WPC 2a BKKN CG Times3|w =Xw PE37XP"i~'^#)0<-ADocument 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 (#Right Par 5Right Par 5-` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2K.lC/E0G1(IRight 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 (#Document 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2@Q2$ L3$DN4lhP5lPTechnical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 Technical 3Technical 35 2JX6$rQ7lS8$T9$&VTechnical 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 (#Technical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2`:|X;Z<\=^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 (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2g>&a?Dc@vbeAetoc 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 (#2pB(hCFjDdlEntoc 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 (#2wFvpGlHqHrq&rcaptioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH "i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx-Order, the Commission reconsidered its regulatory treatment of collective offerings of a la carte channels. Specifically, the Commission determined that such packages are cable programming service tiers within the meaning of Section 3(1)(2) of the 1992 Cable Act and  Y-therefore will be subject to our general rate regulation rules. Id. at 1243. However, the Commission also stated that with respect to packages created between April 1, 1993 and September 30, 1994, where it is not clear that a particular package was not a permissible offering under the a la carte rules in effect at the time it was created, the package may be  Y-treated as a new product tier. Id.   Y'-x7.` ` We find that the City's determination that the channels comprising Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package must be included as regulated channels is inconsistent with the  Y-action taken in Comcast Cablevision. P  X#-ԍ The Commission recently affirmed the Bureau's decision in another Comcast letter of  X$-inquiry order in which the Bureau held, as it did in Comcast Cablevision, that Comcast's fourchannel Value Pak a la carte package in Tallahassee, Florida should be treated as a non X&-regulated new product tier. See In the Matter of Comcast Cablevision, City of Tallahassee,"& 0*((&" Florida, FCC 95341 (released August 15, 1995).  We further find that, in accordance with Comcast"y 0*(("  Y-Cablevision, Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package should be treated as a nonrateregulated 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  Y-consistent with our ruling herein.( y Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эx#Xw PE37=XP#Comcast argues that the City improperly lowered Comcast's basic tier rate when it increased the number of regulated channels to include the channels offered in the Value Pak a la carte package. Comcast further asserts that the City's local rate order does not provide a recomputed FCC Form 393 to support the revision of Comcast's basic tier rate and it claims that the City could not have calculated Comcast's revised rates correctly since the City would need Worksheet 2 of FCC Form 393, which Comcast did not complete as part of its FCC Form 393 submission. This issue is moot since, pursuant to this order, the channels contained in Comcast's Value Pak a la carte package shall not be counted as regulated channels for the purpose of calculating Comcast's maximum permitted rate. In addition, while franchising authorities are obligated to provide a written explanation of their rate orders, they are not required to provide operators with a copy of a recalculated FCC Form  Y-393. See In the Matter of Century Cable of Southern California, 10 FCC Rcd 4402 (1995);  Y-see also 47 C.F.R. 76.936; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5715. ( x  X-x B.` ` Cableguard Service  Yx-  Xa-x` ` i. Regulatory Treatment of Inside Wiring  Y3-x8.` ` Comcast contends that the City acted improperly when it disallowed Comcast's charge for its Cableguard maintenance service, which covers the repair of customerowned 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 thenpending 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.  Y-x9.` ` 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" 0*((o"  Y-equipment sold to subscribers., Xy-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.923(i); Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 581718; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, First Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of  X6-Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 1164, 1201 ("First  X!-Reconsideration Order"). 47 C.F.R.  76.923(i) states: x` ` A cable operator may sell customer premises equipment to a subscriber. The equipment price shall recover the operator's cost of the equipment, including costs associated with storing and preparing the equipment for sale up to the time it is sold to the customer, plus a reasonable profit. An operator may sell service contracts for the maintenance and repair of equipment sold to subscribers. 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. x` , 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  Y-number of hours for maintenance and repair over the life of the equipment."J& X-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.923(i).J 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  Yv-an additional maintenance fee for inside wiring.v X-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.923(a)(4); First Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1200.  YH-x10.` ` Pursuant to our rules, Comcast was required to provide evidence as to the costs and labor hours associated with the maintenance of the customerowned inside wiring. With inside wiring which is customerowned, such information is needed to identify what hours and costs have been included in the calculation of the HSC and for calculating the  Y -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. "0*(("Ԍx  X-x` ` ii. Negative Option Billing x  Y-x11.` ` With respect to the issue of negative option billing, we have examined  Y-previously the facts presented by the Cableguard issue in a letter of inquiry order. Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эx See In the Matter of Letters of Inquiry on Negative Option Billing, 10 FCC Rcd  Y-2139 (1995) ("Negative Option Billing LOI Order"). In the  Y-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  Ya-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  Y5-maintenance plan are inconsistent with the action taken in the Negative Option Billing LOI  Y -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.  X - xC.` ` Premium Outlet Charges x  Y - x12.` ` 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 thenpending 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  Y-regulation.cf Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxReply at 7.c  Y-x13.` ` The Commission's rules state that, because perchannel and perprogram 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  YV-receive those services.V Y"-#Xw PE37=XP#эxFirst Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1164, 1194 at n.87. 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. x "0*(( "  X-x D.` ` Refund Issueshh  X-x` ` i. Timing of Compliance with Local Order  Y-x14.` ` 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  Yv-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  Y3-remedy"3 Y -#Xw PE37=XP#эxAppeal at 10, n.19; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5867. and that "[a]s to the mechanics of making refunds, . . . franchising authorities  Y -should follow the procedures which we are adopting for cable programming services." { YH -#Xw PE37=XP#эxReply at 89; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 57265727. In its opposition, the City responds that the implementation language cited by Comcast refers to  Y -compliance with rate orders that are issued by the Commission, not franchising authorities. . Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5867.  Y -x15.` ` The 60day requirement on which Comcast relies was specifically applicable to  Y -cable programming service rate reductions or refunds ordered by the Commission.:  X;-ԍxId.: 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  YM-with particular attention paid to the impact of cycle billing, if applicable.M X-ԍxSee In the Matter of Times Mirror Cable Television of Springfield, Inc. (Springfield, Illinois), 10 FCC Rcd 2340 (1995); Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation, Question/Answer 3 (released May 18, 1994).  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  Y-cable programming service tier rates, such a time period is at least 60 days.3  Xv$-ԍ Id.3 We have no reason to believe that implementation of a local rate order would require less time. "g 0*(("  Y-x16.` ` The City's 15day 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.  Xv-x ` ` ii . Lack of Accounting Order  Y_-  YH-x17.` ` 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  Y -days for cases that do involve a cost of service showing.p  Ye -#Xw PE37=XP#эx47 C.F.R. 76.933(a).p If a franchising authority does not take action to issue a rate order within this tolling period, it must issue an accounting order  Y -in order to preserve its ability to order the operator to issue refunds.p y Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эx47 C.F.R. 76.933(c).p 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  Yy-operator's proposed rates are tolled until the franchising authority receives the information.y* YT-#Xw PE37=XP#эxSee Third Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4348. 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  Y-operator fails to supply the requested information promptly.b Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxId. b x  Y-x18.` ` 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"  0*((<"  Y-was adopted unless Comcast raised an objection within that sevenday period. Yy-#Xw PE37=XP#эxOpposition, Exhibit 1, An Ordinance Providing for Cable Television Rate Regulation and Enforcement Ordinance, ("Ordinance") at 13. 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.  Yv-x19.` ` Comcast argues that the City Commission's May 16, 1994 rate order is unenforceable because the City issued this rate order outside the 120day 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 90day 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 $7.58 per month and to issue refunds to subscribers for all basic tier overcharges since September 1, 1993. The City argues that Comcast's appeal to the City Commission, and the order resulting therefrom, was elective. Furthermore, the City argues that its review process was delayed by Comcast's procrastination in providing supporting schedules, its failure to answer the Cable Television Review Commission's request for additional information, and the Cable Television Review Commission's and the City Commission's agreements to postpone public hearings for the benefit of Comcast. In its reply, Comcast denies the City's assertions regarding Comcast's failure to provide information.  Y-x20.` ` The analysis of this issue turns on whether the local authority acted on Comcast's submission within the 90day tolling period. The Cable Television Review Commission reviewed Comcast's FCC Form 393 and issued a recommended decision on  YN-February 18, 1994. As noted in paragraph 18, supra, the City's local rules provide that the recommendation of the Cable Television Review Commission becomes final within seven days after the written recommendation is adopted unless an objection is raised within that period. We find that the Cable Television Review Commission's examination of Comcast's FCC Form 393 and issuance of a recommended decision regarding the FCC Form 393  Y-constituted action in accordance with our rulesLb X$-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.933(c).L 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"! 0*(("" the City acted to adopt a local rate order governing the rates to be charged by Comcast within the 90day 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.  X-x E.` ` Local Regulatory Requirements  Yv-  X_-x` ` i. Annual Filings  YH-  Y1-x21.` ` 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  Y -basic service and equipment as a penalty for failure to file such a rate schedule annually.  Ye -#Xw PE37=XP#эxOpposition, Exhibit 1, Ordinance, at 1617. 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.  Yy-  Yb-x22.` ` 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  Y-regulations prescribed by the Commission for the regulation of basic tier service.s!y YG-#Xw PE37=XP#эx47 C.F.R. 76.910(b)(1).s 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  Y-the local franchising authority." * Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxIf an operator chooses to determine its maximum permitted rates for its basic tier and associated equipment and installations by employing the Commission's benchmark methodology, it would file either FCC Form 393, which covers the period of time between September 1, 1993 and May 14, 1994 or FCC Forms 1200 and 1205, which cover rates charged after May 15, 1994. To the extent that an operator has sought to take advantage of  Y@ -the refund deferral period available under the Second Reconsideration Order, the maximum permitted rates determined under FCC 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  Y"-series. Second Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 41834185. Alternatively, an operator may choose to justify its rates by submitting a cost of service showing. In this case, the operator would file FCC Forms 1220 (Cost of Service Filing for Regulated Cable Systems) or 1225 (Cost of Service Filing for Regulated Cable Services for Small Systems). 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" "0*((" local franchising authority (or with the Commission where it is certified to regulate basic tier  Y-service) within 60 days after the end of its fiscal year.@# Xb-ԍ FCC Form 1205 at 2. @ 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 60day  Y-requirement.$y X-ԍ See Letter from Meredith J. Jones, Chief, Cable Services Bureau, to Eric Breisach, Esq., 10 FCC Rcd 3966 (1995) (discussing waiver of 60day filing requirement for FCC Form 1205). 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  Y_-equipment and installations.A%_ X-ԍ FCC Form 1205 at 2. A   Y1-x23.` ` Furthermore, the operator may file FCC Form 1210 ("Update Form") to  Y -justify adjustments in its initial maximum permitted rates. &  Xz-ԍ See Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994)  XN-("Second Reconsideration Order").  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  Y-regulatory fees.J'6  Xw-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(iv).J 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  Yb-the end of the quarter that has most recently closed preceding the filing of the Form 1210.K(b  X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(iii).K 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  Y-costs.V) Xf#-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(i) & (ii). V 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" I)0*(( "  Y-those costs in its rates.* Xy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(i). Inflation may only be recovered for the nonexternal portion of the operator's rates on an annual basis. 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(2).  X-  Y-x24.` ` The 1992 Cable Act requires the Commission to seek to reduce the administrative burdens on subscribers, cable operators, local franchising authorities, and the  Y-Commission.+b Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxCommunications Act of 1934, 623(b)(2)(A). 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.  Xb-x ` ` ii.  Definition of Premium Service  Y4-x25.` ` The City's cable television ordinance defines "premium service" as "those channels or services [Comcast] had offered on April 1, 1993, on a perchannel (i.e., 'a la  Y-carte') basis.", Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxSee Appeal at 13;  see alsoĠOpposition, Exhibit 1, at 3. 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 perchannel or perprogram 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.  Y -x26.` ` 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 perchannel basis before April 1, 1993 and programming offered on a perchannel basis after April 1, 1993. However, the pleadings in the instant case do not contain sufficient" ,0*((!" information to enable us to make a finding regarding whether or not the City's definition of  Y-"premium service" is inconsistent with the Commission's regulations.- Xb-ԍ In fact, the Commission's rules do not contain a definition of the term "premium service." 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  Y-consistent with the Commission's rate regulations.E.b X -ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.910(b)(1).E  X_-x F.` ` Treatment of Channels Split Between Programming Sources  YH-  Y1-x27.` ` 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 perchannel rate, the City removed from Comcast's benchmark calculation, those parttime 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  Y-unregulated premium services./H Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxAlthough the City does not specify the channels in question, it does offer one example which it asserts is representative; it notes that Pro Am Sports Service ("PASS"), a regional sports premium channel, starts operation in the early afternoon on weekdays and provides around the clock service on weekends. The City claims that while PASS is off the air Comcast airs a homeshopping network. It is the City's position that Comcast placed this home shopping service on its system so that it could be included in its benchmark calculation, since PASS is an unregulated premium offering. Comcast does not respond to the City's example in its Reply.  Comcast asserts that the dispute here involves only two channels: the CBET/TBN channel referred to above and an unspecified channel shared by a payperview service and a satellitedelivered 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"g# /0*((]" 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  Y-programming consists of satellitedelivered services.c0 YK-#Xw PE37=XP#эxReply at 5.c Comcast contends that it should not  Y-be subject to refund liability for this shared channel due to its "reasonable" interpretation of  Y-the Commission's initial rate regulations.1ay Y-#Xw PE37=XP#эxComcast argues that it should not be subject to any refund liability accruing after May 15, 1994, the date it modified its service offerings on the BET/TBN channel. However, as  Y -noted in footnote 32, supra, Comcast's appeal encompasses only the City's review of its FCC Form 393. FCC Form 393 is used by operators to justify rates for the period of September 1, 1993 through May 14, 1994; FCC Forms 1200 and 1205 are used by operators to justify rate for the period commencing on May 15, 1994. Accordingly, the issue of refund liability for the period beginning after May 15, 1994 is not ripe for review. Comcast does not address the channel shared by the payper-view service and the satellite programming service.  Y_-x28.` ` In a June 1, 1994 Public Notice, we clarified that Commission rules require  YJ-that channels should be classified according to their preponderance of use.2J  X-ԍ See Public Notice, Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation,  X-Question 1 (released June 1, 1994).   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  Y -offerings under both our original and revised rate regulations.43 @  X-ԍ Thus, cable operators must classify channels on their systems according to the  X-preponderance of use standard on both the FCC Form 393 and the FCC Form 1200. See FCC Form 393, page 22; FCC Form 1200, Instructions for Module H, Line H3. 4 Therefore, since the majority of CBET/TBN programming was nonsatellite 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.  X6- IV.xORDERING CLAUSES  Y-x29.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order  Y-involving the regulatory treatment of Comcast's Value Pak is REMANDED to the City so  Y-that it can enter an order consistent with our findings in Comcast Cablevision.  Y-x30.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order"30*((" involving the disallowance of Comcast's Cableguard charge for the maintenance of customer Y-owned inside wiring is REMANDED to the City for further consideration and so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings.  Y- x31.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order  Y-involving Comcast's premium outlet charges is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings.  YK-x32.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order  Y5-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.  Y -x33.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Comcast's appeal involving  Y -the absence of an accounting order is DENIED .  Y -x34.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the City's local rate order  Y-involving annual filings required by the City is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings.  YT-x35.` ` 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  Y'-sources, is REMANDED to the City so that it can enter an order consistent with our findings.  Y-x36.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that our stay of the local rate order, which was  Y-granted pending the resolution of this appeal, is hereby VACATED .  Y- x37.` ` 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. x` ` x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau