FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $/CONSOLIDATED ORDER, Comcast Cablevision, Connnecticut/$ $/76.922 Rates for basic service tier/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decision/$ $/1.44 Requests for Stay/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 95-469 In the Matter of: ) New Haven, CT ) Hamden, CT COMCAST CABLEVISION OF ) West Haven, CT NEW HAVEN, INC. ) ) Request for Stay of Local Rate Orders) (Docket Nos. 93-12-16, 94-06-26) of ) the State of Connecticut ) Department of Public ) Utility Control; and ) COMCAST CABLEVISION OF ) Groton, CT GROTON, INC. ) Ledyard, CT ) Stonington, CT Request for Stay of Local Rate Orders) Voluntown, CT (Docket Nos. 93-12-18, 94-06-28) of ) North Stonington, CT the State of Connecticut ) Department of Public ) Utility Control ) COMCAST CABLEVISION OF ) Clinton, CT Haddam, CT CLINTON, INC. ) Deep River, CT Durham, CT ) Essex, CT Old Saybrook, CT Request for Stay of Local Rate Orders) Chester, CT Westbrook, CT (Docket Nos. 93-12-17, 94-06-27) of ) Killingworth, CT the State of Connecticut ) Department of Public ) Utility Control ) CONSOLIDATED ORDER Adopted: March 10, 1995 Released: March 13, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. Introduction 1. On January 27, 1995, Comcast Cablevision of New Haven, Inc., Comcast Cablevision of Groton, Inc. and Comcast Cablevision of Clinton, Inc. (collectively, "Comcast") timely filed a "Consolidated Request for Stay of Rate Decision of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control." Each company is subject to two local cable rate orders issued by the State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control ("DPUC"). Thus a total of six local rate orders are at issue in this matter. The six orders were issued by the DPUC on December 29, 1994. The companies included with the consolidated stay request a Motion to Accept Consolidated Request for Stay. The companies maintain that the six local rate proceedings and orders are substantially identical and concern the same issues. They maintain, therefore, that it would be in the public interest to address the stay requests on a consolidated basis. In preparing this order, we have reviewed the pleadings filed in the Consolidated Request for Stay and have determined that the six local rate proceedings and decisions are sufficiently similar to justify the joint resolution of all of the issues raised by the parties in a single consolidated order. We find that this consolidation will not prejudice any of the parties and will serve the interests of administrative efficiency. 2. The six DPUC rate orders at issue derive from the DPUC's proceedings regarding the basic cable rates charged by the three companies. The DPUC proceedings cover the companies' rates in effect for the period from September 1, 1993 to May 15, 1994, and the period after May 15, 1994. In its orders, the DPUC refers to these time periods as "Phase I" and "Phase II." Each company thus has a Phase I and a Phase II decision. In the DPUC rate proceedings, the companies elected to use the cost of service approach in order to justify rates higher than those that would be justified under the benchmark process. 3. The DPUC conducted extensive cost of service proceedings and issued six comprehensive and detailed decisions. In each of the decisions at issue here, the DPUC found that the company's basic service rate and associated installation and equipment charges were above the company's costs, and ordered the company to reduce its rates and refund or credit subscribers for the overcharges levied since September 1, 1993. Comcast states that the ordered refunds total more than $11 million for the three companies combined. The DPUC orders require that Comcast implement the rate reduction on or before March 1, 1995. Comcast seeks a stay of the local rate orders pending the resolution of Comcast's appeals on the merits. The DPUC has not filed an opposition to Comcast's stay request. II. Standard of Review 4. The Commission evaluates petitions for stays under well-settled principles. To support a stay, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted; (3) that other interested parties will not be harmed if the stay is granted; and (4) that the public interest favors the granting of a stay. As discussed below, resolution of this stay petition centers primarily on the strength of Comcast's argument regarding the third prong of this test. III. Discussion 5. The Commission's rules permit operators to implement refunds in either of the following methods: (1) by returning overcharges directly to those subscribers who actually paid the overcharges; or (2) by means of a prospective percentage reduction in the rates for the basic service tier or associated equipment for current subscribers via a specifically identified, one-time credit. Thus, the Commission's rules are structured so that individuals who were actually overcharged might not receive refunds in the future. Thus, a delay in the implementation of the refunds owed by Comcast will not harm any interested party, since if Comcast must implement refunds, it can choose to do so by way of credits to the then- current class of subscribers. 6. A stay of the local rate orders would prevent Comcast from being subjected to the irreparable economic harm of issuing any refunds to subscribers that it could not later recoup. Accordingly, we will grant Comcast's Consolidated Request for Stay, pending the resolution of Comcast's Consolidated Appeal on the merits. 7. Given our findings herein, and the fact that the DPUC has not opposed Comcast's stay requests, we will grant Comcast's request that the DPUC orders in the above- referenced proceedings be stayed pending our full review of this case on the merits. During the period of this stay, Comcast is ordered to deposit in an interest-bearing escrow account the total amount of money that the DPUC has ordered Comcast to refund to its customers. Alternatively, Comcast may elect to post a bond for the benefit of the DPUC. The amount of the bond shall be the total amount of money that the DPUC has ordered Comcast to refund to its customers, plus interest on that amount for a twelve (12) month period from the date of this Order. The bond shall provide that if Comcast is unable to fulfill its refund obligations for any reason, then the surety will fulfill that obligation to the DPUC, on behalf of Comcast's subscribers. IV. Ordering Clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Comcast's Motion to Accept Consolidated Request for Stay IS GRANTED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consolidated Request for Stay filed by Comcast is GRANTED pending the resolution of Comcast's Consolidated Appeal on the merits. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the total amount of money that the DPUC has ordered Comcast to refund to its customers SHALL BE PLACED by Comcast in an interest-bearing escrow account, OR SHALL BE SECURED by the posting of a bond for the benefit of the DPUC for the total amount of money that the DPUC has ordered Comcast to refund to its customers, plus interest on that amount for a twelve (12) month period from the date of this Order. Proof of Comcast's compliance with this Order shall be filed with the Commission within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. Interest shall accrue, or be computed, at the prevailing U.S. Internal Revenue Service Rate for tax refunds and additional tax payments. 11. 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 Chief, Cable Services Bureau