WPCX> 2 BJ ZCourier3|x BoldCG TimesX@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@3|x 2B < v 700_1; LPT2onal)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\\xX@CourierCourier BoldCG TimesCG Times Bolda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2_ptkkOa4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vt{ a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2   = a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2T   { T 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 Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2 Vda1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2DSa3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2- 3ea8TechnicalTechnical 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:",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L ?< FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $/CONSOLIDATED ORDER, Comcast Cablevision, Connnecticut/$ $/76.922 Rates for basic service tier/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decision/$  ? <$/1.44 Requests for Stay/$ Đ X-T#Xw PE37XP#  X01Í ÍX01Í Í T / Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554  Yu-T TP`(# DA 95469  Y0 -In the Matter of:R) ăhNew Haven, CT  Y -R)hHamden, CT  Y -COMCAST CABLEVISION OF R)hWest Haven, CT  Y - NEW HAVEN, INC.R)hpp R)  Y-Request for Stay of Local Rate OrdersR)h  Y-(Docket Nos. 931216, 940626) of R)h  Y-the State of ConnecticutR)h  Yx-Department of Public R)h  Ya-Utility Control; and hh@R)h T x` `  Y-COMCAST CABLEVISION OF R)hGroton, CT  Y- GROTON, INC.R)hLedyard, CT  Y-R)hStonington, CT  Y-Request for Stay of Local Rate OrdersR)hVoluntown, CT    Y-(Docket Nos. 931218, 940628) of R)hNorth Stonington, CT  Y-the State of ConnecticutTR)h  Y-Department of Public R)h  Y{-Utility Control  R)h  YM-COMCAST CABLEVISION OF R)hClinton, CT  Haddam, CT  Y6- CLINTON, INC.R)hDeep River, CT  Durham, CT  Y -R)hEssex, CT  Old Saybrook, CT  Y!-Request for Stay of Local Rate OrdersR)hChester, CT  Westbrook, CT  Y!-(Docket Nos. 931217, 940627) of R)hKillingworth, CT  Y"-the State of ConnecticutTR)h  Y#-Department of Public R)h  Y$-Utility Control  R)h  Y~&-8 CONSOLIDATED ORDER ă  YQ(- Adopted :` ` March 10, 1995hh@hpp Released :  March 13, 1995 ";)0*0*0* +"ԌBy the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:   X- I.xIntroduction  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1.` ` 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  Y1-("DPUC"). Thus a total of six local rate orders are at issue in this matter.x1 Y -ԍxThe local rate orders in Docket Nos. 931216 and 940426 pertain to Comcast Cablevision of New Haven, Inc.; the local rate orders in Docket Nos. 931217 and 940627 pertain to Comcast Cablevision of Clinton, Inc.; and the local rate orders in Docket Nos. 931218 and 940628 pertain to Comcast Cablevision of Groton, Inc.x The six orders  Y -were issued by the DPUC on December 29, 1994. 4 Y-ԍxOn January 30, 1995, the companies filed a Consolidated Appeal of the six DPUC rate orders. 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  Y -the stay requests on a consolidated basis.c  Y=-ԍxMotion to Accept Consolidated Stay Request at 12.c 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.  Y4-x2.` ` The six DPUC rate orders at issue derive from the DPUC's proceedings  Y-regarding the basic cable rates charged by the three companies.  YM-ԍxUnder the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") and the Commission's implementing regulations, local franchising authorities  Y -may regulate rates for basic cable service and associated equipment. See Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(b), 47 U.S.C.  543(b). 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.  Y|-x3.` ` 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"e0*0*0*l" 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"0*((" credit subscribers for the overcharges levied since September 1, 1993. Comcast states that  Y-the ordered refunds total more than $11 million for the three companies combined.E~ Yb-ԍxStay Request at iii.E 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. x  Xv- II.xStandard of Review x  YH-x4.` ` The Commission evaluates petitions for stays under wellsettled 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  Y -of a stay.v y~ Y-ԍxSee Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F. 2d 669, 67374 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per  Y-curiam); Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d  Y-841, 84243 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958).v As discussed below, resolution of this stay petition centers primarily on the strength of Comcast's argument regarding the third prong of this test.  X -  X -III.xDiscussion  Yy- x5 .` ` 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  Y-identified, onetime credit.i~ Y-#Xw PE37-x11.` ` 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. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau