WPC}| 2BEJ Z Courier c-#XR  P7jQXP#HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2K 6F / 3|wCourierCG Times"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxxxxCkkkkkkkkkkPCPCPCPCxxxxxxxxxxkxxxxxxjxjjjxxjxxjxxxxxxxPCxxxxPxxxxCVxHCxxxxxVVx[[[xVCxxxxxxxxjjjxxxxxxPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPkbbxxxxxxTxxxxTPP||x>>xxxxxP|x!T"x}xExPPPxxxxPxkxofxkkPPPPk]kxkPCkkxkxxxkkPxkPPxxxxxxxPxkP8D%nZZB 3nMnMn..s[CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New RomanTimes New Roman ItalicCourier Italic2jZHTf ZKreKg<?xxx,2x6X@`7X@8wC;,Xw PE37XPD7zC;,c!Xz_ pi7XDPG, PE37PDBPG,q_ pi7V"G($,hG PE37hP<R&HHH,,H6X@`7h@xxxWIxkWWWWWWWWWW(xxxxxxPxxxxxxxxCxxxxxkkkkk]C]C]C]Cxxxxxxxxxxxxxjjxxjxxjxxxxx[Cxxx]xxC`x]Cxxjjx[][x`RxxjkjxxxxPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPxffxxxxxxTxxxxTPPx>>xxxxxPxT"xxExPPPxxxxPxkxsfxxxPPPPk]kkk]Ckkxkxxxkk]xkPPxxxxxxxPxkP8D%nZZB 3nMnMn..s["i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^#)0<5hC:,?rXh*f9 xr G;XX ?xxx,VΠx6Nhez7XH R&HHH,V,H6Nhez7hH2f qo{|",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LFOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//TCI Cablevision of Greater Michigan, Inc., MO&O, DA95814//$ $/76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Service Tiers/$ $/benchmark cable rates$  c< - Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  c<Washington, D.C. 20554 ă X- DA 95814 ĐX(#P  Y{ -In the Matter of hh@)hpp  Yd -x` `  hh@)hCUID Nos. MI0040 (Petoskey), MI0047(#(#X  YM -TCI Cablevision of Greaterhh@)h(Boyne City), MI0048 (Charlevoix),  Y6 -Michigan, Inc. hh@)hMI0049 (East Jordan), MI0126 (Harbor  Y-x` `  hh@)hSprings), MI0264 (Charlevoix), MI0294  Y-x` `  hh@)h(Resort), MI0295 (Littlefield), MI0296  Y-x` `  hh@)h(West Traverse), MI0357 (Bear Creek),  Y-x` `  hh@)hMI0359 (Little Traverse), MI1481  Y-x` `  hh@)h(Boyne Falls), MI1485 (Pleasant View),  Y-x` `  hh@)hand MI1506 (Springvale)  Y-Benchmark Filings to Supporthh@)  Y~-Cable Programming Service Priceshh@)  YP-}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Y#-x` ` Adopted: April 12, 1995 @ hReleased: April 17, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  x1. Here we consider complaints about the prices that the abovecaptioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the communities designated above. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its prices through benchmark showings on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Operator's prices only through May 14, 1994. At a later date we will issue a separate order addressing the  YT -reasonableness of the prices after that date.oNT  Y"<ԍ#XR  P7jQXP# The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the prices for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent Operator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  Yq&-Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Order  Y\'-on Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS prices determined herein might also  YG(-apply from May 15, 1994 until the date on which Operator #XR  P7jQXP#implemented its CPS prices under  Y0)<the new regulations. See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`72X@# #XR  P7jQXP#Further, to the extent that the prices as of March"0)0*0*0*l)" 31, 1994 are found to be excessive, reductions in Operator's prices for the period after May 14, 1994 may be required to reflect the fact that Operator's prices during the earlier period, which are used as the starting point to calculate its prices for the prospective period, were  YK-unreasonable. See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(C).o"T 60*0*0*W!"Ԍ" 0*0*0*"Ԍ Y-  x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,x4 Yy<ԍ#XR  P7jQ}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  Y-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.ffx4 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  Y-costofservice showing.ix4 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  Yv-CPS prices are not unreasonable.Yvx4 Y <ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Id.Y  YH-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.H{x4 Yt<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).  Y1-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.{1 x4 Y<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b).{ 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  Y -compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. x4 Y5<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must  Y -complete and file FCC Form 393.Z bx4 Y<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Id.Z Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200  Yy-series. Iyx4 Y?"-w#Xw PE37}XP# #Xw PE37}XP#47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4189 n.195.  YK- x4. The first valid CPS complaints in each of the franchise areas which are the subject of this Order were completed and served on Operator and received by the Commission on the dates set forth on Appendix A. Operator filed FCC Form 393 in response; Operator has"& 0*((7"  Y-also filed amended and supplemental Form 393 filings, most recently on May 27, 1994.J x4 Y <ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# For example, Operator filed amended FCC Forms 393 in response to a Cable Services Bureau Order citing common deficiencies observed in benchmark filings generally. Cable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994). J  Y_-  x5. On June 9, 1994, the local franchising authorities ("LFAs") for the City of Harbor Springs, Michigan (CUID No. MI0126), the Township of Resort, Michigan (CUID No.MI0294), the Township of Bear Creek, Michigan (CUID No. MI0357), the Township of Little Traverse, Michigan (CUID No. MI0359) and the Township of Pleasant View, Michigan (CUID No. MI1485) filed identical motions captioned as a "Request For Default and To Supplement the Record." On June 10, 1994, the LFAs for the City of Boyne, Michigan (CUID No. MI0047), the City of Charlevoix, Michigan (CUID No. MI0048) and the City of East Jordan, Michigan (CUID No. MI0049) filed similar motions. On June 21, 1994, Operator responded to the motions filed by the Townships of West Traverse, Little Traverse and Pleasant View by filing three almost identical motions captioned as "Motion To Strike and Opposition To Request for Default and To Supplement the Record." x6. The LFAs request that we find Operator in default for its failure to file and serve timely and proper responses to their rate complaints. The LFAs state that Operator filed its rate justifications late, in an incomplete fashion and not on the proper form. They also state that in February 1994, Operator began charging a home wire maintenance fee which is not reflected in its rate justification filings. Operator responds by stating the Commission's Rules do not contemplate the filing of motions and Operator requests that the Commission disregard the LFAs' motions. x7. In response, we note that on May 27, 1994, Operator did file its rate justifications on the proper form within the "window of opportunity" established in our May 23, 1994  Ye-Order.Z e\x4 Xr#-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э Id.Z We also note that while Operator may have filed its rate justifications in an untimely fashion, Operator does not claim an Inflation Adjustment Factor for any franchise area that exceeds what it could have claimed if it had timely filed. The wire maintenance fee issue is addressed below. Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part the LFAs' and Operator's motions."  0*(("Ԍx8. For the franchise areas designated by CUID Nos. MI0040, MI0126, MI0294, MI0295, MI0296, MI0357, MI0359, MI1485 and MI1506, Operator asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $10.44 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filings because its price is less than the maximum permitted charge of $10.54 as calculated in its amended filings. For the franchise areas designated by CUID Nos. MI0047, MI0049 and MI1481, Operator asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $11.74 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filings because its price is less than the maximum permitted charge of $11.80 as calculated in its amended filings. For the franchise areas designated by CUID Nos. MI0048 and MI0264, Operator asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $11.74 per subscriber is justified by its benchmark filings because its price is less than the maximum permitted charge of $11.77 as calculated in its amended filings. Upon review, however, we have determined that Operator has not correctly calculated its maximum permitted prices and it is therefore appropriate to make the following adjustments to Operator's calculations in its amended Form 393s: Xx` ` a. The 1992 Cable Act requires operators to fully unbundle equipment  Y -and installation costs from programming costs.j x4 Y -#Xw PE37}XP#э 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3).j The Commission's regulations implement Congress's directive by requiring operators to establish  Yy-an equipment basket.jyyx4 Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.923(b).j Section 76.923(c) of the Commission's regulations specifically states that equipment basket costs shall include "the direct and indirect material and labor costs of providing, leasing, installing, repairing, and servicing customer equipment." In its Order adopting rate regulations, the Commission amplified this regulation by stating that "[t]he basket will include an allocation of all those system joint and common costs that service installation, leasing, and equipment repair share with other system activities,  Y-excluding general system overhead."*x4 Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92 Y-266, FCC 93177, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 at 5815,  295 (1993) (footnote omitted). See also First Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 93428, 9 FCC Rcd 1164 at 1190,  47 (1993).  When completed correctly Part III of FCC Form 393 unbundles equipment costs from programming costs.  Xx` ` b. Operator, however, has not properly completed Part III of its FCC Form 393s and thus has not completely unbundled equipment and installation costs from programming costs as directed by the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's regulations. Specifically, on Schedule A of Part III Operator has not reported any maintenance facility cost for installations and service of customer leased equipment, and on Schedule B it has not reported any costs for utilities. The lack of maintenance facility and utility costs might be correct if Operator's Schedule B allocations reflected that contract or thirdparty labor was performing all equipment installations and"0*(( " repairs. The allocations that Operator makes in its Schedule B Analyses, however, indicate that its own employees performed customer equipment installation and maintenance. (# Xx` ` c. Not only are Operator's Schedule B allocations inconsistent with not having any maintenance facility costs, its allocations are also inconsistent with the argument that the repair of converters and remotes was performed off premises by a third party. If this statement were true, then there should be an allocation for the cost of thirdparty or contract labor. Operator's Schedule B Analyses, however, do not allocate any contract labor to customer equipment installation and maintenance.(# Xx` ` d. Operator has included on its Schedule B Analyses entries for "Converter  Y -Maintenance." x4 Ye -#Xw PE37}XP#э For CUID Nos. MI0040, MI0126, MI0294, MI0295, MI0296, MI0357, MI0359, MI1485 and MI1506, Operator reports $5,891.60 for Converter Maintenance. For CUID Nos.MI0047, MI0049 and MI1481, Operator reports $2,863.27 for Converter Maintenance. For CUID Nos. MI0048 and MI0264, Operator reports $2,116.04 for Converter Maintenance.  These entries, however, further indicate that Operator has not fully unbundled its equipment costs from its regulated service costs. In its Part III, Step C, Line 9 explanations, Operator sets forth the number of hours it devoted to  Y -maintenance and service of remotes and converters.9v x4 Yu-#Xw PE37}XP#э For CUID Nos. MI0040, MI0126, MI0294, MI0295, MI0296, MI0357, MI0359, MI1485 and MI1506, Operator reports 547 hours as the total number of maintenance and service hours for remotes and converters. For CUID Nos.MI0047, MI0049 and MI1481, Operator reports 266 hours as the total number of maintenance and service hours for remotes and converters. For CUID Nos. MI0048 and MI0264, Operator reports 197 hours as the total number of maintenance and service hours for remotes and converters.9 The numbers of hours Operator allocates to maintenance and service of remotes and converters are inconsistent with the converter maintenance costs it reports. Even assuming that its converter maintenance entries are intended to represent only Operator's labor costs, these entries mean that Operator incurred a contract labor cost of only about $10.77 per  Y4-hour.4[ x4 Y@ -#Xw PE37}XP#э According to Operator, for CUID Nos. MI0040, MI0126, MI0294, MI0295, MI0296, MI0357, MI0359, MI1485 and MI1506 it incurred a contract labor cost of $10.77 per hour. For CUID Nos.MI0047, MI0049 and MI1481, the reported cost was $10.76 per hour, and for CUID Nos.MI0048 and MI0264 it was $10.74 per hour. However, on Line 5, Step A, PartIII, Operator calculates its own Hourly  Y-Service Charge ("HSC") to be approximately $27.24.x4 Y%-#Xw PE37}XP#э For CUID Nos. MI0040, MI0126, MI0294, MI0295, MI0296, MI0357, MI0359, MI1485 and MI1506, Operator calculates a HSC of $27.24. For CUID Nos.MI0047, MI0049 and MI1481 Operator calculates a HSC of $27.23, and for CUID Nos. MI0048 and"g'0*(('" MI0264 Operator calculates a HSC of $27.21. The hourly labor charge that"y0*((" Operator states that it incurred for the maintenance and service of remotes and converters does not equal even half of its own HSC. We have recognized that it is not unreasonable to assume that operators should incur a contract labor charge of  Y-$25.00 per hour for the service and maintenance of remotes and convertors.Hyx4 Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э See Harron Communications Corp. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Community Antenna Television Commission, CUID Nos. MA0225, MA0247, MA0229, MA0228, MA0245, MA0224, MA0246, DA 95160, at 1920 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Feb. 7, 1995).H Thus, Operator's converter maintenance entries cannot represent all of Operator's converter maintenance costs, and there must remain costs related to installations and service of  Yv-customer leased equipment that Operator has not included on Form 393, Part III._vx4 Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э We also note that Operator has failed correctly to grossup its taxes on Schedules A and C. Furthermore, if Operator is charging a wire maintenance fee, as it is charging in other Michigan franchise areas it serves, we would expect to see these costs reflected in Operator's rate justification filings. Both of these facts provide additional evidence that Operator has not fully unbundled its equipment costs from its programming costs, and our calculation of an imputed equipment cost figure is intended to correct for any distortion of Operator's permitted rates that may be caused by these errors.(# Xx` ` e. Operator has not justified its Part III allocations. The Commission has repeatedly stated that where an operator does not provide adequate information to justify its rate, the Commission will set the maximum permitted rate based on the best  Y -evidence available to it.. x4 Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э See Third Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 92262, FCC 9490, 9 FCC Rcd 4316 at 4348,  90 (1994); Cable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, DA 94526, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994).. Simply put, Operator cannot be permitted to delay subscriber refunds by failing to provide information that is needed to determine a maximum permitted rate. Since Operator has not justified its Part III allocations and has not calculated an acceptable figure for unbundling equipment and installation costs from programming costs, we must impute an estimated equipment cost figure. We have determined based on the best evidence available to us at this time that Operator's PartII, Worksheet3, Line 303 entry should be $0.060 of installation and customer equipment costs per subscriber per channel. We have derived this figure by analyzing a sample of other operators' FCC Form 393 filings, including both filings as to which we have already issued orders and filings that are currently under review, and we have observed that generally operators have an average unbundling figure of $0.06"0*(("  Y-per subscriber per channel.x4 Yy-#Xw PE37}XP#э Cf. United Video Cablevision, Inc., CUID Nos. MA0333 and MA0334, DA 941144, at 10(b) n.24 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Nov. 9, 1994) (utilizing observed industry average depreciation lives where operator without explanation departed substantially from industry norms in costofservice justification). We have further determined that in order to yield an unbundling figure of $0.060 per subscriber per channel, Operator must have incurred more installation and customer equipment costs than it reported, and we have therefore revised its entries on Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 104 and Part II, Worksheet  Y-3, Line 301.6x4 Y -#Xw PE37}XP#э Specifically, on Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 104 and Part II, Worksheet 3, Line 301 we have entered the following revised figures: for CUID Nos. MI0040, MI0126, MI0294, MI0295, MI0296, MI0357, MI0359, MI1485 and MI1506 we have entered $11,108.40; for CUID Nos. MI0047, MI0049 and MI1481 we have entered $4,393.20; and for CUID Nos. MI0048 and MI0264 we have entered $3,062.69.  While we recognize that this is not an ideal way to determine the correct amount of costs to unbundle and thus to derive a maximum permitted CPS rate, it is the only approach available to us where an operator does not supply sufficient information to justify its price. (# Xx` ` f. Because Operator has failed to demonstrate that its prices for the CPS tier were not unreasonable, we will set maximum permitted prices for this tier, incorporating the adjustments discussed above. In doing so, we must also recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheets 1 and 4, on the basis of the most accurate data currently available for the date for which Operator  Y -filed. x4 Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э  See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(iii) (if a cable operator fails to justify its rates, rates must be adjusted in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of analysis).  On its amended Form 393s, Operator calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor as of the end of October 1993 using data released on August 31, 1993. 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 an Inflation Adjustment Factor through October 1993, the base date Operator used in justifying its rates, of 1.030.(#  Y-  x9. Upon review of the record herein, and having incorporated the adjustments discussed above, we conclude that Operator has failed to justify the rates it was charging during the period in question. Operator's showing justifies the maximum reasonable CPS tier prices shown on Appendix B (plus franchise fee) for the period from the filing of the earliest"' 0*(("  Y-complaint in each franchise area (as set forth in Appendix A) to May 14, 1994.cx4 Yy-#Xw PE37}XP#э This finding is based solely on the representations of Operator and the modifications  Yb-described herein. Should information come to our attention that these representations were  YK-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  Y-argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.c x10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the LFAs' and Operator's motions ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. x11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints referred to in Appendix A against the cable programming service prices charged by Operator in the areas referenced in the caption and at Appendix A herein, and all other complaints in these franchise areas related to the same prices, ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in the communities shown in Appendix B that portion of the amounts paid for cable programming service for the period from the filing of the first valid complaint in each franchise area (as set forth on  Y -Appendix A) x4 Yu<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# Our jurisdiction to order a refund dates from the earliest date a valid complaint is filed with the Commission. 47 C.F.R.  76.961(b). to May 14, 1994 which exceeded the maximum price for each franchise area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee) per month, plus interest to the date of the refund. x13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operator shall promptly determine the overcharges to CPS subscribers for the stated periods, and shall within 30 days of the release of this Order file a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount so determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval of the plan.T x14. 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 Operator shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, revise its Form 1200 filings with respect to the communities listed herein, 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 price in each franchise area set  Y7-forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee).7x4 Y&<#Xw PE37}XP##x6Nhez7 ΠXH#э# Xw PE37}XP# We reserve the right to make further adjustments to Operator's prices for the  Y'-period after May 14, 1994, upon completion of our review of Operator's Form 1200 filings.#x6Nhez7 ΠXH#у"7Q 0*((."Ԍx15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operator shall place into effect, within 30 days after its submission of the revised Form 1200 filings required above, prices that reflect the reductions in the CPS rates determined in this Order. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau "1 0*((p"   Y-, Appendix A ă  Y-CUID No.` `  Date First ComplainthppDate Complaint xx  Y-x` `  Filed with FCC@hppServed  xx  Yw-MI0040` `  11/2/93hh@hpp11/29/93  YI-MI0047` `  11/1/93hh@hpp10/26/93  Y -MI0048` `  10/23/93hh@hpp10/19/93  Y -MI0049` `  10/26/93hh@hpp10/22/93  Y -MI0126` `  9/30/93hh@hpp9/27/93  Y-MI0264` `  2/28/94hh@hpp2/25/94  Yc-MI0294` `  10/6/93hh@hpp9/27/93  Y5-MI0295` `  11/1/93hh@hpp10/27/93  Y-MI0296` `  12/6/93hh@hpp11/30/93  Y-MI0357` `  9/25/93hh@hpp9/28/93  Y-MI0359` `  10/25/93hh@hpp10/20/93  Y}-MI1481` `  12/8/93hh@hpp11/22/93  YO-MI1485` `  10/4/93hh@hpp9/28/93  Y!-MI1506` `  2/28/94hh@hpp2/25/94 " 0*0*0*"   Y-- Appendix B ă  Y-CUID No.` `  Actual Rates@hMaximum Permitted Rates  Yw-MI0040` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  YI-MI0047` `  $11.74@hpp$11.45  Y -MI0048` `  $11.74@hpp$11.45 x` `   Y -MI0049` `  $11.74@hpp$11.45  Y -MI0126` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y-MI0264` `  $11.74@hpp$11.45  Yc-MI0294` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y5-MI0295` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y-MI0296` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y-MI0357` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y-MI0359` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y}-MI1481` `  $11.74@hpp$11.45  YO-MI1485` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99  Y!-MI1506` `  $10.44@hpp$9.99