WPC] 2BJ  Courier3|ws BoldTimes New RomanE37XPCG 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 SK<>CG TimesCG Times Boldf ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicD7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7X@|ND,C|\  P6G;P@ND,'4  pG;d|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌uCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold<""CCC5nVOOVJCVV).VJjVVCVOCJVVqVVJ)")7<)5<5<5)<<""<"^<<<<)."<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx -issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the price after that date.BQ> U Y"-#Xw PE37XP#э #Xj\  P6G;XP#The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent  X$-Cablevision has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second  Vu%-Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  X^&-Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Order  XI'-on Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS price determined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date on which Cablevision implemented its CPS price under the  X)-new regulations. See para. 3, infra. Furthermore, to the extent that the price as of March 31,")0*0*0*(" 1994 is found to be excessive, reductions in Cablevision's price for the period after May 14, 1994 may be required to reflect the fact that Cablevision's price during the earlier period, which is used as the starting point to calculate its price for the prospective period, was  XK-unreasonable. See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(C).B"> 60*0*0*"Ԍ" 0*0*0*"Ԍ X-  ęx2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,E@ Yy-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Yd-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993). and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an  X-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.ffE@ Y-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.956.f Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a  X-costofservice showing.iE@ YU -ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b).i In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its  Xv-CPS prices are not unreasonable.YvE@ Y -ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Id.Y  XH-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.2H{E@ Yt-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television  Y_-Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).2  X1-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.u1 E@ Y-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b).u Operators with valid CPS complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance with the  X -revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. E@ Y9-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# See Second Order on Reconsideration at 9 FCC Rcd 4190, paras. 150152. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC  X -Form 393.Y fE@ Y-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Id.Y Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a  X-benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. E@ YZ!-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration at 9 FCC Rcd 4189 n.195.  Xb- Procedural Matters  x4. The first valid CPS complaint was completed and served on Cablevision on October 9, 1993. The Commission received the complaint on October 15, 1993. " 0*0*0*d" x5. Cablevision attempted to justify its CPS price through an FCC Form 393 filed on November 12, 1993.  X-   X-Discussion  x6. Cablevision claims that its monthly CPS tier price of $13.09 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filing, which shows a maximum permitted charge of $13.10. However, upon review we have determined that Cablevision has not correctly calculated its maximum permitted price, and it is appropriate to make the following adjustments to Cablevision's calculations in the Form 393: Xxa. In reporting its capital costs of leased customer equipment on Part III, Schedule C, Cablevision overdepreciated its set top converters and remotes, exceeding the gross book value of each asset. This is in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The remaining book value of each asset prior to applying the annual depreciation expense was less than the annual depreciation expense claimed by Cablevision. Therefore, we reduced the depreciation expense for each asset to equal the remaining book value.  x Xxb. On its Form 393 filing, Cablevision calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor (line 127, Worksheet 1, Part II) as of the end of November 1993. However, Cablevision  X-cannot permissibly calculate inflation through the end of November 1993. E@ Y-ԍ Furthermore, even if November 1993 were a permissible base date, Cablevision incorrectly calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor using data from inconsistent U.S. Department of Commerce releases. Based on the service date of the earliest valid complaint, Cablevision was required to file a rate justification no later than November 15, 1993. Since Cablevision filed its initial FCC Form 393 by that date, the instructions to Form 393 required it to calculate the  X-inflation adjustment only through October 1993. KE@ Y-ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#FCC Form 393, page 11, instructions for Line 124 (Inflation Adjustment Factor is calculated using "the number of whole months from September 30, 1992 to the date you will submit this form"). We therefore must recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor on the basis of the most accurate data currently available  X-for the date that Cablevision timely filed its Form 393. E@ Y"-ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(iii) (if a cable operator fails to justify its rates, rates must be adjusted in acordance with the most accurate data available at the time of analysis.) On July 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price Index ("GNPPI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 125.7 for the third quarter of 1993. Using these GNPPI figures, we calculate 1.030 as the Inflation Adjustment Factor through October 1993, the base date Cablevision should have used in justifying its rates. (#  X -Xx (#" j 0*0*0*["Ԍ X- x7. Because of these errors, we conclude that Cablevision has failed to demonstrate that its price for the CPS tier was not unreasonable. We will therefore set a price for this tier, incorporating the adjustments discussed above. These adjustments have the cumulative effect of reducing the maximum permitted monthly price for the CPS tier from $13.10 (as  X-Cablevision calculated) to $13.08.jE@ Y-ԍ These adjustments have the effect of causing Cablevision to calculate its permitted rates from Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 2 rather than Worksheet 1. However, Cablevision has not completed Worksheet 2 of Form 393. Therefore, we have completed worksheet 2 by using data supplied by Cablevision in its Form 1200 filing. j  Xv- Conclusions  x8. Upon review of the record herein, we conclude that Cablevision's showing supports a maximum reasonable CPS tier price of $13.08 per month (plus franchise fee) for the period  X -October 15, 1993 to May 14, 1994.va 4E@ Y-#Xw PE37}XP##Xw PE37}XP#э  This finding is based solely on the representations of Cablevision listed in paragraph  Y-5, supra, and the modifications described in paragraph 6, supra. Should information come to  Y-our attention that these representations (including representations as to data regarding  Y-installations and customer equipment) were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not  Yw-specifically addressed herein.#Xw PE37}XP#v However, we further determine that the refund at issue is such a de minimis amount that it would not serve the public interest to order a refund. x9. We further conclude that Cablevision must reflect in its FCC Form 1200 rate filing for the period after May 14, 1994 the fact that Cablevision's price during the earlier period  X -was unreasonable. ] E@ Y-ԍ We reviewed Cablevision's FCC Form 1200 rate filing and confirmed that Cablevision calculated its rates for the period after May 14, 1994 using the rate that we find in this Order to be unreasonable. We reserve the right to make further adjustments to Cablevision's price for the period after May 14, 1994 upon completion of our review of Cablevision's FCC Form 1200 rate filing. x10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the October 9, 1993 complaint against the cable programming service price charged by Kansas City Cable Partners dba American Cablevision, in Lee's Summit, Missouri, CUID No. MO0072, and all other complaints in this franchise area related to the same price, ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. x11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the benchmark filing submitted by Kansas City Cable Partners dba American Cablevision with respect to Lee's Summit, Missouri, CUID No."0*0*0*" MO0072, for the period of October 15, 1993 to May 14, 1994, justifies a maximum price of $13.08 per month (plus franchise fee) for the cable programming service tier. x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.922(b)(4)(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(c), that American Cablevision shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, revise its Form 1200 filing with respect to Lee's Summit, Missouri, CUID No. MO0072, for the period beginning May 15, 1994, to reduce the monthly charge per tier as of March 31, 1994 for Tier 2 (Line A6b) to equal the maximum permitted rate (plus franchise fee). x13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that American Cablevision shall place into effect, within 30 days after its submission of the revised Form 1200 filing required above, a CPS tier price that reflects the reduction in the CPS rate determined in this Order. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGregory J. Vogt x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau  ?<#x6X@`7X@#