÖÔ ·x4Ô ’WkÒ-ÔÑ#XRo=¡  x7.ÎQE:XX#Ñ Public Notice: Cable Services Bureau Announces Optional Procedures with Respect to Ô ’YTÃ-ÔPending Pre©May 15 Benchmark Cases, Ñ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑDA 94©1556 (Dec. 29, 1994).Ö As provided in the Public Notice, we will relieve Viacom of its obligation to obtain advance Commission approval of adjustments to its CPS prices for one year following the release of this Order. Á€Á11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 0.321, that the complaints referred to in Appendix A against the cable programming service price charged by Viacom Cable in the City of Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0093, and Tehama County©Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0094, and all other complaints in these franchise areas related to the same price, ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. Á€Á12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the benchmark filings submitted by Viacom Cable with respect to Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0093, and Tehama County©Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0094, for the period beginning with the filing of the first valid complaint in each franchise area and ending on May 14, 1994, as set forth on Appendix A, justify the maximum price in each franchise area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee) for Viacom Cable's cable programming service tier. Á€Á13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.961, that Viacom Cable shall refund to subscribers that portion of the amounts paid for cable programming service for the period from the filing of the first valid Ô"7S 0*((°°.ð"Ô Ô YÒ-Ôcomplaint in each franchise area (as set forth on Appendix A)ÖÒx4Ô YyÒ-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ Ñ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#ÑOur jurisdiction to order a refund dates from the earliest date a valid complaint is filed with the Commission. 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.961(b).Ö to May 14, 1994 which exceeded the maximum price for each franchise area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee) per month and was thus unreasonable, plus interest to the date of the refund. Á€Á14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Viacom Cable shall promptly determine the overcharges to CPS subscribers for the stated periods, and shall within 30 days of the release of this Order file a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount so determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval thereof.ÁàììlÁƒ Á€Á15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.922(b)(4)(C) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.922(b)(4)(C), that Viacom Cable shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, revise its Form 1200 filings with respect to Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0093, and Tehama County©Red Bluff, California, CUID No. CA0094, for the period beginning May 15, 1994, to reduce the monthly charge per tier as of March 31, 1994 for Tier 2 (Line A6b) to equal the maximum price in each franchise area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee). Á€Á16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Viacom Cable shall place into effect, within 30 days after its submission of the revised Form 1200 filings required above, prices that Ô YÃ-Ôreflect the reductions in the CPS rates determined in this Order.ÁÈÈ×Á Á€Á Á€Á17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.960 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ÀÀ 76.960, that Viacom Cable shall not be required to obtain advance Commission approval of adjustments to its CPS prices for one year following the release of Ô YªÃ-Ôthis Order.Á` ` «Á Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁ Á€ÁÁ` ` «Á Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,ÁFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,ÁMeredith J. Jones Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,ÁChief, Cable Services Bureau Ô ‰?­!´<ÔÑ#ôxþ6X@ɹ`7û¾X@#ÑÁàììlÁà ÃÐЃÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×ÁÁ  ÁÁxx-ÁÄ ÄÔ"­!b0*((°°¿"ð"Ô Ô ‘X´<ÔÐÐÁàáìHÁà ÃÑ#XPô\  PŽ6QyoXP#ÑAppendix Aƒ Ô ‘XéÃ-ÔÑ#XRõ  P7ñjQ½}XP#Ñ Ô Y»Ã-ÔÄ ÄÃÃCUID No.Á` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁDate First ComplaintÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×ÁDate Complaint Ô Y¤Ã-ÔÁ€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁFiled with FCCÄÄÁÁÁpp¬ÁÃÃÄÄÃÃÁÈÈ×ÁServedÄÄ Ô YvÃ-Ô0093Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁ11/22/93ÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á11/18/93 Ô Y_Ã-Ô0094Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁ11/24/93ÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á11/18/93 Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,ÁÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬Á Ô"ì 0*0*0*°°@ ð"Ô Ô ‘YÃ-ÔÐÐÁàèìEÁà ÃAppendix Bƒ Ô Y¼Ã-ÔÄ ÄÃÃCUID No.Á` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁActual RatesÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×ÁMaximum Reasonable RatesÄÄ Ô YŽÃ-Ô0093Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁ$11.84ÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á$11.65 Ô YwÃ-Ô0094Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁ$11.84ÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á$11.74 Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,ÁÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á Á€ÁÁ` ` «ÁÁ¸ ¸ ÖÁÁÁÁhh,ÁÁÀÀVÁÁÁÁpp¬ÁÁÈÈ×Á