WPC) 2MBVRKZ3|X7jC:,hXj\  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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\ 3XP2yEK Z X-#XP\  P6QhXP#3|X"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""ԍ In accordance with 47 C.F.R.  76.910, on October 15, 1993 the City filed FCC Form 328 with the  xZCommission requesting certification to regulate the BST rate. The City also served a copy of FCC Form 328 on  xInterMedia which served as notification to InterMedia of the City's intention to regulate the BST rate. On September  x;20, 1993 the City (1) authorized the filing of FCC Form 328 with the Commission and (2) adopted regulations with  xrespect to the rates for the BST that were consistent with the regulations prescribed by the Commission for regulation of the BST. Thereafter, on September 13, 1994, the City petitioned the Federal  X&- xCommunications Commission (Commission) to review the BST cost of service showing.B&@ {O- x<ԍ See Third Order on Reconsideration in MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 92262 (Third Recon. Order), 9 FCC  xRcd 4316, 433839 (1994). The Commission recognized that some local franchising authorities may have resources  xand personnel sufficient to conduct a review of the ratesetting justification based on the benchmark approach but  x;not to examine and review a cost of service showing. The Commission also understood that this concern may have  xYdiscouraged certification by many local franchising authorities. Therefore, it established procedures under which the  xCommission, if requested by the local franchising authority in a petition for special relief under Section 76.7 of the  xkCommission's rules, will issue a ruling that makes cost of service determinations for the BST. 47 C.F.R.  76.933(d). On  xMarch 15, 1995, the Commission granted the City's request and agreed to review InterMedia's  X-cost of service showing for the BST rate.PZZ  yOS'- x;ԍ The City asserted that it lacked the municipal resources and adequately trained personnel necessary to conduct  {O(- xthe cost of service review. See Petition of City September 13, 1994; see also Affidavit of Constance G. Ellis, City  xYClerk, City of Hogansville (September 7, 1994). The Commission granted the City's request on March 15, 1995 and"(,)))"  {O- xagreed to review InterMedia's cost of service showing regarding its BST rates for the City. See Letter dated March  x15, 1995, from Jacqueline Spindler, Deputy Division Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, to the Honorable Calvin Turbyfield, Mayor, City of Hogansville, Georgia. P",))ZZ~"Ԍ  ԙx2. On April 11, 1995, InterMedia also filed a cost of service submission with the  xiCommission in response to complaints which allege that InterMedia's cable programming services  X- xLtier ("CPST") rate is unreasonable.  7 yO- x<ԍ The earliest valid complaint filed and accepted by the Commission for the CPST rate charged in the above  xfranchise area served by InterMedia was received on February 23, 1995. On April 4, 1995, InterMedia filed a  xwrequest for extension of time (until April 10, 1995) in which to file its cost of service rate justification. The request for extension of time is moot, because InterMedia filed its cost of service rate justification on April 11, 1995.  On May 31, 1996, InterMedia supplemented and amended this filing.   lx3. According to information provided by InterMedia in its cost of service showings, the  xfranchise area comprised approximately 676 BST subscribers and 288 CPST subscribers at the  X_- x]time of the August 12, 1994 filing, and approximately 680 BST subscribers and 302 CPST  xsubscribers at the time of the April 11, 1995 filing. InterMedia provided 12 BST channels and  x7 CPST channels at the time of both filings. In this review process, pursuant to the Cable  X - xTelevision Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), " 7 {O- xYԍ See Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition  xyAct of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act") at  623(c)(1)(C), 47 U.S.C.   x,543(c)(1)(C). The Communications Act authorizes the Commission to order that an operator refund to subscribers that portion of rates that subscribers have paid that are, upon review, found to be unreasonable.  we analyze  xInterMedia's BST and CPST cost of service showings to ensure that the rates charged were not  X -unreasonable and to determine any associated refund liability.l  7 {Oi-ԍ  See Communications Act,  623(b)(1) and 623(c)(1)(C).l  X -  N x4. In this review, we are analyzing BST rates charged from May 15, 1994 to the present.^h ^ 7 yO}- xԍ InterMedia submitted a letter on November 23, 1993 to the City advising that InterMedia qualified as a small  xsystem and that, accordingly, the Commission's stay of rate regulation, for systems with 1,000 or fewer subscribers,  {O - xapplied to InterMedia's Hogansville system. See Letter from Bruce J. Stewart, Counsel, InterMedia Partners, to A.  {O- xQuillian Baldwin, Jr., City Attorney, City of Hogansville, Georgia (November 23, 1993). See also Implementation  xof Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266,  xMemorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5585 (1993). On May  x16, 1994, the City issued a letter to InterMedia advising InterMedia that the stay for small systems terminated on  {O- xMay 15, 1994 and that the City was authorized to regulate InterMedia's BST rate as of May 15, 1994. See Letter  xfrom The Honorable Calvin J. Turbyfield, Mayor, City of Hogansville, to Anthony (Sonny) Seneker, Jr., General  {O!- xiManager, Peachstate Cablevision (May 16, 1994).  See also Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television  xxConsumer Protection Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994).^  xInterMedia's cost of service filings seek to establish that its BST rate of $17.54 per month for  X- x this period is justified based on its cost of providing service on its BST. Our analysis indicates">,N(N(ZZ"  xthat the rate charged by InterMedia during the period under review should instead have been  X-$13.41 per month.F7 yOb- xԍ On January 23, 1995, the City issued an accounting order pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  76.933(c), thereby  xpreserving its ability to order refunds. As a result, applying 47 C.F.R.  76.942(c)(2), the total refund period shall  xbe for a period not to exceed one year back in time from the date of the accounting order. The actual refund liability  xtime period is from May 15, 1994 (the date the stay ended), to January 23, 1995 (the date of the City's accounting order).F x   x5. We are also analyzing CPST rates charged beginning February 23, 1995, the date of  X- xthe first valid complaint regarding the CPST rate in GA0289.Z x7 {O} -ԍ See Communications Act,  623(c)(1)(C).Z InterMedia's April 11, 1995 cost  xof service filing, on FCC Form 1220, and subsequent FCC Form 1210 filing seek to establish that  xits CPST rate of $11.94 per month beginning February 23, 1995 is justified based on its cost of  xproviding service. Our review indicates that InterMedia's CPST rate, as substantiated on its FCC Form 1220 and FCC Form 1210 filing, is justified under the Commission's rules.  X -  BACKGROUND ă   x6. On May 3, 1993, the Commission released an Order establishing rules to implement  X - xthe cable television rate regulation provisions of the 1992 Cable Act.N Z 7 yO- xԍ Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate  {O- xJRegulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Rate Order"), 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5637 (1993).N In the Rate Order, the  x.Commission determined that a benchmark and price cap approach should serve as the primary  x=method for regulating BST and CPST rates. The Commission also concluded that because the  xNbenchmark methodology might not produce fully compensatory rates in all cases, it was  X{- xiappropriate to permit operators, as an alternative, to justify rates using cost of service showings.w { 7 {Oh-ԍ Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 579495; see also 47 C.F.R.  76.922.w  x/The cost of service approach was intended to be used only if an operator believed that the  xjmaximum rate permitted under the benchmark formula would not enable the operator to recover  x=costs reasonably incurred in providing rate regulated cable services. Under traditional cost of  xservice regulation, rates are set at a level to provide a company with recovery of its costs and a  X-reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on its capital investment.  D 7 yO7 - xԍ Under the traditional cost of service formulation, a company's revenue requirement is equal to the reasonable  xexpenses of providing service and a fair return on investment: R = E + (V d) r, where R is the revenue  xirequirement; E is expenses, including operating expenses, maintenance expenses, depreciation and taxes; V is the  xvalue of the rate base, including plant in service and working capital; d is accumulated depreciation; and r is the  xauthorized rate of return, consisting of a weighted average of long term debt, preferred stock, and common stock.  {O$- xSee Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM  xDocket No. 93215, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 93353 (released July 16, 1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 40762 (July  {O%-30, 1993) ("Notice") at 40765 n.18.   X-" ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-  x7. At the time of the adoption of the Rate Order the Commission found that the record  xbefore it did not provide sufficient information on which to develop detailed cost of service rules  X- x!for the cable industry.Q 7 {OM-ԍ Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 579899.Q Therefore, on July 16, 1993, the Commission issued a Notice of  xProposed Rulemaking which proposed requirements to govern cost of service showings submitted  xby cable operators seeking to justify rates higher than those determined under the benchmark  X- xapproach.[Z7 {OJ-ԍ Notice, 58 Fed. Reg. 40762 (July 30, 1993).[ The Commission indicated in the Notice, as it did in the Rate Order, that general  xjcost of service principles would apply to cost of service filings submitted prior to the adoption  Xc- xof specific rules.qc7 {O` -ԍ Id. at 40763; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 579899, 5854 n.859.q InterMedia's cost of service filing under review in this proceeding was  x[submitted during that preadoption time period. In February 1994, the Commission adopted an  X5- xorder (the "Cost Order") setting forth specific regulatory requirements to govern cost of service  xLfilings to justify rates above levels determined under its benchmark requirements. Those rules  X - x.were to apply to rates charged or to be charged after May 14, 1994. The guidance of the Cost  X -Order became known as the "Interim Rules."2Z 7 {O3- x;ԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  xxRate Regulation, MM Docket No. 93215, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 4527 (1994).2   x8. On December 15, 1995, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order, First  xOrder on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 93215  X- xand CS Docket 9428 (Final Cost Order)C7 yO-ԍ 11 FCC Rcd at 2220 (1996).C setting forth its final rules to govern cost of service  X- x=filings. In the Final Cost Order the Commission refined the approach it adopted in the Notice  Xp- xand Cost Order and reaffirmed the use of the cost of service approach for operators for which  X[- x.the benchmark approach might not produce fully compensatory rates.3[7 {O-ԍ Id.3 The Commission also  xdetermined that cost of service filings still pending before the Commission would be reviewed  X-- xin accordance with the Final Cost Order, unless the operator notified the Commission by April  X-8, 1996, that it wished its filing to be reviewed under the Interim Rules of the Cost Order.32 7 {O-ԍ Id.3  X- (DISCUSSION ă  X-x A. FCC Form 1220   Ox9. InterMedia did not notify the Commission that it elected to have the Interim Rules  xapplied to the filings pending in this proceeding. Therefore, we have analyzed InterMedia's BST  Xb- xand CPST cost of service submissions consistent with the Final Cost Order. Rate base and"bt ,N(N(ZZ0"  xexpense items have been evaluated to determine whether InterMedia should be permitted to  x>recover those items. Where a certain rate base or expense element was not supported, was  xexcessive, or was unrelated to providing regulated cable service, such cost was disallowed in  X-whole or in part.7 yO4- xԍ The Commission made clear that the fact that an operator has incurred costs does not necessarily establish  {O-its right to recover those costs from subscribers. See Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5794 n.619.  Where reported costs were disallowed, we have made appropriate adjustments.   >x10. The rate base represents the amount of used and useful investment the cable company  Xv- xprudently makes in its facilities to provide service to its customers.v"7 yO - x.ԍ Rate base traditionally consists of plant in service, noncurrent assets, materials and supplies, and cash working capital. It is necessary to determine  xLthe allowable rate base both to calculate the return component of the revenue requirement and  xto compute the earned rate of return. In analyzing InterMedia's filing, we reviewed the  xcomponents of InterMedia's rate base to determine the investment upon which InterMedia is  xentitled to earn a return. For purposes of this review, we have made adjustments to the rate base as discussed below.  X -  x11. Construction Work in Progress: InterMedia includes allocated amounts for  X - xzconstruction work in progress of $14,408 and $8,405 for BST and CPST, respectively. *7 yOI- xԍ For purposes of our analysis, construction work in progress includes plant under construction and allowance for funds used during construction. The  X - xFinal Cost Order allows costs associated with plant in the rate base if such plant is used and  X- xuseful.X27 {O%-ԍ Final Cost Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 223637.X As discussed in the Final Cost Order, used and useful plant is plant that is actually used  X}- x-to send signals to customers.3}t7 {OR-ԍ Id.3 The used and useful standard thus prohibits the inclusion of the  xcost of plant in the rate base unless the plant is in operation and providing direct benefits to  XO- xsubscribers.UO 7 {Of-ԍ Final Cost Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2235.U A review of InterMedia's submissions shows the amounts reported as construction  xwork in progress represents projects that were not used and useful at the time of filing.  xTherefore, we removed the amount reported as construction work in progress from the rate base and made appropriate adjustments to the BST and CPST revenue requirement.  X-  x12. Asset Valuation: InterMedia's cost of service filing includes both tangible and  xintangible assets in its rate base. InterMedia used an estimated original cost valuation to establish  xthe value of the assets in its rate base. InterMedia also provided a rate base valuation using its  X- x-book cost based on the acquisition price it paid for the above referenced franchise.[ 7 yO$-ԍ InterMedia acquired this franchise in June 1991. [ InterMedia  xasserts that the intangible assets that it includes in its rate base play an important role in the"8 ,N(N(ZZn"  X- xyoperation of its cable system.T7 yOy-ԍ InterMedia's Aug. 15, 1994 filing at p. 1.T InterMedia further states that a policy of excluding intangibles  xfrom rate base fails to recognize the substantial investment cable system operators must make in  xdeveloping and/or acquiring the many intangible assets that are prerequisites either to operating  X- xa cable system or to its efficient operation.<X7 {Ot-ԍ Id. at p. 1.< According to InterMedia, by excluding intangibles  x the Commission is unfairly penalizing those operators who have acquired an existing cable  X-system.<7 {O -ԍ Id. at p. 1.<  X_-  0x13. As the Commission reiterated in the Final Cost Order, original cost is a reliable and  XJ- x.fair measure of the value of tangible assets. However, as discussed in the Final Cost Order it  xis often difficult, if not impossible, for cable operators to determine the original cost of a tangible  X - xyasset.U 7 {O[-ԍ Final Cost Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2253.U Thus, to accommodate this reality for cable systems constructed before May 15, 1994,  X - xthe Final Cost Order allows operators to use the book value that was recorded as of May 15,  X - xZ1994, regardless of whether the system was built or acquired by the current operator.3 7 {Oq-ԍ Id.3 Therefore,  xOwe will allow InterMedia to use the book value of its tangible assets to determine the reasonableness of its rates in this proceeding.  X-  ^x14. In the Final Cost Order, the Commission adopted a methodology to exclude that  xportion of the acquisition price of cable system assets that represents amounts paid for the system  xjin expectation of monopoly profits. Under the methodology, a 34% adjustment would be made  xto the purchase price a cable operator paid for cable assets (including both tangible and intangible  X<- xassets) with the result that some portion of the assets would be excluded from rate base.X <`7 {O-ԍ Final Cost Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 224647.X  X%- xApplying the methodology approved in the Final Cost Order to InterMedia's cost of service in  xjthis proceeding results in a gross disallowance of $530,879. Of that amount, $265,440 has been  X-allocated to the BST and $154,840 has been allocated to the CPST.n!7 yO-ԍ "Gross disallowance" equals 34% of the purchase price of the system.n  X-  lx15. Use of Equivalent Billing Units: On July 27, 1994," 7 {O"-ԍ See Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation, Public Notice dated July 27, 1994. the Commission announced that  x<a cable operator, in the absence of an actual subscriber count, may use a subscriber count based  xon equivalent billing units ("EBUs") for purposes of filing the Commission's benchmark and"$ ",N(N(ZZ"  X- xquarterly increase forms (FCC Forms 1200 and 1210, respectively).h#X7 yOy- xԍ Under this methodology, as specified in the Commission's "Annual Report of Cable Television Systems"  xh(FCC Form 325) instructions, subscribers to bulkrate service are calculated by dividing "the annual bulkrate charge" by "the basic annual subscription rate for individual households."h The Public Notice on the  xuse of EBUs in these forms, however, was silent regarding the propriety of using EBU counts on FCC Form 1220, the cost of service form.   ]x16. When calculating its maximum permitted rate InterMedia reported subscriber counts  xZbased upon EBUs. InterMedia has persuaded us that EBU counts are appropriate for use on FCC  x<Form 1220. EBU counts more accurately account for the unique revenue and cost characteristics  xof special customer classes. EBU counts correctly recognize the reduced costs of providing  xservices on a per subscriber basis to special customer classes, and ensure that related revenues  xare properly assigned. Therefore, we conclude that InterMedia has used acceptable allocation  xmethodologies, both in allocating costs from higher organizational levels to lower organizational levels and for intertier allocations. Therefore, we did not revise its cost allocations.   1x17. Upon review of InterMedia's cost of service filings, and having incorporated the  xadjustments discussed above, we conclude that InterMedia has failed to justify the BST rate of  xM$17.54 charged from May 15, 1994 to January 23, 1995. Rather, InterMedias cost of service filings justify a maximum permitted BST rate of $13.41 per month (plus franchise fee).  Xb-x B. FCC Form 1210 Filings   x18. In addition to its April 11, 1995 FCC Form 1220 filing, which is based on a test year  xending December 31, 1994, InterMedia submitted an FCC Form 1210 on November 30, 1995 to  xreflect changes in channels, external costs, and inflation for the period January 1, 1995 to  xSeptember 30, 1995. We have reviewed the FCC Form 1210 and, while we found no apparent  xerrors in the methodology that InterMedia applied, we adjusted Module A of FCC Form 1210 to  xlreflect adjustments we made to InterMedias April 11, 1995 Form 1220 filing as described  xpreviously. After making the appropriate adjustments, we conclude that InterMedia has justified  X-the CPST rate of $11.94 that it was charging pursuant to its FCC Form 1210 filing.$~7 {O- xԍ According to the Final Cost Order, the 34% adjustment methodology (to allow 66% of a system's purchase  xhprice in the rate base) may be applied only for the purpose of justifying rates in effect as of the effective date of the  {On- xFinal Cost Order, which date was April 8, 1996, or for earlier periods if the operator elects in accordance with the  xiprovisions to elect the final cost rules for pending complaints. Accordingly, the 66% allowance may not be used  xJafter April 8, 1996 to justify future rate increases. Future rate increases, however, may be justified by cost increases  xafter April 8, 1996, as provided on FCC Form 1210, on FCC Form 1240, or, when the operator again becomes  {O"-eligible to file, on FCC Form 1220. See Final Cost Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2247 and 2298. "| $,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- H%CONCLUSION  X-   x19. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filings and supplemental  xMinformation and applying the Commission's current rules, we find that, as discussed above,  xInterMedia has not justified the monthly BST rate of $17.54 (plus franchise fee) for the period after May 15, 1994. x   x20. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filings and supplemental  xMinformation and applying the Commission's current rules, we find that, as discussed above,  x InterMedia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $11.94 (plus franchise fee) for the period beginning February 23, 1995. x   x21. Based on our review of InterMedia's FCC Form 1210s filings, we find that, as  x[discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $11.94 (plus franchise fee) that InterMedia charged for the period covered by its Form 1210 filing, is not unreasonable.   !x22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules,  x47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the monthly BST rate charged by InterMedia with respect to the abovereferenced community, for the period, since May 15, 1994 IS NOT JUSTIFIED.   x23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.942 of the Commission's rules,  xN47 C.F.R. Section 76.942, that InterMedia Partners shall refund to BST subscribers in the  xfranchise area referenced in the caption that portion of the amount paid for basic service during  xthe period from May 15, 1994 to the date of payment which exceeded the maximum permitted rate of $13.41.   x24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.933(d) of the Commission's  xLrules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d), that this ruling on the monthly rate InterMedia was charging  x=for its BST is binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Hogansville, and the cable  xoperator, InterMedia. The maximum permitted BST rate of $13.41 shall take effect upon  ximplementation of such ruling by the City of Hogansville, the local franchising authority, and refund liability shall be governed thereon.   mx25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commissions rules,  x47 C.F.R. Section 0321, that the monthly CPST rates charged by InterMedia Partners with respect  xto the abovereferenced community, for the period covered by its cost of service filing and FCC Form 1210 filing, ARE JUSTIFIED, and that no refund liability will be imposed. x   x26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's  xrules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaint against the monthly CPST rates charged by InterMedia with respect to the abovereferenced CUID number, IS DENIED. "Q%$,N(N(ZZ $"   $ !i x27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time filed by InterMedia Partners IS DENIED. x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x` ` hhJohn E. Logan x` ` hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau