NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** $/Appeal Order, Comcast Cablevision of Mt. Clemens, MI, DA 95-2107/$ $/76.922 Basic Tier Rates/$ $/76.933 Franchising Authority Review of Basic Cable Rates and Equipment Costs/$ $/76.942 Refunds/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Rate Decision/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 95-2107 In the Matter of: ) ) Comcast Cablevision of ) Mount Clemens, Inc., ) ) Petitioner ) ) v. ) ) City of Mount Clemens, MI, ) ) Respondent ) ) Appeal of Local ) Rate Order of City of ) Mount Clemens, MI ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 2, 1995 Released: October 12, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On June 15, 1994, Comcast Cablevision of Mount Clemens, Inc. ("Comcast") filed with the Commission an appeal of a local rate order adopted on May 16, 1994 by the City of Mount Clemens, Michigan ("the City"). In its local rate order, the City established maximum permitted rates for Comcast's basic cable service, associated equipment and installations. The City ordered Comcast to issue refunds or credit subscribers for all charges between September 1, 1993 and May 16, 1994 which were in excess of the maximum permitted rates set forth in its local rate order. 2. Comcast raises the following issues in its appeal: (a) whether the City exceeded its authority when it treated as a regulated service Comcast's "Value Pak," which is a collective offering of individually-offered ("a la carte") channels; (b) whether the City improperly disallowed Comcast's Cableguard charge for the maintenance of customer-owned inside wiring; (c) whether the City improperly ordered Comcast to refund premium outlet charges; (d) whether the City's order is inconsistent with the Commission's refund regulations; and (e) whether the City's annual rate filing requirement and the City's definition of "premium service" are inconsistent with our regulatory requirements. In addition, the City, in its Opposition, clarified that for the purpose of determining Comcast's basic tier rate, it did not count part-time channels which are shown for less than twelve hours per day and which share channel location with either a broadcast channel or a premium service. In its reply, Comcast asserts that the City erred when it did not include certain part- time channels in its rate calculations. We consider each of these issues in turn. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 3. Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be appealed to the Commission. In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising authority's decision as long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision. Therefore, the Commission will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if it determines that the franchising authority acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order. 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 resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal. With respect to a determination made by a franchising authority on the regulatory status of an a la carte package as part of its final decision setting rates for the basic service tier, the Commission has stated that "the Commission will defer to the local authority's findings of fact if there is a reasonable basis for the local findings," and the Commission "will then apply FCC rules and precedent to those facts to determine the appropriate regulatory status of the [a la carte package] in question." III. DISCUSSION A. Proper Regulatory Treatment of Comcast's A La Carte Package 4. Comcast objects to the City's finding that the channels offered in its Value Pak a la carte package should be treated as regulated channels. Comcast contends that the 1992 Cable Act encourages cable operators to unbundle programming services from regulated tiers and offer them on a per-channel basis. It is Comcast's position that its Value Pak a la carte offering complies with both the Commission's a la carte rules which were in effect at the time the package was created, as well as the interpretive guidelines the Commission set forth in its Second Reconsideration Order. Comcast further contends that the Commission, and not the City, should determine the validity of Comcast's a la carte package as part of a then- pending letter of inquiry regarding Comcast's rates. The City, on the other hand, contends that it properly applied the Commission's guidelines on a la carte packages and that the channels in Comcast's package should be treated as regulated channels. 5. Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package was first offered to subscribers on September 1, 1993, the date on which Comcast restructured the service offerings on its Mount Clemens system. As part of this restructuring, Comcast removed two channels from its basic service tier and two channels from its cable programming service tier. Comcast then offered these four channels to its subscribers on an individual basis and as a package containing all four channels. 6. The regulatory status of the Value Pak a la carte package in this franchising jurisdiction was resolved in one of our letter of inquiry orders. In Comcast Cablevision, we found that we could not say that it was clear that the Value Pak a la carte package offered by Comcast on its Mount Clemens system was not a permissible non-rate-regulated offering under our rules. We further concluded that in light of the prior confusion over what constituted a permissible non-rate-regulated a la carte offering, it would be inequitable to subject Comcast to refund liability on account of the a la carte package or to require Comcast to restructure its tiers so as to return the channels offered in the a la carte package to regulated tiers. Instead, we found that, on a prospective basis, the Value Pak may be treated as a non-rate-regulated new product tier under the Commission's Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 93- 215, 10 FCC Rcd 1226 (1995) ("Going Forward Order"). 7. We find that the City's determination that the channels comprising Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package must be included as regulated channels is inconsistent with the action taken in Comcast Cablevision. We further find that, in accordance with Comcast Cablevision, Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package should be treated as a non-rate- regulated new product tier. Accordingly, with respect to the proper regulatory treatment of Comcast's Value Pak, Comcast's appeal is remanded to the City for further proceedings consistent with our ruling herein. B. Cableguard Service i. Regulatory Treatment of Inside Wiring 8. Comcast contends that the City acted improperly when it disallowed Comcast's charge for its Cableguard maintenance service, which covers the repair of customer-owned inside wiring, and ordered Comcast to refund monies paid for this service since September 1, 1993. Comcast argues that the City lacked the authority to disallow the Cableguard charge because the Commission was reviewing the matter in a then-pending letter of inquiry, which the Commission had issued to Comcast on December 13, 1993. Comcast states that prior to September 1, 1993, it provided unlimited customer premises visits, regardless of the cause or source of the problem, at no additional charge to customers. After September 1, 1993, based on historical data, Comcast calculated the actual cost for such visits on a per subscriber basis to be $0.38 per month. Comcast states that it calculated the monthly subscriber rate for Cableguard service on the basis of its Hourly Service Charge ("HSC"), as required by the Commission's rules. The City contends that it disallowed the Cableguard charge because Comcast did not adequately explain the Cableguard service, nor did it provide any evidence of how the monthly Cableguard charge was calculated. In addition, the City contends that the charge is a negative option billing practice. 9. Under our rules, an operator is permitted to sell customer premises equipment to subscribers, and may also offer service contracts for the maintenance and repair of equipment sold to subscribers. If the subscriber owns the inside wiring, then pursuant to our rules, "the charge for a service contract shall be the HSC times the estimated average number of hours for maintenance and repair over the life of the equipment." On the other hand, if the operator owns the internal wiring, that wiring is regulated equipment, the rate for which must be justified in Part III of Form 393. The monthly lease rate for the inside wiring includes maintenance costs. Under those circumstances, the operator cannot charge an additional maintenance fee for inside wiring. 10. Pursuant to our rules, Comcast was required to provide evidence as to the costs and labor hours associated with the maintenance of the customer-owned inside wiring. With inside wiring which is customer-owned, such information is needed to identify what hours and costs have been included in the calculation of the HSC and for calculating the average charge. As noted in paragraph 8, supra, the City claims that Comcast failed to provide any evidence of how it arrived at the monthly Cableguard charge of $0.38. Although Comcast did not respond to this claim in its reply, it did claim in its appeal that its Cableguard service charge is based on historical repair data, and that it calculated the Cableguard charge based on its HSC. We are unable to determine from the record whether Comcast adequately justified its Cableguard charge. However, we find that it was unreasonable for the City to disallow the Cableguard charge entirely. We therefore remand this issue to the City with instructions that Comcast provide the City, within twenty (20) days of the release of this order, with detailed information necessary to justify the calculation of the Cableguard charge. If Comcast fails to provide adequate information, the City should set the Cableguard rate based on the best information available. ii. Negative Option Billing 11. With respect to the issue of negative option billing, we have examined previously the facts presented by the Cableguard issue in a letter of inquiry order. In the Negative Option Billing LOI Order, we specifically determined that Comcast did not violate the negative option billing practices of the 1992 Cable Act when it charged its Mount Clemens subscribers for the Cableguard wire maintenance plan. Accordingly, we find that the City's determination with respect to Comcast's charges for the Cableguard wire maintenance plan are inconsistent with the action taken in the Negative Option Billing LOI Order. Thus, the negative option billing portion of this issue is remanded to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings herein. C. Premium Outlet Charges 12. On September 1, 1993, Comcast began charging subscribers $3.95 for each outlet, after the first outlet, through which premium programming is received. Comcast contends that the City improperly ordered it to refund these premium outlet charges. It contends that the Commission previously has determined that charges for additional premium outlets are not subject to rate regulation. Additionally, Comcast argues that the City lacked the authority to disallow the additional premium outlet charges because the Commission had the matter under review in a then-pending letter of inquiry. However, the City contends that Comcast did not provide sufficient evidence to justify this charge. In reply, Comcast asserts that the charge to receive premium programming on additional outlets is a charge for premium programming services, not an equipment charge, and, therefore, is not subject to regulation. 13. The Commission's rules state that, because per-channel and per-program offerings are not regulated under the 1992 Cable Act, a cable operator is free to offer such programming at rates that vary depending on the number of outlets that are hooked up to receive those services. Thus, the City has no jurisdiction to prohibit such a practice. Accordingly, this issue is remanded to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. D. Refund Issues i. Timing of Compliance with Local Order 14. Comcast objects to the City's local rate order because the order, issued on May 16, 1994, required Comcast to implement refunds by June 1, 1994. Comcast cites language from the Rate Order in which the Commission stated "cable operator[s] will be required to implement any reduction in rates or refunds within 60 days from the date the Commission releases an order finding the contested rate to be unreasonable and mandating a remedy" and that "[a]s to the mechanics of making refunds, . . . franchising authorities should follow the procedures which we are adopting for cable programming services." In its opposition, the City responds that the implementation language cited by Comcast refers to compliance with rate orders that are issued by the Commission, not franchising authorities. 15. The 60-day requirement on which Comcast relies was specifically applicable to cable programming service rate reductions or refunds ordered by the Commission. Our rules do not explicitly require franchising authorities to provide cable operators with 60 days to comply with local rate orders. We have stated that franchising authorities should consider the amount of time required to prepare and send out notices and bills reflecting rate changes with particular attention paid to the impact of cycle billing, if applicable. This instruction to franchising authorities is based on the same rationale we used in concluding that cable operators should have 60 days to implement a Commission order requiring refunds of cable programming service tier rates. Thus, we find that while a franchising authority may, in its discretion, specify a reasonable time period for compliance with its rate order, the time specified must be sufficient to allow for preparation and distribution of notices and bills, and must accommodate the time demands of cycle billing. We have found that, with respect to cable programming service tier rates, such a time period is at least 60 days. We have no reason to believe that implementation of a local rate order would require less time. 16. The City's 15-day time limit on issuing refunds does not give Comcast the opportunity to provide its subscribers notice, nor does it appear from the record below that the City gave proper consideration to other issues, such as whether Comcast uses cycle billing. Accordingly, this portion of Comcast's appeal is remanded to the City for resolution in accordance with the terms of this order. ii. Lack of Accounting Order 17. Our rules provide that once a cable operator submits for review its existing rates or a proposed rate increase, the franchising authority has 30 days to review the submission unless the franchising authority issues a tolling order extending the review period for an additional 90 days in cases not involving a cost of service filing or an additional 150 days for cases that do involve a cost of service showing. If a franchising authority does not take action to issue a rate order within this tolling period, it must issue an accounting order in order to preserve its ability to order the operator to issue refunds. If an operator files a facially incomplete rate justification, which includes the failure to file necessary supporting schedules, the deadlines for the franchising authority to rule on the reasonableness of the operator's proposed rates are tolled until the franchising authority receives the information. Similarly, if an operator submits a complete filing, but one about which the local authority has questions, the franchising authority's deadline may be tolled if the information sought is so significant as to delay the examination of the remainder of the rate justification, or if the operator fails to supply the requested information promptly. 