WPC!d 2MBVRKZ3|w7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP4Si (Additional); Rm. 918_1; LPT2HPLA4SAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\pNXP28 E Z( c-#XR  P7jQ=9XP#HP4Si (Additional); Rm. 918_1; LPT2HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\pNX@3|w2!f jvpFk",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`La8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2MkSvcta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2   ca1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2M A }a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2XX(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 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2cha6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2"W  3c!a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical 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)Documentg2:("e&1''PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<Fx6X@`7X@ 8wC;,=9Xw PE37XPD7zC;,BXz_ pi7X@ND,,ʼ4  pG;7jC:,4+Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,49h@\  P6G;hP \5hC:,DXh*f9 xr G;XX 6uC;,[~Xu&_ x7XX "W!B(#,|QhB4  pG;h#6jC:,kLXj9 xOG;X$4wC;,3Xw*0 x]7X?xxx,x `7X",tB^ f ^;LhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxLdxxoxxxCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddLL8oYdYLdddd4dddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYL8L8L8L8oddddoooozYddddxYdxddddXXddXddXdddddooL8ddddLdkdddx8xPxdxDx8ppoddLLdpLpLpLodxLx8xdopoopoxdxLxLxLdxdoodxdxdCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"d~d9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2d RNn $//Jones Spacelink, Wheaton, IL, MO&O, DA 952170//$ $/76.922 for Cable Programming Service tiers/$  Y-$benchmark cable rates/$T#4  pG;,ʼ# Ã +Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  a<Washington, D.C. 20554 #Xj\  P6G;+XP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í҃  X- ) DA 95 2170 ĐX(#P  X -In the Matter of hh@)hpp  X -x` `  hh@)h  Xp -Jones Spacelink, Ltd.hh@)hCUID No. IL1050 (Wheaton)  XY -x` `  hh@)h  XB -Benchmark Filing to Supporthh@)  X+-Cable Programming Service Pricehh@)  X-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  X-x` ` Adopted: October 16, 1995@ Released: October 25, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Xs- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  x1. Here we consider a complaint about the price that the abovecaptioned 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  X-reasonableness of the price after that date. ^ Xy-ԍ The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent Operator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Order on Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS price determined herein might also apply  Y!-from May 15, 1994 until the date on which Operator #XR  P7jQ=9XP#implemented its CPS price under the  Y"<new regulations. See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`7>FX@# #XR  P7jQ=9XP#Further, to the extent that the price as of March 31, 1994 is found to be excessive, a reduction in Operator's price for the period after May 14, 1994 may be required to reflect the fact that Operator's price during the earlier period, which is used as the starting point to calculate its price for the prospective period, was  Y}&-unreasonable. See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(C).  "} 0*0*0*"Ԍ X-  x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Xy-ԍ Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Xb-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993). ÷ 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  X-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.C Xy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.956. C Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a  X-costofservice showing.Fy X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b). F In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its  X-CPS prices are not unreasonable.0* X-ԍ Id. 0  X-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. X -ԍ Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed.  X -Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).   Xv-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.Fv^  X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b). F 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  X -compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.z   X-ԍ See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152. z Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must  X -complete and file FCC Form 393.0  X]-ԍ Id. 0 Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning  X -May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series.  q X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4189 n.195. x4. The complaint in the franchise area which is the subject of this Order was completed and served on Operator on January 7, 1994 and received by the Commission on January 10, 1994. Operator filed FCC Form 393 in response; Operator has also filed  XK-amended and supplemental Form 393 filings, most recently on August 15, 1995. K  X $-ԍ Operator filed an amended FCC Form 393 on June 6, 1994 in response to a Cable Services Bureau Order citing common deficiencies observed in benchmark filings generally. Cable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994). Operator filed another amended FCC Form 393 on August 15, 1995, after confirming that it"& 0*((&" is a limited partnership and that taxes should be removed from Form 393, Part III, Schedules A and C. Telephone conversation on August 11, 1995 between Brad Amman, Regulatory Manager for Jones Spacelink, and David Ward of the FCC. "KK 0*(("Ԍx5. Operator asserts that its monthly CPS tier price of $10.28 (plus franchise fee) is not justified by its benchmark filing because its price is higher than the maximum permitted charge of $9.64 per month (plus franchise fee), as calculated in the filing. Thus, Operator has failed to show that its CPS rate is not unreasonable. 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:  XH-Xxa.` ` Operator's Form 393, Part III, Step G, Line 34 entry does not represent its current monthly equipment revenue as of the initial date of regulation. Instead, it appears that Operator used the Monthly Equipment and Installation Cost figure for the entire system, of which the franchise listed in the caption is a part. According to our  X -Instructions for Equipment and Installation Charges for Form 393,  K X-ԍ See FCC Form 393, page 27 ("The data may be identified at the level of corporate organization at which the records are kept, but for purposes of calculating service rates the data must be adjusted to the franchise area level."). Operator must use an equipment and installation figure that corresponds to the franchise level. We therefore adjust Operator's system figure that appears in Line 34 with the franchise figure for equipment and installation charges that Operator provided in Part II, Worksheet 3, Line 301 of its most recent amended Form 393. (#  Xb-Xxb.` ` Because Operator has failed to demonstrate that its price for the CPS tier was not unreasonable, we will set a price for this tier. In doing so, we must also recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, on the  X-basis of the most accurate data available for the date as to which Operator filed.  X-ԍ  See 47 C.F.R. 76.922(b)(9)(iii) (if a cable operator fails to justify its rates, rates must be adjusted in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of analysis). On its Form 393, Operator calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor as of the end of October 1993 using data released on August 31, 1993. On July 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price Index ("GNPPI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 125.7 for the third quarter of 1993. Using these GNPPI figures, we calculate an Inflation Adjustment Factor through October 1993, the base date Operator used in justifying its rates, of 1.030.(#  XN-  x6. 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" l 0*((\" price of $9.58 per month (plus franchise fee) for the period from January 10, 1994 to May 14,  X-1994. Xb-ԍ This finding is based solely on the representations of Operator and the modifications described herein. Should information come to our attention that these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein. x7. 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. x8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in the franchise area referenced in the caption that portion of the amount paid for cable programming service for  X -the period from January 10, 1994  X-ԍ Our jurisdiction to order a refund dates from the earliest date a valid complaint is filed with the Commission. 47 C.F.R.  76.961(b). to May 14, 1994 which exceeded the maximum price of $9.58 per month (plus franchise fee), plus interest to the date of the refund. x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operator shall promptly determine the overcharges to CPS subscribers for the stated period, and shall within 30 days of the release of this Order file a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount so determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval of the plan.T x 10. 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 $9.58  X-(plus franchise fee). X"-ԍ We reserve the right to make further adjustments to Operator's price for the period after May 14, 1994, upon completion of our review of Operator's Form 1200 filing. x 11. 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. "7Q 0*(("Ԍx` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones  Xv-x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau T ă