WPC< 2B'J  CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2' 6f ] Z  3|ws 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@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXP2Y f i Xv'3|w",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`Lu8wC;,Xw PE37XPDv7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7XwV"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,cXu&_ x7XXa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pk?ka4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vtb pa7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2 " E   M!a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2%>"##$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 Technical2m(%&8''a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   24+(F))*a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 21f+3+-e#1a8TechnicalTechnical 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*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxp?rtoc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2|@vDuAuBwCytoc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2dDF|Ed~FvGlindex 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG 2HrQM/qendnote referenceendnote referenceH 2: X-   FOR RECORD ONLY $//Appeal ORDER, Time Warner, Brooklyn and Queens, NY, DA 95630//$ $/76.922 Rates for the basic service tier/$ $/76.923 Rates for equipment and installation/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions/$  Y-  Xv-2( Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  XH-Washington, D.C. 20554 TP  Y -In the Matter of:R)hpp   DA 95630 R) TIME WARNER CABLE OF R) NEW YORK CITY AND QUEENS R) INNER UNITY CABLE SYSTEMSR) R) Appeal of Local Rate OrderR) of the City of New York, NYR) (Brooklyn, CUID No. NY1280)R) (Queens, CUID No. NY1281)R) (Queens, CUID No. NY1340)R) (Queens, CUID No. NY1402)R)  Y-}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Y- Adopted : March 27, 1995hh@h Released : March 29, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Xh- I.xINTRODUCTION  Y:-x1.` ` On September 30, 1994, Time Warner Cable of New York City and Queens Inner Unity Cable Systems (collectively, "Time Warner"), the franchisees in the above matter, filed an appeal of a local rate order adopted by the City of New York (the "City") on August 31, 1994. On October 17, 1994, the City filed an opposition to Time Warner's appeal urging the Commission to reject Time Warner's appeal and to allow the City's rate order to go into effect unchanged. Time Warner filed a reply on October 27, 1994. In its rate order, the City established rates for basic tier service and associated equipment and installations in four franchise areas and required Time Warner to refund overcharges to  Y#-subscribers.#ȝ Y%-ԍ Under 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);"(0*0*0*(" Communications Act, 623(b), 47 U.S.C. 543(b)."#y0*0*0*$"Ԍ Y-ԙx2.` ` Time Warner raises three issues in its appeal. First, Time Warner asserts that  Y-the City, in reviewing Time Warner's FCC Form 393 filing,&y= Y-ԍ The Commission's Form 393 ("Determination of Maximum Initial Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Programming Services and Equipment") directs a cable operator to determine its maximum permitted rates for regulated service, equipment, and installations.& impermissibly and arbitrarily  Y-reduced its entry on Line 104 (i.e., equipment and installation revenues) to match its entry  Y-on Line 301 (i.e., equipment and installation costs) in Part II of its Form 393, resulting in a reduction of Time Warner's permitted rate for the basic service tier. Second, Time Warner claims that the City's rate order improperly sets Time Warner's rates for the basic service tier at a lower level than allowed by the Commission's rules because it incorporates a rounding error made by the City's consultant in preparing its report. Third, Time Warner argues that the perchannel rate adopted in the City's rate order is based on an incorrect number of basic service tier channels.  Y -x3.` ` In response, the City asserts that it was reasonable in modifying Time Warner's entry for Line 104 because the Commission has stated that these numbers should be equal if an operator has restructured its equipment and installation rates to comply with the Commission's rules. The City also disputes Time Warner's allegations that the City's consultant committed a rounding error and that it used an incorrect number of basic service tier channels to compute permissible rates. Instead, the City asserts that the rates it set for Time Warner's regulated service comport with the Commission's rules and should not be adjusted. The City also argues that Time Warner should be barred from raising these claims at this juncture because it failed to raise these claims before the City's rate order was issued.  Y!-x4.` ` Under the Commission's rules, appeals of franchising authorities' local rate  Y -orders are reviewed by the Commission.@ = Y-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.944.@ In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the  Y-Commission will not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising  Y-authority's decision as long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.f= Y<-ԍ  See Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket 92 Y' -266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration, MM  Y!-Docket 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order").f Therefore, the Commission will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if it determines that the franchising authority acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its  Y-local rate order.36 = Y%-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" 0*((|"  Y-instructions to resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.3= Yy-ԍ Id.3  X- II.x DISCUSSION  Y-x5. ` ` FCC Form 393 is the official form used by regulators to determine whether an operator's regulated rates for programming, equipment and installations were reasonable  Yv-during the time period from September 1, 1993 until May 14, 1994._xv{= Y -ԍ#Xw PE37=9XP# To the extent that an operator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral  Y -period available under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report an Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119, 41834185  Y] -(1994) ("Second Recon. Order"), the maximum permitted rates determined under Form 393 may also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date that the operator implemented its new rates, as determined under the Form 1200 series._ Form 393 is divided into three separate, but interrelated parts. In Part II, the operator calculates its maximum permitted programming rates, while in Part III, the operator calculates its equipment and installation costs and maximum permitted equipment and installation rates. Part I is a cover sheet that lists the various programming, equipment and installation rates that have been calculated in Parts II and III and compares them to the rates the operator has actually charged during the period of review.  Y -x6.` ` The operator's maximum permitted rates are derived by completing Parts II and III of the Form 393, pursuant to which the operator calculates the actual aggregate revenues collected by the operator for regulated programming, equipment and installation, as  Yy-of the initial date of regulation ("current rate") or as of September 30, 1992.;y= Y-ԍ An operator must calculate its rate in effect on September 30, 1992, only if its current rate level is above the benchmark rate. If an operator's current rate level is at or below the benchmark rate, it is not required to calculate its September 30, 1992 perchannel rate.; After calculating actual aggregate revenues, the operator converts those revenues to a perchannel rate, and then compares the perchannel figures to the applicable benchmark rate. If an operator's current perchannel rate level is below the applicable benchmark rate, then the operator's rate level is deemed reasonable, but it must remain at its current level. If its current perchannel rate level exceeds the benchmark rate, the operator must then compare its September 30, 1992 perchannel rate level to the applicable benchmark rate. If its September 30, 1992 perchannel rate level is above the benchmark rate, it must reduce this rate level to the benchmark rate or by 10%, whichever reduction is less. After computing the permitted rate level in this manner (whether based on current rates or September, 1992 rates), monthly equipment and installation costs are removed to derive the maximum permitted programming rates. Maximum permitted rates for equipment and installation are based on actual cost and are separately calculated in Part III of the Form 393. "N> 0*((M"Ԍ X- xA.` ` SUBSTITUTION OF LINE 301 FOR LINE 104  Y- x7.` ` Time Warner contends that the City, in its review of Time Warner's rate filing, improperly substituted Time Warner's Line 301 entry for its Line 104 entry in Part II of its FCC Form 393, resulting in an inappropriate reduction of its permitted rate for the basic service tier. Time Warner argues that entries for Lines 104 and 301 will, almost by definition, differ slightly because Line 301 requires a "historical" figure while Line 104 requires a "representative" monthly figure. Time Warner claims that an operator's entry for Line 301 should represent a monthly average of past equipment costs while its entry for Line 104 "will fluctuate depending on which month is chosen as 'representative.'" In response,  Y -the City argues that the Commission has previously stated in a Public Notice that an  Y -operator's entries for Lines 104 and 301 should be the same.   = Y~ -ԍ The City cites as support for this proposition, FCC Public Notice, "Questions and Answers on Completion of FCC Form 393 and Associated Filing Requirements," Question and Answer No. 7 (released November 10, 1993).  Because it found that Time Warner's entry for Line 104 was seven percent greater than its entry for Line 301, the City concluded that the entries were substantially different and that, as a result, it was justified in making the substitution in accordance with the Commission's guidelines.  Y-x8.` ` We affirm the City's decision. In the abovementioned Public Notice,3 M= Y-ԍ Id.3 we discussed the issue of the relationship between Lines 104 and 301 on FCC Form 393.   The instructions for completing Worksheet I Line 104 of FCC Form 393 specify that equipment revenues for the year preceding that date shall be used in computations of the current rate per channel which is to be compared to the benchmark. Revenues for the previous years may not be sufficiently representative where the operator has already unbundled and instituted costbased pricing in accordance with our requirements. This answer clarifies that in completing Line 104 operators must use equipment revenues that will be representative of the equipment rates that were in effect as of the initial date of regulation. Where available, actual revenues should be used. Where operators have restructured equipment rates as of September 1, 1993 in accordance with our regulations, we would anticipate that in most cases, absent special circumstances, operators will enter on Line 104 the same, or nearly the same, number as on Line 301. Line 301 is the anticipated revenues  Y$-based on equipment rates derived in accordance with FCC rate regulations.3 $ Y$-ԍ Id.3    It appears that Time Warner restructured its rates prior to the date it filed its initial Form 393 with the City. Consequently, absent special circumstances, it was reasonable for the" 0*(( " City to presume that Time Warner's entries for Lines 104 and 301 on its Form 393 should be the same. Time Warner has not alleged any such special circumstances. Therefore, the City was reasonable in substituting Time Warner's entry for Line 301 onto Line 104.  Y-x9.` ` In fact, the potential consequences that could stem from Time Warner's interpretation of the term "representative" month lend further support to this conclusion. It was not our intent to allow operators to pick and choose any month as a "representative" month to alter the impact on its permitted rate level. If an operator has restructured its rates in compliance with the Commission's rate regulations, the most appropriate figure to determine an operator's average month's equipment revenue generally would appear to be its equipment cost figure in Line 301.  X - xB.` ` ROUNDING ERROR(#`  Y - x10.` ` Time Warner also alleges that, based on its review of a chart in the report prepared by the City's consultant, the City's consultant made a crucial rounding error when the consultant revised Time Warner's Form 393. Specifically, Time Warner claims that the City simply reduced the permitted perchannel rate calculated by Time Warner by $.003 to account for the adjustment the City made to Line 104, resulting in a new permitted perchannel rate of $.296. Time Warner claims that the City subtracted the $.003 figure from an incorrectly rounded perchannel rate of $.299. Time Warner asserts that the base rate it  Y-calculated was actually $.2999, which the City should have rounded up to $.300.v = Y-ԍ Time Warner claims that this rounding error stems from difficulties that it encountered in deriving its permitted rates using the spreadsheet version of Form 393. Time Warner asserts that although the printed version of its Form 393 displayed $.299 in Line 600 of Part II of its Form 393, the correct figure should have been $.300.v Consequently, Time Warner argues that even if it loses its appeal with regard to the substitution of Line 104, the permitted perchannel rate derived by the City should be adjusted to $.297 ($.300 $.003).  Y-x11.` ` In response, the City states that Time Warner mischaracterizes the methodology used by the City to calculate Time Warner's permitted rates. The City asserts that it did not simply reduce the rate calculated by Time Warner by $.003 to derive the permitted perchannel rate. According to the City, it calculated a new perchannel rate by incorporating its changes to Time Warner's data in an amended Form 393. The City claims that, although the $.003 figure cited by Time Warner appears in a chart prepared by its consultant, that chart was simply an attempt to illustrate the numerical difference between the perchannel rate calculated by Time Warner and the perchannel rate calculated by the City's consultant, which was the rate ultimately adopted by the City. In its reply, Time Warner claims that it was not provided a copy of the City's recalculated Form 393 before the City issued its rate order, and, as a result, it was improperly denied an opportunity to analyze and comment on the City's methodology."!4 0*((""Ԍ Y-ԙx12.` ` We reject Time Warner's arguments. We believe Time Warner's rounding argument misses the point. Time Warner attempts to use a consultant's chart, which was prepared for illustrative purposes only and had nothing to do with the actual calculation of the rate, to argue that the City's rate determination was unreasonable. The City has explained that the rate that it adopted as Time Warner's permitted perchannel rate was not derived by subtracting $.003 from the perchannel rate calculated by Time Warner. Instead, the City calculated the permitted perchannel rate by substituting its changes onto Time Warner's Form 393 and recalculating the Form based on these modifications.  Y1-x13.` ` Although the City is required to provide an explanation of its calculations in its rate order, it is not required to provide Time Warner with a copy of a recalculated Form  Y -393.e  = Y| -ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.936; Rate Order at 5715.e In this instance, the City provided Time Warner with a written decision as well as copies of many of the documents it relied upon in issuing its decision, including its consultant's report. It appears from the submissions that the City has made extensive efforts to inform Time Warner of the reasons for its actions. To confirm the City's results, Time Warner itself could have recalculated its own Form 393 based on the modifications that the City had announced that it had made. Significantly, Time Warner does not argue that, when the City's modifications are used to recalculate Time Warner's Form 393, the resulting permitted rate should be different than that rate derived by the City. Based on all of this, we conclude that Time Warner had enough information to understand the logic and to recognize the factual bases of the City's decision.  X-x C.` ` CHANNEL COUNT  Y-  Y-x14.` ` Time Warner also alleges that the City incorrectly calculated its permitted  Y-basic service tier rate based on 35 channels rather than 35.3 channels.{= Y-ԍ To derive a fractional figure that represented the number of system subscribers receiving the additional channel, Time Warner used a weighted average based on the total  Y-number of subscribers receiving the additional channel (i.e., the total number of subscribers in the franchise area served by 36 channels) in relation to its overall subscribership for the entire system comprising each of the four franchise areas. Time Warner justifies its use of fractional channels by claiming that it submitted its rate filing on a systemwide basis, comprising four separate franchise areas, rather than by each individual franchise area. In three of the four franchise areas it had 35 channels, and in the remaining franchise area it had 36 channels. Time Warner claims that it entered 35.3 channels on Line 101 of Part II of the Form 393 spreadsheet to represent the average number of channels in each franchise area affected by the rate filing. However, the printout version of Time Warner's  Y -Form 393 computer spreadsheet only displayed 35 channels on Line 101 of Part II. = Y&-ԍ Time Warner claims that this discrepancy was due to the fact that the spreadsheet program was set up so that the form displays only whole, not fractional, channels. Even" l 0*((" though 35.3 channels was not actually displayed in Line 101 of the printout version of its Form 393, Time Warner suggests that its use of 35.3 channels, rather than 35 channels, in the computer spreadsheet version of the Form should have been evident to the City when the City conducted its review of Time Warner's filing. In response, the City argues that it reasonably relied on Time Warner's revised Form 393 that listed 35 channels on Line 101 of Part II. Furthermore, the City claims that Time Warner never suggested that the proper figure should be 35.3 channels.  YH-x15.` ` It is clear that Time Warner made a single systemwide filing covering these  Y1-four franchise areas. Systemwide filings may only be made when, inter alia, channel line Y -ups are the same for each franchise area covered by the filing. = Y -ԍ FCC Form 393, p.10, n.1; See, e.g., Time Warner Cable of New York, Inc. and  Y -Queens Inner Unity Cable Systems, Inc., DA 95429 (Cable Programming Service Rate  Yk -Complaint) (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Mar. 7, 1995); See also, Public Notice, "Cable Television Rate Regulation: Questions and Answers Relating to FCC Form 393," Question and Answer No. 3 (released July 30, 1993). Time Warner is not permitted to submit a single rate filing using systemwide data for four franchise areas where  Y -one of the four franchise areas has a different channel lineup.7 #= Y-ԍ See Id.7 As a result, Time Warner may not use fractional channels to account for services that vary by franchise area. Time Warner must submit a separate filing for the franchise area with a different channel lineup. Consequently, we remand this issue to the City for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Order."0*(("  X- III.XxORDERING CLAUSES (#  Y-x16.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal filed by Time Warner Cable of New York and Queens Inner Unity Cable Systems with respect to the reasonableness of the City of New York's substitution of Time Warner's entry on Line 301 for its entry on Line  Y-104 on its Form 393 IS DENIED .  Ya-x17.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Time Warner's and Queen Inner Unity's appeal regarding the effect of a purported rounding error on its permitted rate for the basic  Y4-service tier IS DENIED .  Y -x18.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Time Warner's and Queen Inner Unity's appeal regarding the appropriate number of basic service tier channels relied on by the City  Y -in issuing its rate order IS REMANDED to the City for proceedings consistent with the terms of this Order.  Y-x19.` ` 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