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. ***************************************************************** ******** $//Jones Intercable, Alexandria, VA, MO&O, DA 95-2169//$ $/76.922 for Cable Programming Service tiers/$ $benchmark cable rates /$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. DA 95-2169 In the Matter of) ) Jones Intercable, Inc.) CUID No. VA0220 (Alexandria) ) Benchmark Filing to Support ) Cable Programming Service Price ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 16, 1995 Released: October 25, 1995 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. Here we consider a complaint about the price that the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming service ("CPS") tier in the community referenced above. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its price through a benchmark showing on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Operator's price only through May 14, 1994. At a later date we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the price after that date. 2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices. Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a cost-of-service showing. In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Operators with valid CPS complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC Form 393. Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. 4. The complaint in the franchise area which is the subject of this Order was completed and served on Operator on February 28, 1994 and received by the Commission on February 28, 1994. Operator filed FCC Form 393 in response on May 19, 1994. 5. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $11.11 (plus franchise fee) is justified by its benchmark filing because its price is equal to the maximum permitted charge of $11.11 per month (plus franchise fee), as calculated in the filing. Upon review of Operator's Form 393 filing, we have found that it has not correctly calculated its maximum permitted price, and it is therefore appropriate to make the following adjustments to Operator's calculations in Form 393: a. In its filing, Operator entered $11.00 for the basic service tier and $13.65 for the CPS tier on Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 101 as its current monthly rates as of the initial date of regulation. However, Operator's rate card indicates that its actual monthly rates, inclusive of franchise fees, were $9.79 for the basic tier and $11.74 for the CPS tier. The instructions to Form 393 require the operator to enter on Line 101 its actual current monthly charges. We have therefore corrected Line 101 to match the figures on Operator's rate card. b. In Column G of Schedules A and C of Part III of its FCC Form 393, Operator did not correctly account for its income tax expense. By placing entries in these columns, Operator confirms that it is a tax-paying entity (i.e., a "C" corporation). However, Operator incorrectly calculated its income tax by simply applying the corporate tax rate to its return on investment. The Commission has stated that tax- paying business entities must gross-up their tax entries in Column G of Schedules A and C (i.e., calculate the tax as a percentage of return on investment plus tax). By understating its tax entries in Column G, an operator reduces its effective rate of return on equipment and installations and thereby could increase its CPS price. We therefore recalculate Column G of Schedules A and C (and subsequent steps) using correctly grossed-up tax entries. c. In Column D of Schedules A and C of Part III of its FCC Form 393, Operator incorrectly entered negative deferred taxes. We therefore recalculate Column D of Schedules A and C (and subsequent steps) using amounts which were adjusted to zero. d. Operator's Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 104 entry does not represent its current monthly equipment revenue as of the initial date of regulation. Since Operator restructured its rates, including its equipment rates, on September 1, 1993, the current monthly equipment revenue figure it entered on Line 104 should have been close or identical to its equipment cost figure on Part III, Step G, Line 34. However, Operator's entries on these two lines differed substantially. We therefore adjusted Line 104 to equal the amount entered on Line 34. e. Because of these errors, we conclude that Operator has failed to demonstrate its price for the CPS tier was not unreasonable. We will therefore set a price for this tier, incorporating the adjustments discussed above. In doing so, we must also recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1. On its Form 393, Operator apparently calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor using data it relied on when it set its $11.11 CPS price. If based on this data Form 393 indicated that Operator's price was reasonable, then Operator would have successfully justified its price under paragraph 94 of the Third Order on Reconsideration. However, Operator has not shown that its price was reasonable, so we must recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor on the basis of the most accurate data currently available for the date that Operator filed FCC Form 393. On July 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price Index ("GNP-PI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 126.5 for the fourth quarter of 1993. Using these figures, we calculate an Inflation Adjustment Factor through February 1994, the month preceding the date Operator should have filed Form 393, of 1.039. 6. Upon review of the record herein, and having incorporated the adjustments discussed above, we conclude that Operator has failed to justify the rate it was charging during the period in question. Operator's showing justifies a maximum reasonable CPS tier price of $11.03 per month (plus franchise fee) for the period from February 28, 1994 to May 14, 1994. However, we further determine that the total overcharge per subscriber is de minimis. Therefore, it would not serve the public interest to order a refund. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the cable programming service price charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced in the caption IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.922(b)(4)(C) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(C), that Operator shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, revise its Form 1200 filing with respect to the franchise area referenced in the caption, for the period beginning May 15, 1994, to reduce the monthly charge per tier as of March 31, 1994 for Tier 2 (Line A6b) to equal the maximum permitted price of $11.03 (plus franchise fee). 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operator shall place into effect, within 30 days after its submission of the revised Form 1200 filing required above, a price that reflects the reduction in the CPS rate determined in this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION JoAnn Lucanik Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau