WPC< 2B'J  CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6@gf w3|w s BoldCG Times Italic3|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@\@\`L2 Z f i Xv'HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L3 8wC;,Xw PE37XPD4 7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7X5 V"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#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2m(%&8''a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   24+(F))*a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 21f+3+-e#1a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx%l ;&lx;'l;(P<Document 5Document 5% Document 2Document 2& Document 7Document 7' Right Par 1Right Par 1(` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2fE)>*l@+*A,HCRight Par 2Right Par 2)` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3* Right Par 3Right Par 3+` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4,` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2N-E.G/I0KRight Par 5Right Par 5-` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6.` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7/` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 80` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2U1(BN2$jP3$R4lTDocument 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 2pZ5lPU6$U7lW8$LXTechnical 3Technical 35 Technical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2 c9$Z:\;^<aTechnical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2"j=Rc>pe?g@vitoc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ 2rATjBrlCnDptoc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#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 (#2pvErFvuGluHrutoatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH 2f vQW/q",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2: X'     $//Appeal ORDER, in Glendale, CA, DA 951748//$ $/76.922 Rates for the basic service tier/$  X'$/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decision/$ Đ X'X01Í ÍX01Í Í #Xw PE37XP#  `(Before the  Xv' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION @Washington, D.C. 20554 \  Y14 `_"(# ă  Y 4 In the Matter of:)pp DA 95 1748 ) SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.) ) Appeals of Local Rate Order ) of the City of Glendale, CA)  Yd4}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  X7'  Y 4Adopted : August 8, 1995hhCq `K(# Released : August 15, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X' I.INTRODUCTION  Y41.` ` On February 2, 1995, Sammons Communications, Inc. ("Sammons"), the franchisee in the above matter, filed an appeal of the local cable rate order ("rate order") adopted on January 3, 1994 by its franchising authority, the City of Glendale, California  YR4("the City").#Rȝ Y4ԍWith its appeal, Sammons also filed a Request for Stay of the City's rate order, pending Commission resolution of this appeal. Because we reach the merits of Sammons' appeal in this order, the request for stay will be dismissed as moot. # On February 14, 1995, the City filed an opposition to Sammons' appeal. Sammons did not file a reply. The rate order establishes a new regulated rate schedule for  Y$4Sammons' basic service tier rates and associated equipment.$Kȝ Y #4ԍUnder the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") and the Commission's implementing regulations, local franchising authorities  Y$4may regulate rates for basic cable service and associated equipment. See Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act, 623(b), 47 U.S.C. 543(b). Specifically, the City's rate order requires Sammons to implement certain rate reductions and to issue refunds to"  0*0*0*"  Y4subscribers, dating back to July 15, 1994. Yy4ԍSee City's Rate Order at 2 (copy of local rate order found in Appeal, Exhibit H). "$U 0*0*0*-"Ԍ 6A ";U 0*0*0*="  Y- 6A 2.` ` Sammons argues that the City, in prescribing the rate for basic service, misapplied the Commission's instructions to Line C2, Module C in FCC Form 1200. FCC Form 1200 instructs operators to indicate on Line C2 the number of regulated nonbroadcast  Y-channels per tier.O Y4-ԍSee FCC Form 1200 at 16.O Sammons asserts that the City erred in finding that one of its channels  Y-(i.e., KTBN) should be classified as a broadcast channel as opposed to a nonbroadcast channel. Even if the City's interpretation of the Commission's rules is correct, Sammons argues that its refund liability would not arise but for the operation of the mustcarry rules, which Sammons contends are unconstitutional. Sammons urges the Commission to remand the City's rate order in light of the pendency of the legal challenge to the mustcarry rules. In response, the City maintains that it correctly applied the Commission's instructions in FCC Form 1200, and that because the Commission's mustcarry rules have not been declared unconstitutional by any competent court, they continue to remain in effect.  X -  X -II.DISCUSSION  Y -3.` ` Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be  Y-appealed to the Commission.Q{ Y-ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.944.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  Yf-long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.zf. YE-ԍSee Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92 Y0-266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731(1993) ("Report and Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration in  Y-MM Docket 92266, FCC 9440, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4345 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order").z Therefore, the Commission will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if it determines that the franchising authority  Y8-acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.:8 Y-ԍId.: 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  Y-resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.:j  Y -ԍId.:  Y-4.` ` FCC Form 1200 is the official form used to determine whether initial regulated rates for programming are reasonable under the revised benchmark rules which apply to operators beginning May 15, 1994 or upon the expiration of the deferral period" 0*(("  Y-provided under our rules for operators to comply with the revisions to our rules.1  Yy-ԍ#Xw PE37XP#See Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, Fifth Notice of  Yd-Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Recon.  YO-Order").1 Through the use of Form 1200, an operator generally calculates three sets of figures: (1) the" 0*((" operator's actual March 31, 1994 rate level; (2) the operator's March 31, 1994 benchmark rate level; and (3) the operator's "full reduction" rate level. These figures are used to derive an operator's maximum initial permitted rates.  Yv-5.` ` The operator first completes Module A of the Form 1200 to calculate its March 31, 1994 per subscriber monthly regulated revenue. Next, the operator completes Module B to calculate changes in external costs which the operator is entitled to reflect in its rates, but which have not yet been passed through to its subscribers. In Module C the operator enters its data with respect to a number of variables to calculate its March 31, 1994 benchmark rate level on a per subscriber, per month basis. The operator's March 31, 1994 actual rate level (Module A plus external costs calculated in Module B) is then compared to the benchmark rate level derived in Module C, with the operator carrying forward the smaller of the two. If the March 31, 1994 actual rate level is smaller, the operator completes Module D, subtracting the monthly per subscriber equipment cost calculated in Form 1205 and adding external costs calculated from Module B. If the benchmark rate level is smaller, the operator completes Module E, subtracting the monthly per subscriber equipment cost taken from Form 1205. Depending on which is used, either Module D or E establishes pertier rates, which the operator carries forward into Module F, as its socalled  Y4-provisional rates. 74Q Y6-#Xw PE37XP#эAt the time of the local rate order, a socalled "small operator" could elect "transition relief," which allowed it to keep its regulated revenue at its March 31, 1994 levels, and so was not required to complete its benchmark in Module C and its provisional rates were determined by completion of Module D. Pursuant to the Commission's Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration in MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 93215, FCC  Y-95196, at  4042 (released June 5, 1995) ("Small Systems Order"), small systems  Y-eventually will have to convert to some other form of regulation, i.e., by establishing rates in accordance with our benchmark or costofservice rules (the latter of which include the small  Y-system costofservice regulations adopted in the Small Systems Order).   Y-6.` ` In the second part of Form 1200, the operator derives its full reduction rate based on its September 30, 1992 rates. To compute this rate, in Module G, the operator calculates its September 30, 1992 total monthly regulated revenues per subscriber, reduces that amount by 17%, and adjusts upward by 3% to reflect the inflation from September 30, 1992 until September 30, 1993. In Module H, the operator then adjusts the results from Module G for changes since September 30, 1992 with respect to the number of regulated channels carried. In Module I, the operator subtracts a monthly per subscriber equipment"|P 0*((^" cost amount from Form 1205, establishes pertier rates, and adjusts for changes in external costs. In Module J, the operator compares its aggregate provisional rate with its aggregate full reduction rate. The maximum permitted rates an operator is actually allowed to charge are either the provisional rates (Module F) or the full reduction rates (Module I), depending on whether the aggregate provisional rate is greater or less than the aggregate full reduction rate. The maximum permitted rates are entered into Module K. In addition to Form 1200, an operator may file Form 1210, up to quarterly, to claim changes in external costs, the number of regulated channels and inflation that justify rate increases.  YH-  X1- A.` ` Line C2 of Form 1200  Y -7.` ` In computing its benchmark rate level in Module C, an operator is required to provide entries for the various benchmark variables. The benchmark formula is intended to derive a rate level which approximates the level a similarly situated operator subject to competition would charge. The benchmark rate level is based on the benchmark variables, which include, for example, the number of subscribers, the number of regulated channels,  Y-and the number of additional outlets charged.m  Y -ԍSee Second Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 41774178.m The benchmark formula's only function in the new system is to determine which operators are "lowpriced" operators subject to transition relief and therefore not required to set their rates based on their full reduction  YK-rates.x K{ Yw-#Xw PE37XP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  76.922.x An operator with (i) a current, i.e., March 31, 1994, rate level below the benchmark rate level or (ii) a current rate level above the benchmark rate level but with a full reduction  Y-rate level below the benchmark, is a lowpriced operator.g . Y-#Xw PE37XP#эId.g The lowpriced operator with a current rate level below the benchmark generally does not have to reduce its rate level, and the lowpriced operator with a current rate level above the benchmark rate level but with a full reduction rate level below the benchmark is required to reduce its rate level only to the  Y-benchmark.g YU-#Xw PE37XP#эId.g  Y-8.` ` Included among the variables used in the benchmark formula is the number of regulated nonbroadcast channels per tier. FCC Form 1200 instructs the operator to indicate in Module C, Line C2, the number of regulated nonbroadcast channels per tier as of March 31, 1994. FCC Form 1200 defines nonbroadcast channels as "channels other than broadcast signals that are receivable offtheair by the cable system. For purposes of this definition,  Y"-broadcast signals received via satellite or relayed to the cable system via microwave and not""0*((<"  Y-receivable offtheair by the cable system are considered nonbroadcast signals."R Yy-ԍFCC Form 1200 at 16 (emphasis added). A Benchmark Fact Sheet further explaining  Yb-our instructions for calculating an operator's benchmark rate restates this instruction. See  YM-Fact Sheet, Benchmark Fact Sheet at 12 (April 29, 1994). R According to the City's consultant, classifying KTBN as a broadcast channel as opposed to a non Y-broadcast channel has the effect of reducing Sammons' basic service tier rates.O Y-ԍThe City's consultant notes in its report that designating local station KTBN as a broadcast channel, as opposed to Sammons' designation of it as a nonbroadcast channel, "would have the impact of reducing the rates for Basic Service (Lifeline) by $0.08 per month and Tier 2 (Tier) by $0.07 per month." Appeal, Exhibit D (TMC Report at 3).   Y-9.` ` According to the City, Sammons counted local station KTBN as a non Y-broadcast channel on its Form 1200, Y-ԍSee Appeal, Exhibit D (TMC Report at 3). KTBN is channel 12 in Sammons'  Y-channel line up, and is channel 40 offtheair. Id.  which the City contends is inconsistent with FCC instructions for Line C2, which provide that a channel is not a nonbroadcast channel if it is  Y_-also "receivable offtheair by the cable system."T_Y  Yi-ԍSee note 15, supra. T The City and its consultant told Sammons that it appeared to them that KTBN can be received offtheair by Sammons' cable system in the City. The City then requested that Sammons provide justification for its designation of KTBN as a nonbroadcast channel on its Form 1200. Sammons responded, but the City asserts that Sammons' response was inadequate since it did not address the specific instructions to Line C2 of Form 1200, but rather was an historic commentary regarding the history of reception problems relating to KTBN. According to the City, it made further  Y -requests for justification, but Sammons' responses continued to be inadequate.M  Y{-ԍSee Opposition at 36.M The City charges that Sammons failed to provide reasonable proof that KTBN could not be received offtheair by its cable system at the time of the Form 1200 filing.  Yb-10.` ` Sammons, on the other hand, argues that the City, in its rate order, incorrectly found that KTBN should be classified as a broadcast channel. Sammons maintains that it properly counted KTBN as a nonbroadcast channel since KTBN was received by its system via satellite and it was not aware that its system could receive the signal offtheair at the time it filed Form 1200. Sammons argues that because KTBN did not provide good quality offtheair signal in the past, its determination that KTBN would not be receivable offtheair at the time it filed Form 1200 was reasonable. Sammons, however, notes in its Appeal that, it "has since learned, after experiencing quality problems with the satellite feed, that KTBN's offtheair signal quality has improved. Accordingly, in November of 1994 Sammons"0*(("  Y-switched its carriage of KTBN to the offtheair signal."A Yy-ԍAppeal at 6 n.4.A Nevertheless, Sammons insists that it properly listed KTBN as a nonbroadcast channel on its Form 1200 since, at the time of the Form 1200 filing, KTBN was received by Sammons via satellite.   Y-11.` ` We find that the City's decision is consistent with our instructions for Line C2  Y-of Form 1200 and reasonable. The Form's instructions provide that a channel is not classified as a nonbroadcast channel if it can also be received offtheair by the cable system, notwithstanding that it is a broadcast signal actually received via satellite by the  YH-system.ZHy Yr -ԍSee paragraph 8, supra.Z Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for the City to find that Sammons did not provide adequate proof that KTBN could not be received "offtheair" by its cable system. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Sammons presented any evidence as to whether KTBN could be received over the air in March, 1994. We will, therefore, affirm the City's rate order on this issue.  X - B.` ` MustCarry  Y-12.` ` Sammons asserts that the rate order should be overturned on the ground that mandatory carriage of KTBN, which is required under the Commission's mustcarry rules, is unconstitutional. The mustcarry provisions of the 1992 Cable Act require cable television systems to devote a portion of their channels to the transmission of local broadcast television  Y4-stations.~4, Y-ԍSee Communications Act,  614615, 47 U.S.C.  534535. ~ The constitutionality of the mustcarry provisions of the 1992 Cable Act is the  Y-subject of continuing litigation in the federal courts.6 Y-ԍSee Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 819 F. Supp. 32 (D.D.C. 1993),  Y-vacated, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994) (case remanded to threejudge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings). 6 While the case is pending, the mustcarry provisions of the 1992 Cable Act remain in effect, as do the Commission's mustcarry rules. Despite that, Sammons appears to request in its appeal that we remand the rate order back to the City, given the pending legal challenge to the mustcarry rules, on the theory that if the mustcarry rules are declared unconstitutional by the federal courts, then Sammons would not incur any refund liability. The result that Sammons envisions with respect to the existing litigation surrounding the mustcarry rules, however, is mere speculation. We must base our decision on the applicable laws that are currently in effect. Additionally, no court of competent jurisdiction has ordered the Commission to stay the enforcement of the mustcarry rules. We will therefore deny Sammons' request with respect to this issue.  X7- " f 0*((,"Ԍ X-III.ORDERING CLAUSES  Y-13.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Sammons Communications, Inc.'s appeal  Y-of the local rate order of the City of Glendale, California IS DENIED .  Y-14.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Stay of the City of  Yy-Glendale's rate order filed by Sammons Communications, Inc. IS DISMISSED as moot.  YL-15.` ` 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. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Meredith J. Jones ` `  hh,Chief, Cable Services Bureau