WPC> 2a BK Z  Courier3|x BoldCG TimesX@`7X@HP4Si; LPT1; Rm. 907_1HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\3PX@"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx& CourierCG Times Bold#Xw PE37}XP#3|wCourierCG Times BoldCG TimesCG Times ItalicCG Times BoldCourierCG Times BoldCG TimesCG Times ItalicCourier Italic@\KT|X@2L* f N"f ",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LCourierCG Times BoldCG TimesCG Times ItalicCourier ItalicTimes New RomanD7zC;,EXz_ pi7X8wC;,}Xw PE37XP6uC;,E:Xu&_ x7XX><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8Z~*f ,J<?xxx,x6X@`7X@D7zC;,EXz_ pi7X8wC;,}Xw PE37XP6uC;,E:Xu&_ x7XXV"G($,}hG PE37hP<R&HHH,~ ,H6X@`7h@ ?xxx,/Πx6Nhez7XH",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2Kp8\:>"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd<?xxx,x6X@`7X@D7zC;,EXz_ pi7X8wC;,}Xw PE37XP6uC;,E:Xu&_ x7XXV"G($,}hG PE37hP<R&HHH,~ ,H6X@`7h@ ?xxx,/Πx6Nhez7XH7jC:,>yoXj\  P6G;XP X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#$// Letter to Viacom DA 952003 //$ $/Waiver of Election Requirements Part76, Subpart N, Cable Cable Regulation/$  X-$/ 76.922(e)(1) /$44WD#x6X@`7X@# 4#Xz_ pi7EX# Y-#Xw PE37}XP#Mr. Paul Glist, Esq.  Y-D3 1, 4D  Y-Page #Xw PE37}XP#"0*0*0*" September 18, 1995  Y-Mr. Paul Glist, Esq. `*(# DA 952003 ă Cole, Raywid & Braverman, L.L.P. `(#Released: September 27, 1995  Y-#x6X@`7X@##Xw PE37}XP#1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 200069750 Dear Mr. Glist: This letter is in response to your letter of June 13, 1995, on behalf of your client Viacom Cable ("Viacom") requesting clarification of the application of the going forward rules to an integrated system undergoing a rebuild. In your letter, you indicate that Viacom is involved in extensive rebuilds and upgrades of its systems. The rebuilds do not necessarily conform to CUID boundaries, but rather conform to the engineering requirements necessary to make the expansion process as efficient as possible. Because the upgraded services become available to customers as the rebuild proceeds, Viacom has implemented two rate structures to account for varying levels of service. The dual rate structure was developed using the going forward rules at the time Viacom began switching subscribers to the upgraded service. For example, some systems  Y-added FX in 1994 under the first going forward methodology (i.e., programming expense  Y -plus 7.5%), and several other channels under the second going forward methodology (i.e., 20 cents per channel plus licensing fees). Confusion arises when new services are first delivered to a subscriber in a CUID which was not served by an upgraded area before December 31, 1994. You observe that the system in your example is technically integrated and that FX was added to the common headend in 1994. All subscribers receive the same rate and channel lineup once they are cut over to the upgraded service. Hence, the issue you wish clarified concerns the timing of the implementation of the going forward rules due to the phasein of the rebuild. The phased in rate structure your client proposes raises two questions. First, if your client will be charging different rates to subscribers within the same franchise area, does this violate the uniform rate requirements found at Section 76.984 of our rules? This arrangement would not appear to violate the uniform rates provision since the Commission has already recognized that operators may charge different rates attributable to technological  Y"-differences resulting from a staged rebuild or upgrade of a system."N Y%<ԍ#Xw PE37}XP#Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No.  Y%-93266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993).#x6X@`7X@# The second and more complex question involves the application of different going forward  YV%-methodologies. The Going Forward Order provides that operators must elect to apply either"V%d0*0*0*&"  Y-the original going forward methodology (i.e., programming expense plus 7.5%) or the  Y-revised going forward methodology (i.e., up to 20 cents per channel) for all rate adjustments  Y-after December 31, 1994.  WO<ԍ #Xw PE37}XP#Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, and Seventh Notice of  Y8-Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 1226 (1994) ("Going Forward Order) at  65.  Viacom wants to combine the two going forward methodologies for use in additional franchise areas within the same technologically integrated system as system upgrades are brought on line. Viacom will require a waiver of the election requirement in order to use the combined methodologies in additional franchise areas as part of an ongoing system wide upgrade. The Commission has recognized the technical and financial efficiencies associated with integrated systems and has historically interpreted its rules to encourage such operations. The waiver on the restrictions regarding the combination of the two going forward methodologies appears to be consistent with the Commission policy of allowing operators to raise rates in a consistent manner as service is upgraded. Such consistency will provide a degree of predictability to operators. Accordingly, the Bureau finds that the restrictions should be waived subject to some conditions. Operators may use both going forward methodologies within a franchise area for channels added to an additional franchise area after December 31, 1994 provided that the same going forward methodology was used prior to January 1, 1995 within another franchise area of the same integrated system to add the same channel. The additional channel must be added as part of an ongoing integrated system upgrade which began before December 31, 1994. These conditions are intended to make the rate increase methodology consistent among different franchise areas within an integrated system in a manner congruent with the justification for this waiver. Future waivers of this nature will be considered only on a casebycase basis. XxX` ` X XXhhX@Sincerely, (# x` `  hh@Meredith J. Jones x` `  hh@Chief, Cable Services Bureau