WPCp 2BJ  Courier3|w Xw PE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6f F Z  3|w ",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\oeXP2B vY p k?CG TimesCG Times Bolda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kGvtba5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2  E a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2  >a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right 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-(# 28a8Right 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 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2jFa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2 f3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   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)Documentg2%Q eU$$:%PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:.X@Right Par 3Right Par 3+` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4,` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5-` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6.` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#20K/B0D1(F2$ IRight Par 7Right Par 7/` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 80` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2P3$bK4lM5lM6$^NTechnical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 Technical 3Technical 35 Technical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2W7lP8$ Q9$DS:hUTechnical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#20`;W<Y=[>^toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#22g?b`@vbAbBetoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#24nCdgDiEkFvmindex 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2pGlfnHrnXDoQ_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH c8wC;,Xw PE37XPD7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7XddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCdYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4ddddd2p X-   FOR RECORD ONLY $//Appeal CONSOLIDATED ORDER, Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.; Chula Vista, La xMesa, Poway, and San Diego, CA, DA 95743//$ $/76.922 Rates for the basic service tier/$ $/76.923 Rates for equipment and installation/$ $/76.937 Burden of proof/$ $/76.942 Refunds/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decision/$  YH-  X -2(X01Í ÍX01Í Í #Xw PE37XP#Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X -Washington, D.C. 20554 TP  Y-In the Matter of: hh@R) ăhpp DA 95743 R)  Yc-COX CABLE SAN DIEGO, INC.hhTR) x` `  hhR)  Y5-Appeal of Local hhR)  Y-Rate Order of City of hhR) Chula Vista, CA.; N ) R) Appeal of Local R)VV Rate Order of City of R) La Mesa, CA.;R) R) Appeal of Local R) Rate Order of City ofR) Poway, CA.;R) R) Appeal of LocalR) Rate Order of City ofR) San Diego, CA. R)  Y -8 CONSOLIDATED ORDER ă  Y"- Adopted : April 5, 1995`(# Released : April 7, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X=&- I. xINTRODUCTION   Y(-x1.` ` By this order, the Commission consolidates and resolves four separate appeals of local cable rate orders filed by Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. ("Cox") on August 24, 1994. "(0*0*0*0*" The first appeal involves the local rate order adopted by the City of Chula Vista, California on June 21, 1994, which became effective on July 25, 1994. The second appeal involves the local rate order adopted by the City of La Mesa, California on June 14, 1994, which became effective on July 25, 1994. The third appeal involves the local rate order adopted by the  Y-City of Poway, California on June 28, 1994, which became effective on July 25, 1994. The fourth appeal involves the local rate order adopted by the City of San Diego, California on July 25, 1994. The Bureau has determined that the proceedings are sufficiently similar to justify the joint resolution of all of the issues raised by each party in a single consolidated  YH-order.z_H< Y -ԍxCox addresses the same issues and relies on substantially the same arguments in each appeal. Likewise, the cities of Chula Vista, La Mesa, Poway, and San Diego (collectively, "the Cities") have filed substantially similar oppositions. In addition to the four separate appeals of the local cable rate orders, Cox also filed separate petitions for stay of the local cable rate order of each of the four cities involved in this proceeding. Because we are resolving these disputes on the merits presented in the several appeals, the requests for stay have been rendered moot. z We find that this consolidation will not prejudice any of the parties and will serve the interests of administrative efficiency.  Y -  Y -x2.` ` Each of the local rate orders establishes a new regulated rate schedule for  Y -Cox's basic service tier rates and associated equipment.> < Y-ԍxEach of the four cities held separate public hearings and made separate rate decisions. The cities of Chula Vista, La Mesa, and Poway jointly contracted with the same consulting  Y^-firm, Public Knowledge, Inc., to review the FCC Form 393 submitted by Cox. See, e.g., La Mesa Opposition at 1. We note that our rules permit communities that are served by the  Y2-same system to make arrangements to share the cost of data collection (e.g., hiring an independent consulting firm to review the Form 393 submitted by an operator) and to make  Y-independent rate decisions. See Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  Y-Rulemaking, MM Docket 92266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5688 (1993) ("Report and Order"). The City of San Diego relied on its Audit Division to conduct a review of Cox's Form 393. The Audit Division's findings regarding Cox's Form 393 are substantially similar to those made by the other cities' private consultant. > Specifically, each city's local rate order requires Cox to implement certain rate reductions and to issue refunds to subscribers,  Y -dating back to September 1, 1993. < Y1!-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).   Y-x3.` ` Cox raises three issues on appeal. First, Cox argues that the Cities have misapplied the Commission's rate regulations by refusing to offset equipment undercharges"y0*((" against programming overcharges in determining its total refund liability. Second, Cox argues that it was improper for the Cities to disallow equipment revenue (in Line 204) attributable to the lease of decoders. Cox asserts that the charges for the decoder that the Cities disallowed were included in the fee it charged customers who subscribed to premium channels, and since that portion of the premium channel fee was, in fact, a fee for lease of regulated equipment, it should be added to Cox's equipment revenue. Third, Cox argues that the Cities erroneously "refreshed" the inflation figures in its FCC Form 393, even though its rates were justified using the old data.  Y1- x4.` ` In response, the Cities maintain that they properly applied the Commission's regulations in their rate orders in regard to offsets. Alternatively, the Cities argue that, if the Commission decides that a refund offset is applicable in this case, the offset should take into account any overcharges on the cable programming service ("CPS") tiers, and the offset should be made in proportion to the number of channels in use on each tier. With respect to the decoder issue, the Cities argue that they were justified in removing that portion of the equipment revenue attributed to the lease of the decoders since Cox could not prove that it  Y-actually charged premium subscribers for them. With respect to the inflation adjustment issue, the Cities argue that they properly adjusted Cox's inflation data in accordance with our  Yb-rules.b< Y-ԍxThe Cities also assert that the Commission should "ignore" the Form 393 Cox submitted as an exhibit to its appeals because that Form is different from the ones Cox submitted to the Cities for rate review and because the Cities have not had an opportunity to review that new version. We need not address this issue since it is not necessary for us to review Cox's Form 393 in deciding this appeal.   X4- II.xDISCUSSION  Y-x5.` ` Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be  Y-appealed to the Commission.M< Y-ԍx47 C.F.R. 76.944.M In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will  Y-not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising authority's decision as  Y-long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.< YB -ԍxSee Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5731; Third Order on Reconsideration in MM  Y-!-Docket Nos. 92266 and 92262, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order"). Therefore, the Commission will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if it determines that the franchising authority  Y-acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.il < Y$-ԍxThird Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4346.i If  Y~-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"g 0*((l"  Y-resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal .B< Yy-ԍxId. B  X-x A.` ` Refund Offsets  Y-x6. ` ` FCC Form 393 is the official form used by regulators to determine whether an  Y-operator's regulated rates for programming, equipment and installations were reasonable  Yv-during the time period from September 1, 1993 until May 14, 1994.f xv{< Y -ԍ#Xw PE37 0*((M" maximum permitted rate and should be reduced. Cox asserts that while the Cities have ordered Cox to refund the excessive charges for basic service, it did not allow Cox to reduce the amount of the refund by the amount that Cox was undercharging for basic equipment.  Y-x8.` ` After setting the various regulated rates that an operator is permitted to charge on a prospective basis, a franchising authority should then determine if the operator is liable for any subscriber refunds. A refund liability can be imposed when an operator's actual  Y_-charges exceed maximum permitted levels during the applicable period of review.Q _< Y-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.942.Q If an  YH-operator's aggregate revenues computed from its actual rates exceed its revenues computed from its permitted rates during the period of review, the operator must refund the difference  Y -to subscribers. z {< YF -ԍ See Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4353 ("Although maximum permitted rates are  Y1-always determined on an unbundled basis, i.e., separately for program service and equipment, refund liability may stem from bundled rates. We conclude that the refund liability should be calculated based on the difference between old bundled rates and the sum of the new unbundled program service charge(s) and the new unbundled equipment charge(s)."). In this proceeding, any refunds to be paid by Cox should be calculated based on this method.  Y -x9.` ` While the Commission will sustain the decisions of franchising authorities if there is a reasonable basis for doing so, we expect franchising authorities to adhere to the mathematical principles underlying the benchmark methodology, particularly when  Y-calculating an operator's refund liability. < Y-ԍxSee Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5731; Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4346. In this case, the Cities have directed Cox to reduce its basic service charges to the maximum permitted level and to issue refunds without regard to the fact that some rates for equipment are below the maximum permitted levels. We find that the Cities must offset or reduce any refunds they may order by the difference between the actual equipment and installation rates that Cox charged and the maximum  Y-permitted rates that it could have charged during the applicable period of review.,5p < Y>-ԍxSee Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4353. However, we note that operators may not set programming service rates at higher than permitted maximum rates to recover lost equipment revenues when they voluntarily price equipment rates below their maximum permitted levels. To permit operators to do so would undermine Congress's intention to  Y"-create a competitive market of cable equipment providers. See Communications Act,   Y#-624A(c)(2)(C), 47 U.S.C.  544A(c)(2)(C); Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Compatability Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, First Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1981, 1982 (1994). , We are remanding this issue to the Cities so that they can reconsider their respective rulings in a"m0*(("  Y-manner consistent with our findings.O< Yy-ԍxSee TCI Cablevision of North Central Kentucky, Inc. (Mount Washington, KY), DA  Yd-941479 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released December 14, 1994); see also Community TV Corporation (Town of Alton, N.H.), DA 95147 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released February 6, 1995). O  Y-x10.` ` The Cities argue that if the Commission decides that a refund offset is applicable in this case, the offset should be apportioned between the basic and CPS service  Y-because "the retroactive equipment charge is for equipment used for both tiers,"R8< Y -ԍxSan Diego Opposition at 10 n.7. R and because "[t]his apportionment method would be consistent with the Form 393 procedures, where the total cost of the equipment basket (Step G Line 34) affects (at Worksheet 3 Line  Y_-301) the maximum permitted rate applied to each tier of service."_< Y-ԍxChula Vista Opposition at 78; Poway Opposition at 6; and accord La Mesa  Y-Opposition at 2 ("The City of La Mesa supports and concurs with the views expressed in Chula Vista's [Opposition]"). The Cities' argument is unpersuasive.  Y -x11.` ` We have previously stated that the rate regulation for basic equipment covers all equipment used by subscribers to receive the basic service tier, even if the equipment is  Y -also used for other cable services. n < Y -ԍ See Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5800; see also 47 C.F.R.  76.923(a). Therefore, all rate calculations involving such equipment, including offsets, are properly confined to the basic tier. Apportioning refund offsets between basic and CPS tiers, based on equipment charges, would not be consistent with our regulatory scheme which considers all equipment used to receive basic service as  Y-basic equipment.! < Yb-ԍ We note that none of our decisions to date have allowed for any type of refund offsets between tiers.  Xb-x B.` ` Charges for Decoders (#`  Y4-x12.` ` Each city's rate order reflects the removal of a portion of the equipment revenue that Cox included in Line 204 of its Form 393 filing. According to the Cities, during the applicable period, Cox leased decoders at no charge to those subscribers who also purchased one or more pay services. Cox's decoders, also known as addressable converters, can receive, in addition to basic service and cable programming service tiers, premium  Y-channels and payperview services._< Y-'-ԍxSee Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5802._ The Cities further assert that Cox provided these"n0*((" decoders for free in order to induce subscribers to purchase pay services. The Cities also disallowed inclusion of these decoders as equipment revenue because none of the pay service revenue received from these subscribers was booked separately as equipment revenue in Cox's accounting records and, therefore, charges for these decoders could not be verified. According to the Cities, only in preparing its Form 393 did Cox assign some of the pay service revenue to the equipment category and assign a value to the decoders based on what subscribers who did not take any pay services paid for the decoders.  YH-x13. ` ` Cox argues that it was improper for the Cities to disallow equipment revenue attributable to the lease of decoders. Ordinarily, Cox charged those subscribers who purchased only tiered services a monthly fee of two dollars for the rental of decoder equipment, which Cox included in its Form 393 as part of its equipment revenue. Cox contends that it should also be able to consider as part of its equipment revenue a charge of $2.00 for each subscriber who did not pay separately for a decoder. In support of this proposition, Cox alleges that the price of the decoder was included in the fee it charged subscribers for premium channels, and since that portion of the premium channel fee was, in fact, a fee for lease of regulated equipment, it should be added to Cox's equipment revenues. Cox disputes the Cities' charge that it provided the decoders at no charge as a promotional offering. Cox asserts that it was its standard practice to bundle decoder revenue with the cost of premium services. Finally, Cox argues that the City's reliance on the fact that Cox did not book the decoder revenue as equipment revenue is misplaced. Cox asserts that, prior to rate regulation, cable operators were not required to maintain their books so as to distinguish revenue received for providing premium services from equipment revenue.  Y-x14.` ` Because the decoders at issue here are also used to receive the basic service  Y-tier, in addition to other tiers of services, they constitute equipment subject to regulation by  Y-local franchising authorities.T< Y#-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.923(a).T In this case, however, Cox failed to satisfy its burden of proving that it actually charged premium subscribers for the decoders in question and its  Y|-burden of demonstrating that any charges for the decoders were not already incorporated in  Ye-its regulated equipment charges.e{< Y-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.937. See also Sammons Communications, Inc., DA 95194 (Cities of Burbank and Glendale, CA), at  14 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released February 10, 1995). As the Cities point out, Cox did not book any of the pay service revenue received as equipment revenue in its accounting records for the applicable period, and, therefore, charges for the decoders could not be verified by the Cities. Cox does not argue that any of the Cities denied it the opportunity to provide proof of its alleged charges for the decoders, but insists that it should nevertheless be able to charge for the decoders in question. Even after Cox received the rate review reports from the Cities which indicated that decoder charges would be disallowed from equipment revenue, Cox presented no new information that would justify including the decoders as regulated revenue. For the" 0*((!" foregoing reasons, it was reasonable for the Cities to disallow in Line 204 of Cox's Form 393 filing that portion of equipment revenue attributable to the lease of decoders. We will, therefore, affirm the Cities' rate orders on this issue.  Y-Xx C.X` ` Inflation Factor Calculation (#`  Yw-x15.` ` On the FCC Form 393, the Commission permits an inflation adjustment of the benchmark rate. The inflation adjustment is calculated by comparing the Gross National Product Price Index ("GNPPI") of September 1992 with the GNPPI of the initial date of regulation. The GNPPI is released quarterly by the Department of Commerce and the  Y -figure for a specific quarter is subject to later refinement by the Department of Commerce.J < Y -ԍxSee Public Notice, Questions and Answers on Completion of Form 393 and  Y -Associated Filing Requirements, Question No. 9 (released November 10, 1993) ("The  Yh -Commission stated in a Question and Answer sheet released on July 30, 1993, that the most recently available GNPPI should be used when making rate benchmark calculations. In this regard, the GNPPI for the third quarter of 1992, which is listed in Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, was updated by the Department of Commerce on August 31, 1993 after the form was printed. The new number is 122.5. This updated number for the GNPPI should be used rather than the number printed on the form.").  That refinement can affect the benchmark rate. In order that operators not be penalized for relying on earlier figures provided in good faith efforts to comply with our rules, the  Y -Commission has stated that, "[r]ates set in accordance with thencurrent inflation and other  Y -data will not be deemed unreasonable solely on account of subsequent changes in that data."? < YJ-ԍ Public Notice, Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation, Question  Y5-No. 5 (released June 1, 1994). See Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 43494350; 47  Y -C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(i). ?  Y -The Commission has also stated, however, that "[w]hen current rates are not justified by analysis using the old data (so that a rate adjustment would be necessary in any event), cable operators will be required to correct their rates pursuant to current data. In these  Yc-circumstances, the resulting rates must be based on current data."ca < Yu-ԍ Third Recon. Order  , 9 FCC Rcd at 43494350 (emphasis in original). See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(iii).  Y5-x16.` ` Cox claims that the data used to calculate the inflation factor on its initial FCC Form 393 is correct and should have been accepted by the Cities. Although the inflation  Y-data that Cox used in its initial filing was current at the time of that filing, the Form 393 that Cox submitted required changes unrelated to the inflation data. For example, in reviewing Cox's Form 393, the Cities found errors in Cox's calculation of equipment basket data since"0*(("  Y-it omitted rate of return and income tax information, which finding Cox does not challenge.v< Yy-ԍxWhen the rate of return and income taxes are included, Cox's Line 301, Monthly Equipment and Installation Cost, is greater than that it reported. Line 301 is subtracted from the Base Rate per Channel, and so a larger entry produces a lower Maximum Initial Permitted Rate per Channel. The reduction in the Maximum Initial Permitted Rate per Channel, because of this adjustment, results in Cox's basic tier rates being unreasonable under the benchmark formula.  The Cities disallowed Cox's alleged equipment revenue in Line 204 attributable to the lease  Y-of decoders to premium channel subscribers.h< Y -ԍxSee  1315, supra, of this Order. h In addition, the cities of Chula Vista, La Mesa, and Poway found errors with respect to Cox's incorrect count of satellite channels. As such, the Cities determined that there were other problems in the Cox filing in addition to outdated inflation factors, and that Cox's rates would not have been justified in any event even if the old inflation data were accepted by the Cities. Therefore, the Cities' determination was correct that the inflation factor must be recalculated using the updated  YH-inflation data.  X - xD.` ` Declaratory Ruling Regarding Franchise Fees  Y -x 17.` ` The City of La Mesa, in its Opposition,I < YV-ԍxLa Mesa Opposition at 2.I asks the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling stating that Cox, since October of 1992, has been inappropriately passing through to La Mesa subscribers additional franchise fees in violation of the franchise  Y -agreement.J j < Y-ԍxCox indicates in a letter, dated July 14, 1994, to the City of La Mesa that "[t]he additional franchise fee that Cox has been collecting will expire in October of 1994, at which time [Cox] will revert to the `normal' fee structure." La Mesa Opposition, Exhibit E. The City of La Mesa claims that Cox has been improperly passing through excess franchise fees to La Mesa subscribers that were underpaid in previous years, predating rate regulation. According to a report prepared by the City of La Mesa's consultant, Cox has been applying a 5.703% franchise fee as a pass through to subscribers in La Mesa, when the franchise  Y! -agreement calls for only 5.0%.  See Appeal, Exhibit C at 7.  This matter, however, is not specifically addressed in the City's rate order, and  Y-Cox did not ask the Commission to address this franchise fee matter on appeal.|< Y"-ԍxThis franchise fee matter is addressed by the City's consultant in his report and in a  Y#-letter from Cox to the City. See La Mesa Opposition at 2 (citing Appeal, Exhibits C and D). By seeking a declaratory ruling on this matter, the City of La Mesa in essence is asking the Commission to review the City's franchise agreement with Cox, and specifically its own decision on this franchise fee matter, which is inappropriate, given the context of this Commission"K 0*(("  Y-proceeding, and inconsistent with Section 76.944 of our rules.R< Yy-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.944. R Therefore, we deny the City of La Mesa's request that we issue a declaratory ruling on this franchise fee matter.  X- III.XxORDERING CLAUSES (#  Y-x18.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the following Commission proceedings:  Yw-(1) the appeal by Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. of the local rate order adopted by the City of Chula Vista, California; (2) the appeal by Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. of the local rate order  YI-adopted by the City of La Mesa, California; (3) the appeal by Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. of the local rate order adopted by the City of Poway, California; and (4) the appeal by Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. of the local rate order adopted by the City of San Diego, California, are consolidated into one proceeding.  Y -x19.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.'s appeal of the rate order adopted by the City of Chula Vista, the City of La Mesa, the City of Poway, and  Y -the City of San Diego, regarding the refund offset issue is REMANDED to the respective local franchising authorities for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Consolidated  Y|-Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request made by the City of Chula Vista, the City of La Mesa, the City of Poway, and the City of San Diego that any refund offset should  YO-be apportioned between basic service and cable programming service tiers is DENIED.  Y"-x20.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.'s appeal of the rate order adopted by the City of Chula Vista, the City of La Mesa, the City of Poway, and  Y-the City of San Diego, regarding the issue of Cox's decoder charges is DENIED.  Y-x21.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cox Cable San Diego, Inc.'s appeal of the rate order adopted by the City of Chula Vista, the City of La Mesa, the City of Poway, and  Y-the City of San Diego, regarding the inflation factor calculation issue is DENIED .  Yn-x22.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of La Mesa's request that the  YX-Commission issue a declaratory ruling regarding franchise fees is DENIED .  Y+-x23.` ` 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  Ys$- x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau