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. ***************************************************************** ******** $//Appeal ORDER, TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC., DA 95-2269/$ $/76.922 Rates for the basic service tier/$ $/76.923 Rates for equipment and installation/$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) DA 95-2269 ) TCI CABLEVISION OF ) Multnomah County, OR OREGON, INC. ) Portland, OR ) Appeal of Local Rate Order ) of the Mt. Hood Cable ) Regulatory Commission ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 30, 1995 Released: November 14, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On January 11, 1995, TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. ("TCI"), the franchisee in the above matter, filed an appeal of the local cable rate order ("rate order") adopted on December 12, 1994 by its franchising authority, the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission ("the MHCRC"). The MHCRC filed an opposition on January 26, 1995. TCI filed a reply on February 7, 1995. The rate order establishes a new regulated rate schedule for TCI's equipment and installation for the basic service tier. Specifically, the MHCRC's rate order requires TCI to implement certain rate reductions and proposes a corresponding refund dating back to July 14, 1994. 2. In addition to its appeal, TCI filed on April 11, 1995 a Request for Emergency Stay of the local cable rate order adopted by the MHCRC. On May 8, 1995, we granted TCI's stay request pending the resolution of this appeal. 3. TCI raises six issues on appeal. First, TCI argues that the MHCRC improperly rejected its entry for additional outlets on Form 1200, Line 6, simply because the additional charge was bundled with the monthly programming service fee, rather than separately assessed. Second, TCI argues that the MHCRC erred by requiring it to reset equipment rates less than a year from its initial unbundling and before the end of its 1994 fiscal year. Third, TCI argues that the MHCRC also erred by regulating its charges for A/B switch installations. Fourth, TCI argues that the MHCRC exceeded its authority by prescribing rates for TCI's inside wiring maintenance plan. Fifth, TCI argues that it was improper for the MHCRC to deny it the ability to offset any refund liability with intervening upward rate adjustments otherwise permitted under the Commission's regulations. Sixth, TCI argues that it was also improper for the MHCRC to deny it the ability to increase existing rates up to the maximum permitted level. We address each of these issues in turn. II. DISCUSSION 4. 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. 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. 5. The local rate order issued by the MHCRC was based on its review of TCI's FCC Form 1200. Form 1200 is the official form used to determine whether initial regulated rates for programming are reasonable under the revised benchmark rules which apply to operators beginning May 15, 1994 or upon the expiration of the deferral period provided under our rules for operators to comply with the revisions to our rules. Through the use of Form 1200, an operator generally calculates three sets of figures: (1) the operator's actual March 31, 1994 rate level; (2) the operator's March 31, 1994 benchmark rate level; and (3) the operator's "full reduction" rate level. These figures are used to derive an operator's maximum initial permitted rates. 6. The operator first completes Module A of the Form 1200 to calculate its March 31, 1994 per subscriber monthly regulated revenue. Next, the operator completes Module B to calculate changes in external costs which the operator is entitled to reflect in its rates but have not yet been passed through to its subscribers. In Module C the operator enters its data with respect to a number of variables to calculate its March 31, 1994 benchmark rate level on a per subscriber, per month basis. The operator's March 31, 1994 actual rate level (Module A plus external costs calculated in Module B) is then compared to the benchmark rate level derived in Module C, with the operator carrying forward the smaller of the two. If the March 31, 1994 actual rate level is smaller, the operator completes Module D, subtracting the monthly per subscriber equipment cost calculated in Form 1205 and adding external costs calculated from Module B. If the benchmark rate level is smaller, the operator completes Module E, subtracting the monthly per subscriber equipment cost taken from Form 1205. Depending on which is used, either Module D or E establishes per-tier rates, which the operator carries forward into Module F, as its so-called provisional rates. 7. In the second part of Form 1200, the operator derives its full reduction rate based on its September 30, 1992 rates. To compute this rate, in Module G, the operator calculates its September 30, 1992 total monthly regulated revenues per subscriber, reduces that amount by 17%, and adjusts upward by 3% to reflect the inflation from September 30, 1992 until September 30, 1993. In Module H, the operator then adjusts the results from Module G for changes since September 30, 1992 with respect to subscribers, regulated channels, and satellite channels. In Module I, the operator subtracts a monthly per subscriber equipment cost amount from Form 1205, establishes per-tier rates, and adjusts for changes in external costs. In Module J, the operator compares its aggregate provisional rate with its aggregate full reduction rate. The maximum permitted rates an operator is actually allowed to charge are either the provisional rates (Module F) or the full reduction rates (Module I), depending on whether the aggregate provisional rate is greater or less than the aggregate full reduction rate, and are entered into Module K. In addition to Form 1200, an operator may file Form 1210, up to quarterly, to claim changes in external costs and inflation that justify rate increases. A. Line C6 of Form 1200 -- Number of Additional Outlets 8. In computing its benchmark rate level in Module C, an operator is required to provide entries for the various benchmark variables. The benchmark formula is intended to derive a rate level which approximates the level a similarly situated operator subject to competition would charge. The benchmark rate level is determined by considering several variables, such as the number of subscribers, the number of channels, and the number of additional outlets charged, all of which affect the benchmark rate level. The benchmark formula's only function in the new system is to identify "low-priced" operators subject to transition relief which are not required to set their rates based on their full reduction rates. An operator with (i) a current (i.e., March 31, 1994) rate level below the benchmark rate level or (ii) a current rate level above the benchmark rate level but with a full reduction rate level below the benchmark, is a low-priced operator. The low-priced operator with a current rate level below the benchmark generally does not have to reduce its rate level, and the low-priced operator with a current rate level above the benchmark rate level but with a full reduction rate level below the benchmark is required to reduce its rate level only to the benchmark. 9. Included among the variables used in the benchmark formula is the number of additional outlets in fiscal year 1993, which is entered on Line C6. TCI provided an entry of 14,412 (for Portland subscribers) and 1,427 (for Multnomah County subscribers) for additional outlets in each 1200 filing, which was disallowed by the MHCRC because TCI did not charge subscribers for the additional outlets. The MHCRC recalculated TCI's benchmark by entering zero for the number of outlets on Line C6, which TCI argues results in a reduction in the operator's maximum permitted basic tier rate. TCI argues that there was a cost of providing additional outlets even though no charge was made, and that an operator such as itself that "bundled" its additional outlet costs into its other rates cannot charge as high a rate as an otherwise identical operator that separately itemized its additional outlets. 10. Our instructions for Line C6 of Form 1200 ask the operator to provide the average monthly number of additional outlets for which there was a charge to subscribers in fiscal year 1993, and to compute the average number of additional outlets over only those months in the year for which there was a charge for additional outlets. A Benchmark Fact Sheet further explaining our instructions for calculating an operator's benchmark rate restates this instruction. Neither our rules, nor our instructions for completing Form 1200, permit operators to include additional outlets for which no charge is assessed on Line C6 as a benchmark variable. The MHCRC's disallowances of TCI's entry for Line C6 were in accordance with the instructions to the Form 1200. 11. TCI asserts that, under our rules, its failure to charge for a service, for which it could have charged, unfairly reduces its benchmark rate level. This is essentially an argument challenging the reasonableness of the revised benchmark formula and our rules. The revised benchmark formula is designed to approximate the rate level of a similarly situated operator facing competition. The Commission's rate survey upon which the benchmark formula was based requested data on additional outlets for which a fee was charged. The benchmark formula includes the rate survey data on charged additional outlets because we determined that this variable was statistically significant in approximating the rate level of similarly situated operators facing competition. To ensure consistency in the application of the benchmark formula, we must disallow consideration of additional outlets for which there was no charge. Because the MHCRC's decision to disallow TCI's entry on Line C6 of Form 1200 was reasonable, we deny TCI's appeal on this issue. B. Form 1205 -- Resetting Equipment Rates 12. TCI argues that the MHCRC erred by concluding that TCI should have reset its equipment and installation rates pursuant to its Form 1205 at the same time it initially implemented basic service rates pursuant to its Form 1200 on July 14, 1994. TCI asserts that, to properly complete their initial Form 1200s, cable operators were required to input data from a companion Form 1205. However, TCI argues, that does not mean that equipment rates were to be reset in July 1994 based on the Form 1205. In support of its contention, TCI relies on the following Form 1205 instruction, which states: "You must use this form to update regulated equipment and installation charges on an annual basis. . . . If you have already unbundled equipment and installation charges at cost, however, you must wait one year from the date on which you unbundled equipment and installation charges before changing these charges." TCI contends that because it had, in fact, unbundled equipment and installation charges on September 1, 1993, it complied with the Form 1205 instruction by not changing its existing equipment and installation charges at the time it filed Form 1200. Furthermore, TCI points out, the Form 1205 instructions make a distinction between calculating equipment and installation costs for purposes of Form 1200 programming service rates and calculating equipment charges when it is time to reprice equipment. TCI notes that this matter was discussed by Commission staff during a 1994 satellite video tutorial on the new rules. According to TCI, "[Commission staff] explained at that time that equipment rates unbundled at cost on September 1, 1993 could not be repriced until a full year had run." Therefore, TCI argues, cable operators were prohibited from changing equipment prices until sometime after September 1, 1994. 13. Assuming that its premise is correct -- i.e., that equipment rates cannot be changed before September 1, 1994 -- TCI then raises the issue of how soon should the equipment price change occur and on what basis should the new rates be calculated. TCI believes that this question has been answered by the following Form 1205 instruction: "You must file a Form 1205 with your local franchising authority . . . within 60 days after the end of your fiscal year." Based on its interpretation of this instruction, TCI argues that operators could elect to delay any change in their equipment rates until their current fiscal year came to a close. Otherwise, TCI asserts, an operator, like itself, whose fiscal year runs on a calendar year basis, may be forced to implement two equipment rate changes in quick succession -- implementing initial Form 1205 rates in September, 1994, then implementing Form 1205 rates based on fiscal year 1994 data early in 1995. Because its fiscal year matches the calendar year, TCI states that it intends to comply with the Form 1205 instructions by submitting updated equipment and installation figures (based on fiscal year 1994) by the beginning of March 1995. TCI further argues that, in the event the Commission determines that equipment rates should have been implemented in July 1994, it should be permitted to file an amended Form 1205 because it "submitted its initial Form 1205 for the sole purpose of unbundling equipment costs, rather than for establishing specific equipment rates." 14. In response, the MHCRC maintains that its rate order rationally applied the mathematical principles underlying the Commission's formulas. Specifically, the MHCRC argues, it applied these mathematical principles in determining that TCI should adjust its equipment charges to the levels calculated in Form 1205, as of July 14, 1994. Under the 1992 Cable Act, equipment and installation charges are to be based on actual costs. The MHCRC asserts that Forms 1200 and 1205 establish a "direct linkage" between equipment and installation charges and costs and programming service rates whereby, for example, lower equipment costs lead to higher programming service rates and lower equipment and installation charges. This linkage, the MHCRC explains, dictates that equipment and installation charges must be set as calculated in Form 1205. The MHCRC alleges that TCI relied on its lower equipment basket costs to justify higher programming service rates, yet TCI did not set its equipment and installation rates based on these lower equipment basket costs. The MHCRC argues, therefore, that if TCI is not bound to its Form 1205 calculations for purposes of setting equipment charges, TCI will be unfairly setting equipment charges at more than its costs plus a reasonable profit in violation of Section 543(b)(3) of the 1992 Cable Act. Additionally, the MHCRC argues that allowing TCI to charge both higher programming service rates and prices for equipment and installations that are above those justified by its costs will permit TCI to receive more than its maximum permitted revenues. The MHCRC further argues that TCI should have to reset its equipment and installation rates because Form 1200 and Form 1205 filings are the basis for the first rate adjustments under the Commission's newly revised benchmark regulations and that these initial filings present the only opportunity for a franchising authority to set rates which will adhere to the mathematical principles underlying the benchmark methodology and link equipment costs and charges to programming service charges. 15. Finally, the MHCRC argues that, if the Commission determines that no adjustments to equipment and installation charges are allowed before September 1, 1994 (which is one year after TCI unbundled its equipment and installation charges), then TCI should be required to adjust its equipment rates effective September 1, 1994. 16. FCC Form 1205 is the official form used to determine the costs of regulated cable equipment and installation. Form 1205 has two distinct uses. First, Form 1205 is submitted along with a Form 1200 and is used to establish equipment and installation costs in determining initial rates for regulated cable services. These equipment and installation costs are converted to a monthly per subscriber cost that is subtracted from figures derived from programming and equipment revenues in the Form 1200 in order to determine maximum permitted programming service rates. In following the mathematical principles embodied in these calculations, lower equipment basket costs lead to higher programming rates, while higher equipment basket costs lead to lower programming rates. 17. The second use for Form 1205 is to update permitted regulated equipment and installation charges based on equipment basket costs. Higher equipment basket costs on Form 1205 (resulting in lower programming rates on Form 1200) correlate with higher equipment and installation rates. Conversely, lower equipment basket costs on Form 1205 (resulting in higher programming rates on Form 1200) correlate with lower equipment and installation rates. In its appeal, TCI is contending that, even though the data in its attached Form 1205 affects its Form 1200 maximum permitted basic service tier rates, it is not required to make concomitant adjustments to its equipment and installation rates until after it files a new Form 1205 after the close of its next fiscal year. We agree. 18. The MHCRC is correct in asserting that Forms 1200 and 1205 establish a direct linkage between programming service rates and equipment and installation costs and charges. When setting rates or calculating refund liability, a franchising authority should normally adhere to the mathematical principles underlying the benchmark methodology described above, thereby assuring that an operator is allowed to earn neither more nor less than its maximum permitted revenues. Therefore, Form 1205 calculations resulting in lower equipment basket costs should normally lead to higher programming service rates and correspondingly lower equipment and installation rates. However, when the Commission initially promulgated FCC Forms 1200 and 1205 it created an exception to this direct linkage. The instructions to Form 1205 state that, if an operator has already unbundled equipment and installation charges at cost, the operator must wait one year from the date on which it unbundled equipment and installation charges before changing these charges. The instructions go on to state that an operator does not even need to complete the Worksheet for Calculating Permitted Equipment and Installation Charges or Schedule D, which lists the averages hours by type of installation, if the operator is filing Form 1205 only as part of establishing its initial maximum permitted rates for programming services. These instructions comport with our previous determination that equipment rates can only be changed annually. Since TCI had restructured its rates on September 1, 1993, we find that TCI could not change its equipment and installation rates before September 1, 1994. 19. Finally, we do not agree with the MHCRC that TCI, at a minimum, should be required to adjust its equipment and installation charges, effective September 1, 1994. We believe that the postponement of equipment and installation rates changes until the filing of the first fiscal year Form 1205, which takes place at least one year after the operator unbundled its equipment and installation rates, is permissible since it could serve to limit administrative expenses for the operators and limit confusion for consumers. If we were to require changes to these rates to become effective on September 1, 1994, operators may have to adjust their rates twice in a relatively short time period. In this case, TCI would be faced with adjusting rates in September, 1994 and then again in early 1995, following its fiscal year filing. We find that TCI reasonably relied on the form instructions and is not required to file its next Form 1205 until after the close of its fiscal year on December 31, 1994. It is at that time that TCI should change its equipment and installation rates if its filing indicates a change in its maximum permitted rates. This issue is therefore remanded to the MHCRC for further proceedings consistent with these findings. C. A/B Switch Installation 20. Relying on our decisions in TCI of Northern New Jersey and SBC Media Ventures, where we held that A/B switches are not subject to rate regulation, TCI argues that the MHCRC erred in regulating its charge for A/B switch installations. The MHCRC's rate order determined that TCI's charge for the installation of A/B switches was above the maximum permitted level, and ordered that the charge be reduced by $.04 in Portland and Multnomah County. In its Opposition, the MHCRC asserts, and we agree, that the authorities TCI relies upon dealt with the sale of and not installation charges for A/B switches. However, the logic we applied in determining that the sale of A/B switches is not subject to regulation also applies to operator charges for the installation of such unregulated equipment. The 1992 Cable Act directed us to establish rate standards for "installation and lease of equipment used by subscribers to receive the basic service tier." In SBC Media Ventures, we concluded that A/B switches were not used to receive the basic service tier. Because A/B switches are not devices used to receive basic cable service, neither the sale of such devices nor charges for their installation are regulated. We remand this issue back to the MHCRC for resolution consistent with our ruling herein. D. Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 21. TCI argues that the MHCRC exceeded its authority by prescribing rates for TCI's inside wiring maintenance plan. TCI contends that its inside wiring maintenance plan should not be subject to regulation. In support of its plea for unregulated status, TCI argues that its service contract is analogous to equipment sales by cable operators. Relying on the First Order on Reconsideration, TCI asserts that the Commission has concluded that such sales are unregulated if the cable operator also offers the equipment for lease under regulated rates. TCI claims that the option it offers its subscribers of as-needed service, with the charge based on actual hours times the hourly service charge ("HSC"), is the "regulated" alternative to its "unregulated" inside wiring maintenance service contract. In addition, TCI argues that because its contract for maintaining inside cable wiring is "optional" to the subscriber, its service contract should not be subject to regulation. 22. In response, the MHCRC maintains that it has properly interpreted Commission rules in determining that TCI's service contract for maintenance of inside wiring was subject to regulation. The MHCRC asserts that charges for service and maintenance of customer premises equipment, such as inside cable wiring, should be regulated on the basis of hourly service charges regardless of (1) whether the cable operator or the subscriber owns the equipment, (2) whether such services were sold by the hour at the time of service need or on the basis of a one-time, monthly, or periodic fee, or (3) whether the purchase of the service from the cable operator was optional or not. The MHCRC points out that it has no evidence to indicate that TCI's service charge is based on the HSC. The MHCRC argues that TCI's argument that the service contract is optional should not be a controlling factor in determining the regulatory status of the service contract, nor TCI's assertion that there may be other sources for obtaining such services. 23. We recently ruled on this issue and made the following determinations. Inside wiring is customer equipment, the regulatory treatment of which depends upon who owns it. The record in this appeal with regard to the ownership of the inside wiring is unclear. An operator is not likely to be the owner of a subscriber's inside wiring if it did not install the wiring in the subscriber's premises. In addition, an operator is not the owner if the operator installed the wiring but transferred ownership of the wiring to the subscriber. However, if an operator installs the inside wiring and retains ownership of that wiring, our rules specifically provide that the rate for the lease of that equipment must be justified. The rate for operator-owned wiring includes a component for maintenance costs. Under such circumstances, TCI's subscribers can not also be charged a separate wire maintenance fee. On the other hand, if TCI's subscribers own their inside wiring, no lease rate would apply, obviously, but TCI's costs of providing any maintenance and repair of that wiring may be recovered through a service contract. Our rules provide that charges for such service contracts must be based on the operator's HSC multiplied by either the estimated average number or the actual number of hours for maintenance and repair. We are unable to rule on the issue presented in this appeal since the facts in the record below are unclear. Accordingly, we remand this issue to the MHCRC in order to allow TCI to clarify these facts consistent with our findings. E. Refund Liability 24. TCI argues that the MHCRC's rate order fails to account for any intervening upward rate adjustments to which TCI would be entitled under our rules. The relevant language that TCI challenges states: "The refund shall apply to charges in effect from the period beginning July 14, 1994 until TCI's rate reductions pursuant to this order become effective." TCI asserts that to properly calculate refund liability over an extended time period it is essential that maximum permitted rates be updated. Thus, TCI claims, the operator must be credited for increases to its maximum permitted rates, even if the operator has not yet requested and/or implemented specific rate adjustments. If such credit is denied, TCI argues, operators effectively will be encouraged to file and implement every Form 1210 adjustment "as quickly as possible." TCI also asserts that the reasoning that led the Commission to conclude that offsetting is required where an operator had priced some rate components too high and some rate components too low is applicable here. Finally, TCI argues that, if the Commission affirms the MHCRC's treatment of Form 1200, Line C6, TCI must, at a minimum, be allowed to calculate refunds by claiming credit for any intervening increases justified under an appropriate Form 1210. 25. The MHCRC asserts that TCI's reliance upon Commission decisions that considered the relationship between basic service rates and equipment charges is misplaced. In those decisions, the MHCRC notes, we allowed cable operators to offset refund liability for basic service overcharges with undercharges for equipment and installation charges. The MHCRC asserts that, in this case, there are no offsetting credits for equipment and installation charges. The MHCRC charges that what TCI is attempting to do is "wring out the maximum potential revenues from its subscribers, without complying with the rate review process, by seeking permission to file retroactively for inflation and other possible cost increases." In any event, the MHCRC asserts, TCI has not filed a Form 1210 with the MHCRC requesting a basic service rate adjustment, which is why the MHCRC has not made any rulings in its rate order on this issue. 26. Under our rules, a rate adjustment with respect to basic rates only becomes effective once it has been approved by the regulator or once the review period for such approval has lapsed. An operator's per month refund liability, i.e., the difference between the amount actually charged and the permitted rate, continues at the same level until the operator reduces its actual rate or the operator, in accordance with our rules, obtains increases in its maximum permitted rate. The per month refund liability does not decrease just because the operator might be able to propose an increase in its rates but did not do so. 27. TCI's reference to our offsetting cases, in which we have held that refund liability is computed by comparing the operator's aggregate revenues to revenues that would have been realized from maximum permitted rates, is misplaced. Those decisions hold that the franchising authority must offset any undercharges in rates against overcharges in other rates. This is unrelated to the situation TCI poses here, where subsequent cost increases have occurred which it claims reduce its refund liability. Our current rules do not authorize rate increases until approved by the local franchising authority. We allow offsets of rate undercharges and overcharges which the operator has adopted in an effort to comply with our rate regulations. The refund calculation is dependent upon a comparison of permitted rates and aggregate rates during the period of review. We will not allow offsets of potential rate increases, such as those proposed by TCI here, because such increases are not permitted rates, and cannot be effective, until authorized by the local authority. Only after that approval has been obtained can the operator's refund liability be reduced. For the reasons set forth above, we find that the MHCRC's rate order with respect to calculation of TCI's refunds are reasonable, and therefore TCI's appeal on this issue is denied. F. Increasing Rates 28. TCI argues that the MHCRC's rate order denies it the right to increase existing rates to maximum permitted levels and potentially subjects such rate increases to a "second round of local review." The challenged provision of the rate order states: The [MHCRC] is authorized under FCC Rules to review and establish rates for basic service and associated equipment and installation charges. This order does not authorize TCI to increase any rates or charges under the jurisdiction of the [MHCRC], even where the maximum permitted rate may exceed the actual rate charged by TCI. Pursuant to applicable federal law, TCI shall not increase any basic rates or associated equipment and installation charges to any subscriber or group of subscribers without prior review and approval by the [MHCRC].[] TCI asserts that this provision contravenes the Commission's previous decisions permitting operators to increase "actual" rates to "maximum permitted levels." 29. In response, the MHCRC asserts (and TCI does not dispute) that TCI has no existing rates for basic services or charges for equipment and installation which are below maximum permitted levels. The MHCRC states that the rate order does not prevent TCI from seeking rate increases under a Form 1210 filing, or as otherwise provided under by the Commission's rules. The MHCRC further states that the rate order only requires TCI to make adjustments to existing rates that are above maximum permitted levels in compliance with FCC regulations, and does not require TCI to keep any existing rates below maximum permitted levels. 30. In reply, TCI asserts that the MHCRC misinterpreted its objections to the challenged provision. TCI states that it "simply objects to the suggestion that a sub- benchmark rate (were it to exist) could not be increased without another round of local review, if at all. [TCI] is asking here only for the Commission to clarify that cable operators retain the right to increase any rate component determined through regulatory review to have been set below the applicable benchmark level." 31. The challenged provision in the MHCRC's rate order appears to be simply a savings clause, intended to preserve the MHCRC's regulatory authority. We are satisfied with the MHCRC's statements in its Opposition that the challenged provision is not intended to prevent TCI from increasing its rates, nor does it require TCI to keep any existing rates below maximum permitted rates, to the extent consistent with the Commission's rules. Because TCI has no existing rates below maximum permitted levels, and in light of the MHCRC's statements on this point, TCI's appeal of this issue presents no controversy. Accordingly, we will dismiss this issue as moot. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 32. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the MHCRC's rate order, with respect to the issue of additional outlets, IS DENIED. 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the MHCRC's rate order, with respect to the issue of resetting equipment rates, IS REMANDED to the MHCRC for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Order. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the MHCRC's rate order, regarding the regulatory status of installation charges for A/B switches, IS REMANDED to the MHCRC for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Order. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the MHCRC's rate order, with respect to the issue of TCI's inside wiring maintenance plan, IS REMANDED to the MHCRC for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Order. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the MHCRC's rate order, with respect to the refund liability issue, IS DENIED. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the MHCRC's rate order, regarding the issue of increasing rates, IS DISMISSED as moot. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that our stay of the MHCRC's rate order pending the resolution of this appeal is hereby VACATED. 39. 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