WPC\E 2?BEJ ZCourier Y-#Xw PE37XP#HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@CourierCG TimesCG Times Bold#Xw PE37=9XP#2p q/f 3|w  LPT2onal)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\\xX@3|w CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic",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@\@\`L2^v pkka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2v5ta2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2   5 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 Oa5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2**Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2:5a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2l$)35h 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:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxFx6X@`7X@g8wC;,=9Xw PE37XPDh7zC;,BXz_ pi7XiV"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,~Xu&_ x7XXt defaultsAPreferences Menu;Change initial WordPerfect and document settingsEdit ;Change this documentILink Menu;Paste, update, create, edit or delete DDE links in",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2ZE X-   FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $/ORDER remanding local rate order of Washington/$ $/Court House, OH, DA95479/$ $/76.922 Basic Tier Rates/$ $/76.933 Franchising Authority Review of basic cable rates and equipment costs/$ $/76.936 Written Decision/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Rate Decision/$  X_-$/76.986 "A la carte" offerings/$  X1-J(X01Í ÍX01Í Í Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X -Washington, D.C. 20554 lU In the Matter of:j) j) CHILLICOTHE CABLEVISION, INC.,j)  Y-D/B/A DIMENSION CABLE SERVICESj)pp DA 95479 j) Appeal of Localj) Rate Order of City of j) Washington Court House, OHj)  Y-R ORDER ă  Y- Adopted : March 13, 1995hh,V Released : March 14, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X- I. INTRODUCTION  YQ- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1.` ` On August 25, 1994, Chillicothe Cablevision, Inc., d/b/a Dimension Cable Services ("Dimension"), the franchisee in the abovematter, filed a Petition for Review ("appeal") of a local rate order adopted by its franchising authority, the City of Washington  Y -Court House, Ohio ("the City").c D Y -ԍ Along with its Petition for Review, Dimension also filed on August 25, 1994 a Petition for Stay Pending Review of the Rate Order. The City has not filed an opposition to the stay petition. Because we are resolving this dispute on the merits presented in the appeal, the petition for stay has been rendered moot.c The City filed no opposition to the appeal. On July 26,  Y-1994, the City adopted its local rate order, based on the FCC Form 3934D Y%-ԍ FCC Form 393 is the official form used by cable operators to determine whether their regulated rates for programming, equipment and installations were reasonable for the period beginning September 1, 1993 and ending May 15, 1994. filed by Dimension, requiring Dimension to establish a new rate schedule for its basic service tier and associated"0*0*0* " equipment and installations and to issue refunds to subscribers for charges in excess of the  Y-newly established rates.F Yb-ԍ Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), and the Commission's implementing regulations, local franchising authorities  Y4-may regulate rates for basic cable service and associated equipment and installations. 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). In its appeal, Dimension urges the Commission to vacate the City's rate order.  Y-2.` ` Dimension raises five separate issues in its appeal: (1) that the City unlawfully ordered subscriber refunds even though its authority to order refunds had expired; (2) that the City improperly imposed refund liability dating back to September 1992 and failed to follow the mathematical formula required by the Commission for calculating refunds; (3) that the City Council did not formally adopt the rate order; (4) that the City failed to disclose the basis for the rates set in the rate order; and (5) that the City incorrectly treated a package of a la carte channels as regulated offerings in issuing its rate order. Dimension claims that each of these actions resulted in a misapplication of the Commission's rate regulations and violated the 1992 Cable Act. Consequently, Dimension argues that the local rate order is defective on its face and must be vacated by the Commission.  Y - 3.` ` Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be  Y-appealed to the Commission.JF Y`-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.944.J In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will  Yy-not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising authority's decision as  Yd-long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.gdF Y-ԍ See Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92 Y-266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration in MM  Y-Dockets 92262 & 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order").g Therefore, the Commission will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if it determines that the franchising authority  Y6-acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.36[ F YB-ԍ Id.3 If the Commission reverses a franchising authority's decision, it will not substitute its own decision but instead will remand the issue to the franchising authority with instructions to  Y-resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.3 F Y#-ԍ Id.3  X- II. DISCUSSION  X- A.` ` Refund Liability"0*(("Ԍ Y- ę4.` ` When a cable operator files either a benchmark or costofservice rate justification, the Commission's rules provide a franchising authority 30 days in which to  Y-review the rate filing before the proposed rates become effective.MF YK-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.933(a).M In cases involving benchmark filings (i.e., filings based on FCC Form 393), a franchising authority may toll this deadline for an additional 90 days if it needs more time to review the filing, giving the franchising authority a total of 120 days to issue an order before the proposed rates go into  Yv-effect. v{F Y -ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.933(b). In the case of a costofservice filing, the local  Y -franchising authority may extend the review period by 150 days. Id. This would give the local franchising authority a total of 180 days (the original 30 days plus the additional 150 days) to review the costofservice filing before the proposed rates would go into effect. At the end of the 120day period (the original 30 days plus the additional 90 days), the proposed rates will go into effect if the franchising authority has not issued a rate  YH-decision.3 HF Y-ԍ Id.3 The franchising authority, however, may still preserve its authority to order subscriber refunds based on the new rates by issuing an accounting order, directing the cable  Y -operator to keep an accurate account of its financial records.M  F Yi-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.933(c).M If a franchising authority has not rendered a decision within the available 120day review period and has not issued an accounting order before that period has expired, the franchising authority may not later order  Y -subscriber refunds under our rules.  Q F Y-ԍ "If a franchising authority has availed itself of the additional 90 or 150 days permitted in paragraph (b) of this section, and has taken no action within these additional time periods, then the proposed rates will go into effect at the end of the 90 or 150 day period, or existing rates will remain in effect at such times, subject to refunds if the franchising authority  Y{-subsequently issues a written decision disapproving any portion of such rates, provided,  Yf-however, that in order to order refunds, a franchising authority must have issued a brief written order to the cable operator by the end of the 90 or 150day period permitted in paragraph (b) of this section directing the operator to keep an accurate account of all amounts received by reason of the rate in issue and on whose behalf such amounts were paid." 47 C.F.R. 76.933(c) (emphasis in the original). We wish to be clear that our rules provide that the issuance of an accounting order is necessary only to preserve refund authority. A franchising authority that does not issue an accounting order before its allowable period of review expires may still prescribe rates and order a prospective rate reduction.  Yb-5.` ` While we recognize that cable rate regulation is relatively new to all concerned parties, we must enforce both our substantive and procedural rules to maintain the integrity of the rate review process and to ensure consistency in decisionmaking. Just as it is important for cable operators to file their rate justifications in a timely manner, it is"7 0*((" important that they be able to implement their proposed rates with as little delay as  Y-possible. F Yb-ԍ "Franchise authority review of a cable operator's current rates for the basic service tier and accompanying equipment, and proposed increases in these rates, require expedition so that protracted proceedings and concomitant uncertainty do not injure an operator's ability  Y-to serve the community. Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5708. Our rules attempt to ensure that this concern is balanced against the need for franchising authorities to have adequate time to carefully scrutinize and evaluate an operator's rate filing. Therefore, our rules permit a franchising authority to toll the deadline for its review for 90 days in a benchmark filing and, if necessary, to issue an accounting  Y-order to preserve refund liability beyond that period.6F Yt -ԍ Public Notice, Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation, Question No. 4 (released April 26, 1994). Through these mechanisms, the franchising authority is given time to fully review a rate justification filing, while the cable operator is protected from having to operate in an uncertain regulatory environment for an  YH-indefinite period of time.xHF Y-ԍ "We note that where a proposed rate increase goes into effect due to franchise authority inaction, or the authority fails to take any action regarding the reasonableness of current rates, the authority lacks the power to order refunds. If the authority wishes to retain the right to order such refunds, it must at minimum issue an order stating that it will need  Yo-additional time to reach a decision on the merits." Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5711, n.314. Absent a waiver granted by the Commission, both parties are bound by the deadlines provided in our rules. Although Dimension appears to have voluntarily participated in the rate review process beyond the official review period, this activity does not constitute a waiver of our procedural deadlines.  X[A] local franchising authority and a cable operator may not agree to waive a procedural deadline contained in the Commission's rules. A franchising authority and a cable operator that mutually agree that an extension of time would be desirable may petition for a waiver of the Commission's rules  Yy-establishing deadlines for filing rate justifications.yF Y<-ԍ Public Notice, Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation, Question  Y' -No. 19 (released May 6, 1994). Even if Dimension had been ordered by the City to resubmit its filing on an official FCC Form 393, the review period would have only been  Y!-automatically tolled for an additional 14 days. Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4349.   YK-6.` ` Because the City did not issue an accounting order before the conclusion of its review period, it lost the authority to order subscriber refunds. As a result of the City's failure to issue an accounting order, Dimension's second argument, in which it states that the City improperly imposed refund liability back to September 1992 and failed to follow the Commission's rate formula in calculating the refund liability, is rendered moot. We note,"0*((" however, that, although Dimension will not be liable for the refunds ordered by the City with regard to its rates set under Form 393 in effect from September 1, 1993 until May 15,  Y-1994,F YK-ԍIf a cable operator has taken advantage of the refund deferral period set out in the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  Y-Rulemaking in MM Docket 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119, 418486 (1994) ("Second Recon.  Y-Order"), the period at issue could be as long as September 1, 1993 to July 14, 1994. this order has no effect upon the City's authority to rule on the reasonableness of Dimension's rates as set by the Form 1200 series, nor does it impact upon the City's authority to order subscriber refunds subsequent to May 15, 1994.  Xv- B.` ` Formal Adoption of the Rate Order  YH-7.` ` Dimension alleges that the local rate order is invalid because it was never considered or adopted by the City Council, which Dimension claims is the lawful franchising authority, but instead was issued by the City Administrator. We have previously stated that a franchising authority may delegate its ratemaking responsibilities to a subordinate entity if  Y -so authorized by state or local law. 8F Y-ԍ Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4339. We do not decide here whether the City was authorized by state or local law to delegate its ratemaking responsibilities. The courts are the appropriate forum for deciding that particular question. V XAny such subordinate entity will be acting as the authorized agent of and at the will and pleasure of the franchising authority, and its actions will be subject to at least the implicit, if not explicit, ratification of the full franchising authority. We believe that because of the many demands placed on municipalities and other entities that serve as franchising authorities, such flexibility is necessary to better enable franchising authorities to implement and enforce the Commission's regulations within the time frames specified in our procedural  Y-rules.3F Y-ԍ Id.3  We have further stated that rate decisions need not be issued by resolution or ordinance, but  Y-may be made by letter or other form, so long as they meet public notice requirements.3p F Y!-ԍ Id.3 Here, the City Administrator, a subordinate of the franchising authority, i.e., the City, has issued a rate order by way of a published letter on behalf of the City. This method appears to comport with our requirements in this regard. Furthermore, if local laws have been violated by this delegation of authority, the proper remedy would have to be found under"|# 0*((|"  Y-local law.OxF Yy-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.944(a) ("The Commission shall be the sole forum for appeals of decisions by franchising authorities on rates for the basic service tier or associated equipment involving whether or not a franchising authority has acted consistently with the Cable Act or 76.922 and 76.923. Appeals of ratemaking decision by franchising authorities that do not depend upon determining whether a franchising authority has acted consistently with the Cable Act or 76.922 or 76.923, may be heard in state or local courts.")O Because final resolution of this issue may rest with an interpretation of applicable local law and not federal law, a state or local court is the appropriate forum to hear this matter. For this reason, we deny Dimension's petition on this issue.  X- C.` ` Written Decision  Yv-8. ` ` Dimension also contends that the City's rate order should be remanded because it failed to disclose the basis for the rates set. The City's rate order was a onepage document, signed by the City Administrator, that stated the perchannel charge that Dimension was permitted to charge. The only piece of information relating to the City's rationale for setting the perchannel charge dealt with Dimension's a la carte package,  Y -discussed infra. The City did not state, nor does it appear from the record, that its ratesetting or refund decisions were based solely on its treatment of the a la carte package as a regulated tier. Moreover, the City did not state in the order what were Dimension's permitted charges for equipment and installation.  Y-9. ` ` Dimension correctly notes that Commission rules require that the local  Y{-franchising authority issue a written decision.h{F Y4-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.936; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 571516.h Moreover, where the franchising authority prescribes a rate, as the City did here, the written decision must affirmatively demonstrate  YM-why the operator's proposed rate is unreasonable and why the prescribed rate is reasonable.PMF Y-ԍ Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5723. P It appears from the record below that the City's rate order did not comport with our rules in  Y-this area.jn F Y>-ԍ See AR Cable ServicesME, Inc., DA 9575 (Jan. 20, 1995).j Therefore, we remand this case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.  X- D.` ` A la carte  Y- 10. ` ` Lastly, Dimension contends that the City improperly included in its total"! 0*(("  Y-regulated channel count the channels offered in its a la carte package. F Yy-ԍ The 1992 Cable Act provides that per channel offerings do not fall within the definition of regulated cable programming services. Communications Act, 623(l)(2), 47 U.S.C. 543(l)(2). The Commission determined that collective offerings of individual channels or a la carte packages would be exempt from rate regulation if two conditions were  Y-met. Rate Order at 583637 and note 808. In the Second Recon. Order the Commission affirmed its prior view. It said that "we continue to believe that the public interest will be served by generally permitting non-regulated treatment of collective offerings of a la carte channels if the offering enhances consumer choice and does not constitute an evasion of rate  Y -regulation." Second Recon. OrderĠat 4212. In this regard, the Commission retained the  Y -twopart test contained in the Rate Order for determining when we would refrain from regulating "a la carte packages." In addition, the Commission set out 15 guidelines to enable operators to better determine what collective offerings of "a la carte" channels will be  Yk -considered "realistic service offerings." Id. at 4213. Beginning on August 31, 1993, Dimension began offering a package that consisted of four channels AMC, The Discovery Channel, The Nashville Network, and TNT. Dimension states that its basiconly  Y-subscribers received the a la carte package at no additional cost.9m F Y-ԍ Appeal at 20. 9 The record also indicates  Y-that all of its cable programming services subscribers received the package at no charge.rF Ys-ԍ Letter from David Surgalski to Robert Wakefield at 2,3 (July 20, 1994). r All of Dimension's subscribers, therefore, apparently received all channels in the package at no additional cost and no subscriber received any less than all four channels in the package. Dimension in fact indicates that it lacked the technology to offer the four channels in the package on an individual basis. The City ruled that because Dimension alleged that it lacked the resources to separate the purported a la carte service from the basic service tier, the City would treat the channels as a regulated tier. Dimension argues that the package was a legitimate a la carte offering, and that subscribers merely received a bonus, however temporary, pending installation of the equipment necessary to prevent unauthorized viewing.  Y - 11. ` ` Dimension's package of four channels that it alleges is an a la carte package and thus not subject to regulation is not a true a la carte package and does not even meet the threshold requirement that channels be offered on a per channel basis. Our rules required that Dimension offer the channels in the package on an individual basis as well as a  Yb-collective basis in order to be categorized as an unregulated a la carte package.xbF Y"-ԍ "Collective offerings of unregulated perchannel or perprogram ("a la carte") video programming shall not be regulated if: . . . (2) the cable operator continues to provide the component parts of the package to subscribers separately in addition to the collective offering." 47 C.F.R.  76.986(a)(2) (superseded January 1, 1995).x Dimension did not, however, offer the four alleged a la carte channels individually to its subscribers. Its claim that the channels are not regulated is, therefore, not supported by our rules. "4;0*((" Consequently, Dimension's alleged a la carte package is composed of regulated channels for purposes of its 393 filing. Dimension's appeal of the City's order holding that the four channels in Dimension's alleged a la carte package are regulated channels is denied.  X-  X-III.Ordering Clauses  Yv- 12.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal of the local rate order adopted by the City of Washington Court House, Ohio with respect to Dimension Cable Service's  YI-refund liability and the necessity of providing a basis for the rates prescribed IS  Y3-REMANDED to the local franchising authority for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  Y - 13.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dimension Cable Service's appeal with respect to formal adoption of the rate order by the City Council of the City of Washington  Y -Courthouse IS DENIED .  Y- 14.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dimension Cable Service's appeal with  Y-regard to Dimension Cable Service's alleged a la carte package IS DENIED .  YR-15.` ` 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. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Meredith J. Jones ` `  hh,Chief, Cable Services Bureau