18. On November 1, 1993, Comcast filed its initial rate schedule with the City. The City asserts that Comcast promised to deliver the supporting schedules by November 15, 1993. The City issued a tolling order on November 29, 1993, which extended the review period for an additional 90 days. On January 4, 1994, Comcast filed its completed FCC Form 393 with the City. After reviewing Comcast's FCC Form 393 and a tape of the related public hearing, the City's Chief Administrator submitted his recommendation regarding Comcast's rates to the local Cable Television Review Commission. The Cable Television Review Commission entered its recommended decision in an order dated February 18, 1994. Under the City's local rules, the recommendation of the Cable Television Review Commission would have become final within seven days after the written recommendation was adopted unless Comcast raised an objection within that seven-day period. Comcast did raise such an objection by filing an appeal, with the City Commission, of the Cable Television Review Commission's recommended decision. After considering Comcast's appeal, the City Commission, on May 16, 1994, adopted the local rate order at issue, which embodied the Cable Television Review Commission's recommended decision. 19. Comcast argues that the City Commission's May 16, 1994 rate order is unenforceable because the City issued this rate order outside the 120-day period established by the Commission's rules. According to Comcast, although the City issued a tolling order on November 29, 1993, the City failed to issue an accounting order at the end of the 90-day tolling period as required by Commission regulations. Comcast also asserts that the Cable Television Review Commission's February 18, 1994 rate order was issued beyond the time period prescribed for the issuance of a rate order. The City, on the other hand, asserts that there was no need for an accounting order because its Cable Television Review Commission entered a decision on February 18, 1994, prior to the expiration of the tolling period. The City further claims that the Cable Television Review Commission's order put Comcast on notice to keep an accounting of its refund liability since this order specifically required Comcast to lower its basic service tier rate from $8.06 to $7.58 per month and to issue refunds to subscribers for all basic tier overcharges since September 1, 1993. The City argues that Comcast's appeal to the City Commission, and the order resulting therefrom, was elective. Furthermore, the City argues that its review process was delayed by Comcast's procrastination in providing supporting schedules, its failure to answer the Cable Television Review Commission's request for additional information, and the Cable Television Review Commission's and the City Commission's agreements to postpone public hearings for the benefit of Comcast. In its reply, Comcast denies the City's assertions regarding Comcast's failure to provide information. 20. The analysis of this issue turns on whether the local authority acted on Comcast's submission within the 90-day tolling period. The Cable Television Review Commission reviewed Comcast's FCC Form 393 and issued a recommended decision on February 18, 1994. As noted in paragraph 18, supra, the City's local rules provide that the recommendation of the Cable Television Review Commission becomes final within seven days after the written recommendation is adopted unless an objection is raised within that period. We find that the Cable Television Review Commission's examination of Comcast's FCC Form 393 and issuance of a recommended decision regarding the FCC Form 393 constituted action in accordance with our rules and, therefore, its refunding authority was preserved. Thus, it was not necessary for the City to issue an accounting order to preserve its ability to require Comcast to issue refunds to its subscribers. Accordingly, we find that the City acted to adopt a local rate order governing the rates to be charged by Comcast within the 90-day tolling period set forth in the Commission's rules, and, therefore, we need not address the other arguments raised by the parties on this issue. Comcast's appeal is, therefore, denied with regard to this issue. E. Local Regulatory Requirements i. Annual Filings 21. Comcast alleges that the City's cable television ordinance is in conflict with the Commission's procedural regulations because the ordinance requires Comcast to file a schedule of its proposed rates on an annual basis and prescribes reduced rates for Comcast's basic service and equipment as a penalty for failure to file such a rate schedule annually. It is Comcast's position that filings regarding proposed rate adjustments may be filed quarterly throughout the year and, in any event, that the timing and extent of rate adjustments are wholly within the discretion of the operator. The City did not address this assertion in its opposition. 22. Our regulations establish obligations on the part of both the local franchising authority and the cable operator. In order to be certified to regulate basic service tier rates, local authorities must agree to adopt and administer regulations that are consistent with the regulations prescribed by the Commission for the regulation of basic tier service. Once the local franchising authority notifies the cable operator that it has been certified by the Commission, the operator has 30 days to submit the appropriate rate justification form(s) to the local franchising authority. After its initial basic tier rates have been approved, the operator must file FCC Form 1205 ("Equipment Form") on an annual basis to update regulated equipment and installation rates. The operator must file FCC Form 1205 with its local franchising authority (or with the Commission where it is certified to regulate basic tier service) within 60 days after the end of its fiscal year. However, for fiscal year 1995, the operator may have an additional 30 days to file FCC Form 1205 if it notifies its local franchising authority (or the Commission where it is certified to regulate basic tier service) that it intends to take an additional 30 days because it is unable to comply with the 60-day requirement. In addition, the operator must file FCC Form 1205 with its local franchising authority at least 30 days before the effective date of any increase in regulated charges for equipment and installations. 23. Furthermore, the operator may file FCC Form 1210 ("Update Form") to justify adjustments in its initial maximum permitted rates. The operator may file a Form 1210 to adjust its rates to reflect changes in external costs, channel additions and deletions, and inflation. External costs include the following categories of costs: state and local taxes specifically applicable to the provision of cable television service; franchise fees; costs of complying with franchise requirements; retransmission consent fees and copyright fees incurred for the carriage of broadcast signals; other programming costs; and Commission regulatory fees. The operator may file for changes in external costs for the period beginning at the end of the last quarter for which an adjustment was previously made through the end of the quarter that has most recently closed preceding the filing of the Form 1210. The operator may file a Form 1210 up to quarterly, but must file in the quarter following a decrease in costs due to channel deletions and within a year following a decrease in other costs. The operator must file for a rate increase within a year of an increase in external costs, inflation or a change in the number of channels on regulated tiers in order to recover those costs in its rates. 24. The 1992 Cable Act requires the Commission to seek to reduce the administrative burdens on subscribers, cable operators, local franchising authorities, and the Commission. Local rules that require a cable operator to file its proposed rate schedule on an annual basis run counter to the goals of the 1992 Cable Act and are inconsistent with the Commission's rules. Under the Commission's rules, the only filings which an operator is required to submit on an annual basis are the following: (i) FCC Form 1205, which updates regulated equipment and installation rates; and (ii) FCC Form 1210, in the specific instance where an operator has experienced either a decrease in external costs, or a decrease in programming costs due to the deletion of a channel or channels from a regulated tier. Other filings, covering proposed rate adjustments such as external cost increases and inflation adjustments, may be made at varying intervals at the option of the operator. Accordingly, the provision in the City's local rate order which requires Comcast to file a proposed rate schedule on an annual basis and prescribes a penalty for Comcast's failure to do so is not consistent with the Commission's rules. This issue is remanded to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. ii. Definition of Premium Service 25. The City's cable television ordinance defines "premium service" as "those channels or services [Comcast] had offered on April 1, 1993, on a per-channel (i.e., 'a la carte') basis." Comcast asserts that this definition of "premium service" is inconsistent with the Commission's regulations and requests that the Commission instruct the City to amend the ordinance to ensure that its definition of "premium service" is not inconsistent with the Commission's regulations. According to the City, the sole purpose of the "premium service" definition is to segregate channels available on a per-channel or per-program basis from channels on the basic and expanded tiers, with City regulatory authority extending only to the basic tier. In its opposition, the City contends that its local rate order was unaffected by the contested definition of "premium service" and, therefore, this issue is irrelevant to the instant appeal. 26. It is not clear how the City applied this definition in its regulatory activities, or if this definition affected Comcast in any specific way. Unlike the Commission's rules, the City's definition of "premium service" appears to distinguish between programming offered on a per-channel basis before April 1, 1993 and programming offered on a per-channel basis after April 1, 1993. However, the pleadings in the instant case do not contain sufficient information to enable us to make a finding regarding whether or not the City's definition of "premium service" is inconsistent with the Commission's regulations. Therefore, we will not rule upon this issue. We do, however, remind the City that the Commission's rules require that in order to be certified to regulate the rates an operator charges for the basic tier, associated equipment and installations, a franchising authority's rate regulations must be consistent with the Commission's rate regulations. F. Treatment of Channels Split Between Programming Sources 27. As noted in footnote 12, supra, Comcast asserts that the City's order does not provide documentation to support the revision of Comcast's basic tier rate from $8.06 to $7.58. Comcast speculates in its appeal that the City calculated a lower basic tier rate because it treated the four channels in Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package as regulated channels. In its opposition, the City clarifies that Comcast's basic tier rate was lowered because (a) for purposes of determining Comcast's maximum permitted per-channel rate, the City removed from Comcast's benchmark calculation, those part-time services which are shown for less than twelve hours per day; and (b) it treated the channels in the Value Pak a la carte package as regulated channels. The City argues that Comcast incorrectly classified channels in six instances. Specifically, the City contends that Comcast misclassified as a satellite channel a channel shared by CBET, which is a Canadian broadcast station, and Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN), which is a satellite service. The City contends that because TBN was only on the air for approximately four hours per day, this channel was improperly classified as a satellite channel. The City also alleges that Comcast miscounted five other channels on which regulated services shared time and channel locations with unregulated premium services. Comcast asserts that the dispute here involves only two channels: the CBET/TBN channel referred to above and an unspecified channel shared by a pay-per-view service and a satellite-delivered service. Comcast responds to the City's assertions by arguing that prior to March 30, 1994, the Commission permitted operators to treat any channel containing satellite programming as a satellite channel, but on March 30, 1994, the Commission specified that a shared channel may only be counted if the majority of programming comes from satellite sources. Accordingly, Comcast claims that on May 12, 1994, it modified its service offerings on the CBET/TBN channel so that a majority of its programming consists of satellite-delivered services. Comcast contends that it should not be subject to refund liability for this shared channel due to its "reasonable" interpretation of the Commission's initial rate regulations. Comcast does not address the channel shared by the pay-per-view service and the satellite programming service. 28. In a June 1, 1994 Public Notice, we clarified that Commission rules require that channels should be classified according to their preponderance of use. Thus, a channel should be classified according to the type of programming service which is carried on the channel the majority of the time. This preponderance of use standard applies to channel offerings under both our original and revised rate regulations. Therefore, since the majority of CBET/TBN programming was non-satellite for the period of September 1, 1993 to May 14, 1994, the channel may not be counted as a satellite programming channel for this period. We cannot rule upon the proper categorization of the five other shared channels because the record does not provide us with sufficient information regarding the specific hours of operation for each of the programming services. Accordingly, this issue is remanded to the City for further consideration so that it may enter an order consistent with Commission policy as set forth herein. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 29. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order involving the regulatory treatment of Comcast's Value Pak is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings in Comcast Cablevision. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order involving the disallowance of Comcast's Cableguard charge for the maintenance of customer- owned inside wiring is REMANDED to the City for further consideration and so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order involving Comcast's premium outlet charges is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order involving the timing of compliance with the local order is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Comcast's appeal involving the absence of an accounting order is DENIED. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order involving annual filings required by the City is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order involving Comcast's treatment of channels, the use of which is split between programming sources, is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that our stay of the local rate order, which was granted pending the resolution of this appeal, is hereby VACATED. 37. 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau