WPC 2a BKKZ CG Times3|j}Xw PE37XP"i~'^#)0<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxv?x@v{Ax{toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2@B}CDE"toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2,FvrGlHrTf ƇcaptioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH ",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2hc^K\ F[Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Xn4  pG;X8wC;,%=9Xw PE37XPD7zC;,.BXz_ pi7XV"G($,%hG PE37hP6uC;,<~Xu&_ x7XX W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP\5hC:,LXh*f9 xr G;XXP_XYZ \ ] ^  +@[B7bquation CaptionG 2 X- FOR FCC RECORD ONLY $//ORDER Remanding Appeal in Schaumburg, IL, DA 95997//$ $//76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions//$  X- $/76.922 Rates for the basic service tier/$  X-$/76.923 Rates for equipment and installation/$  Xv-   2(X01Í ÍX01Í Í #Xw PE37=9XP#Before the  X_-w FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  XH- Washington, D.C. 20554  Y1-TP  Y -In the Matter of: hh@) `(#DA 95997 ă x` `  hh@)  Y -TELENOIS, INC. hh@) x` `  hh@)  Y -Appeal of the Local Ratehh@)  Y -Order of the Village of hh@)  Y-Schaumburg, Illinois hh@)  Yc-: ORDER ă  Y6- Adopted : May 1, 1995hh@ Released : May 3, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X- I.xINTRODUCTION  Y-x1.` ` On December 15, 1994, Telenois, Inc. ("Telenois"), the franchisee in the above matter, filed an Appeal of Local Rate Order adopted on November 15, 1994 by its local franchising authority, the Village of Schaumburg, Illinois ("the Village"). The Village  Yh-opposes Telenois' appeal.xh  Y-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxThe City filed its opposition on February 1, 1995, well past the deadline under our rules for such a filing. 47 C.F.R.  76.944(b) (1993). We will not accept latefiled  Y-pleadings unless the filer can meet our stringent good cause standard. See Meredith/New Heritage Strategic Partners, L.P., 9 FCC Rcd 6841 (1994). Since the Village has not shown  Y -good cause for the latefiling of its opposition, we will not accept the pleading. We note that nothing in the Village's latefiled opposition would change the determination made herein. The Rate Order establishes a new regulated rate schedule for  YQ-Telenois' basic service tier rates and associated equipment.Q  Y $-#Xw PE37=9XP#э 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); Communications Act, 623(b), 47 U.S.C. 543(b) (1992). Specifically, the Village's Rate Order requires Telenois to implement certain rate reductions and to issue refunds to":_ 0*0*0*" subscribers for all payments made in excess of the rates set forth in the local order for the period September 1, 1993 through May 15, 1994.  Y-x2.` ` In its review of Telenois' Form 393, the Village approved Telenois' permitted rates for some equipment and installations, but ordered Telenois to keep its rates for its basic service tier, converter boxes and remote controls at the current levels, rather than at the higher, maximum permitted levels. Telenois argues that because of this misapplication of the Commission's rate regulations, the Village has improperly reduced Telenois' regulated revenues by setting its rates for basic service tier, converter boxes and remote controls below the levels permitted under the benchmark regime and has imposed a refund liability that is greater than the level allowed under our rules. Telenois argues that it should be permitted to offset its refund liability for certain equipment and installation rates with its undercharges for its basic service tier, converter boxes and remote control rates. Telenois further contends that the Village compounded its mistake by setting some of Telenois' rates below the actual rates to reflect any discount or promotional rates that Telenois occasionally charged. Finally,  Y -Telenois contends that the Village improperly regulated rates for certain types of equipment, A/B switches, VCR connections and equipment used to receive Digital Music Express ("DMX") and FM radio services from Telenois, which Telenois argues are not subject to regulation. We address each issue in turn.  X4- II.xDISCUSSION  Y-  Y-x3.` ` Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be  Y-appealed to the Commission.Q  Xh-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.944 (1993).Q 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.g{  X-ԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report and Order and  X-Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731(1993) ("Rate Order"); Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, and BuyThrough Prohibition, MM  X-Docket No. 92262, Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third  Xk -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.3 N X#-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  YP-resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.3P] N X^(-ԍ Id.3"P 0*0*0*M"Ԍ X-ԙx A.` ` Refund Offsets  Y-x4.` ` 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  Y-during the time period from September 1, 1993 until May 14, 1994.Kk- Y-ԍ#Xw PE37}XP# To the extent that an operator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral  Y-period available under our rules in Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of  Y -Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 4119, 41834185 (1994) ("Benchmark 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 -x5.` ` 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  Y -of the initial date of regulation ("current rate") or as of September 30, 1992.; k- X3-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.  Ye-x6.` ` If a franchising authority does not dispute the bases for the figures presented in"e^ 0*((N" a cable operator's Form 393 or has not discovered any mathematical errors in the form, the franchising authority should then approve the operator's maximum permitted rates, as derived by the form. A franchising authority should not require the operator to set a particular rate for programming, equipment or installation at any rate less than its maximum permitted rate, even if its current or actual rate is below its maximum permitted rate. Furthermore, a franchising authority should not require an operator that has promotional offerings for  Yv-equipment and installations to set any of those rates below its maximum permitted rates.U vk- X-ԍ See Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 581821.U Instead, the franchising authority should allow the operator to charge up to its maximum  YH-permitted rates, as derived by Form 393. H{k- Xt -ԍ An operator is not required, however, to raise its rates to the maximum permitted level. An operator may voluntarily choose to charge less than the maximum permitted rate. In this proceeding, the Village only disputed the validity of Telenois' number of addressable converter boxes in service, an issue Telenois does not contest on appeal. Otherwise, the Village did not dispute the figures used in Telenois' Form 393 or the accuracy of the calculations in the form. Therefore, the Village should allow Telenois to charge its maximum permitted rates, as derived by the Form 393.  Y -x7.` ` 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  Yy-charges exceed maximum permitted levels during the applicable period of review.Q yk- X?-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  76.942 (1993).Q If an operator's aggregate revenues computed from its actual rates exceeded its revenues computed from its permitted rates during the period of review, the operator must refund the difference  Y4-to subscribers.# z4k- Y-#Xw PE37}XP#э See Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4353 ("Although maximum permitted rates are  Y-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).").# If the operator's aggregate revenues computed from its permitted rates exceeded its aggregate revenues computed from its actual rates, the operator will not be  Y-required to issue any refunds for that period of review. x k- X"-ԍ While a franchising authority may not require an operator to set its rates below its maximum permitted rates, an operator may not recover the cost of promotions by increasing  X$-other equipment rates or by reducing its refund liability. See Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 582021; United Cable Television of California, Inc. (Davis, California), DA 95784 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released April 12, 1995). In other words, here, Telenois must calculate its refund liability based solely on its actual, published rates for the period under review, without regard"P' 0*((D'" to promotional discounts. In this proceeding, any refunds to"y 0*((" be paid by Telenois should be calculated based on this method.  Y-x8.` ` 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.yk- X-ԍ See Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5731; Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4346. For instance, in this case, the Village may not order Telenois to set its basic service tier, converter and remote rates below maximum permitted levels. Further, the Village must offset or reduce any refunds it may order by the difference between the actual rates that Telenois charged and the maximum permitted rates  Y1-that it could have charged during the applicable period of review.Z1,k- X-ԍ See Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4353.Z According to Telenois' uncontested submission, the Village has directed Telenois to charge less than its maximum permitted levels for certain components of its regulated service and to issue refunds without  Y -regard to the fact that some rates are below maximum permitted levels.J k- X|-ԍ We note, however, 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 create a competitive market of cable equipment providers.  X -See Communications Act,  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: Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, First Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1981, 1982 (1994). We are remanding this case to the Village so that it can reconsider its ruling in a manner consistent with our  Y -findings. k- X`-ԍ See TCI Cablevision of North Central Kentucky, Inc. (Mount Washington, KY), DA 941479 (released December 14, 1994).  Y -  Y- xB. Regulatory Status of Equipment/Installations  Yc-x9.` ` Telenois next contends that the Village improperly set rates for certain equipment that Telenois claims is nonregulated. Specifically, the Village established rates for A/B switches, VCR connections performed by Telenois employees, and for equipment to receive DMX (a music service) and FM radio services provided by Telenois through its cable system. Telenois argues that this equipment is not properly subject to regulation by the Village because it is used by subscribers only to receive offtheair broadcasts, and to record (not receive) basic cable programming and radio signals and is not used for the reception of its basic tier service. "0*(("Ԍ Y-ԙx10.` ` We have previously held that A/B switches and equipment used to receive DMX and FM radio services are not devices directly related to the delivery of basic cable  Y-service and that therefore their price should remain unregulated.k- XK-ԍxSee TCI of Northern New Jersey, DA 9525,  9 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released January  X6-10, 1995) (A/B switches); SBC Media Ventures (Montgomery County, MD), DA 941251, 9 FCC Rcd 7175, 7180 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994) (A/B switches); TCI Cablevision of Colorado (Boulder, CO), DA 941606,  11 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released December 28, 1994) (A/B switches and equipment to receive DMX and FM radio services).  Regulated equipment consists of equipment in the subscriber's home that is used to receive regulated cable  Y-service.[k- Xt -ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.923(a) (1993).[ A/B switches are used by subscribers to switch off cable services and to receive, instead, overtheair broadcast signals. Likewise, the audio equipment is used only by subscribers who choose to receive music and radio services, not basic cable, from their cable operator Since the switches and audio equipment are not "equipment used by subscribers to  YH-receive the basic service tier" within the meaning of Section 3(b)(3) of the 1992 Cable Act,xHk- X-ԍxSee Communications Act,  623(b)(3), 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3).x  Y1-their price is not subject to regulation.@  Y -x11.` ` We disagree with Telenois, however, that the regulatory treatment accorded to A/B switches and audio equipment should be accorded to VCR installations as well. We have previously held that, since VCRs are used "to receive the basic service tier," they are  Y -subject to our rate regulations.a k- X-ԍxSee TCI of Northern New Jersey at  10.a Telenois established two different charges to install a subscriber's VCR by connecting the VCR to the subscriber's cable service. One charge applied to the operator's installation of the VCR during the subscriber's initial installation of cable service. A second, higher charge applied to the operator's installation of the subscriber's VCR if a separate trip by a cable technician was required. The 1992 Cable Act directed us to establish rate standards for "installation and lease of equipment used to receive  Y4-the basic service tier."48 k- X-ԍxSee Communications Act,  623(b)(3), 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3). See also 47 C.F.R.  X - 76.923(a).Ľ Our rules provide that regulated equipment consists of all  Y-equipment in a subscriber's home used to receive basic service.J k- X"-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.923(a).J Rates for installation of such equipment must be based on actual costs and must be "unbundled" or priced  Y-separately.k- X'&-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.923(b). See also Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5810 ("[W]e will require separate charges for each significantly different type of . . . installation."). When basic service is installed through a subscriber's VCR, the VCR is used"#0*(("  Y-"to receive the basic service tier."Uk- Xy-ԍxRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5810.U Since VCRs are, indeed, used "to receive the basic service tier," Telenois' charges for VCR installations are subject to our rate regulations. Those charges must comport with the actual cost standard of our rules. Telenois' appeal on this issue is therefore remanded to the Village for further proceedings consistent with this order.  Xv- III. xORDERING CLAUSE S  YH-x11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Telenois, Inc.'s appeal of the Village of  Y2-Schaumburg's local Rate Order IS REMANDED to the local franchising authority for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Order.  Y -x12.` ` 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 (1993). x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau