WPC; 2B'J  CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26 Z] 3|w s BoldCG Times ItalicHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXP3|w2f f i Xv'",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@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L%8wC;,Xw PE37XPD&7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7X'V"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,cXu&_ x7XXa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pk?ka4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vtb pa7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2 " E   M!a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2%>"##$a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2m(%&8''a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   24+(F))*a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 21f+3+-e#1a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxp?rtoc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2|@vDuAuBwCytoc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2dDF|Ed~FvGlindex 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG 2HrIJ}Kendnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` 2LLMQNOa3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   2P~Q=QMa7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq 29   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)ي 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. ***************************************************************** ********  cH  I. cH $// Appeal ORDER in City of Garland, TX, DA 95-2275//$ $/76.922 Rates for basic service tier/$ $/76.938 Proprietary information/$  x$/76.944 Commission review of franchising authority decision/$ X'X01Í ÍX01Í Í #Xw PE37XP#  `(Before the  X_' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION @Washington, D.C. 20554 \  X ' `*(#[DA 952275 ă  Y 4 In the Matter of:) ) TCI CABLEVISION OF THE ) METROPLEX, INC.) )\Appeal of Local Rate Order of) Garland, Texas TX0554 )  Y44}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Y4 Adopted :` ` October 30, 1995hhCqpp Released :  *November 9, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X' I.INTRODUCTION  Y~41.` ` On February 23, 1995, TCI Cablevision of the Metroplex, Inc. ("TCI"), filed an appeal of a local rate order of the City of Garland, Texas (the "City"), dated January 24, 1995. The City filed an opposition to Cablevision's appeal on March 9, 1995. Cablevision filed a reply to the City's opposition on March 20, 1995. In the local rate order, the City  Y"4denied a proposed rate increase for basic cable service." Y4#Xw PE37XP#э Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and the Commission's implementing regulations, local franchising authorities may regulate rates  Ym!4for basic cable service, associated equipment, and installations. See Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act, 623(b), 47 U.S.C. 543(b).   Y42.` ` The City rejected the proposed rate increase because TCI failed to provide any supporting documentation for the increase which was based on claimed increased programming costs. In its appeal, TCI contends that a franchising authority is only entitled to request information that is reasonably necessary for it to review an operator's rates and to prepare a local rate order, and that the City's request for supporting documentation is neither""0*0*0*!" reasonable nor necessary. TCI states that the supporting documentation requested by the City is in its programming contracts. TCI contends that the City's request for the information in the programming contracts is not reasonable because the requested information is confidential, and that making the information available to individual franchising authorities""0*0*0*#" will ensure that the information will become public at some point. TCI also argues that review of programming costs by local franchising authorities is not necessary to ensure the validity of TCI's cost increases because an independent accounting firm retained by TCI  Y-could review the contracts and verify the cost increases.  Yb-ԍxTCI also indicates a willingness to have the Commission review the contracts in  YM-camera if the City is dissatisfied with an independent accountant's review, arguing that: (1) the likelihood of leaks of confidential information would be reduced if only one federal agency reviews the contracts, rather than a number of franchising authorities; (2) since most programming is MSOwide, the Commission's review of one contract could apply to potentially thousands of franchises; (3) the Commission could review the same material in the context of CPS rate reviews, reducing duplication of local and federal efforts; (4) the Commission is better equipped to deal with the complexities of the pricing structures involved; (5) franchising authorities would save money on consultants' fees; (6) knowing that Commission review was available, franchising authorities would recognize that operators would have no incentive to misrepresent their programming costs; and (7) the Commission's authority to impose refunds and sanctions on a national basis for inaccurate rate justifications would ensure that such inaccuracies would not occur.  x  Y-x3.` ` In its opposition, the City argues that in order to review the merits of a rate increase filing, the City must have documentation supporting the basis for the rate increase. The City states that it told TCI that if the only source of the supporting documentation is TCI's programming contracts, TCI need not identity its programmers to the City. In addition, the City has expressed its intent to maintain the confidentiality of TCI's  YH-programming contracts.Hi  Yb-ԍ City's Opposition at 56. See also, Exhibit C of the City's Opposition which contains the City's rules for maintaining confidentiality of proprietary information. However, the City contends that TCI cannot simply refuse to provide any documentation for its rate increase on grounds that an employee of the City might disclose the information. Finally, the City observes that TCI's argument is focused on to whom TCI should be required to submit its contracts for review and not on whether review of the programming contracts is reasonably necessary to determine the merits of the rate justification. The City argues that the Commission has already identified the franchising authority as the proper reviewing body.  Y-x4.` ` In its reply, TCI concedes that the City is correct in asserting that TCI wants a party other than the City to review programming contracts, but that the City fails to identify any compelling reason why it should be the reviewing party.  Y4-x5.` ` Under the Commission's rules, appeals of franchising authorities' local rate  Y-orders are reviewed by the Commission.f Y$-#Xw PE37