WPC< 2MBVRKZ3|j 7jC:,yoXj\  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. 907_1; LPT2HPLA4SAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\! EXP2> K Z3|j "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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2*K KIKK"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&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""/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(- x93177, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993); Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of"),**U("  {OX- xProposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994); Fifth Order on  {O"- xReconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket Nos. 93215 & 93266, 9 FCC Rcd  {O- x5327 (1994); Eighth Order on Reconsideration in MM Docket Nos. 92266 & 93215, FCC 9542, 10 FCC Rcd 5179 (1995). In the Small System Order, the Commission further extended small system rate"~,**88"  S- xjrelief to certain systems that exceed the 1,000subscriber standard.^~ {O-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7406.^ These systems were deemed eligible  xnfor small system rate relief because they were found to face higher costs and other burdens  S-disproportionate to their size.  {O` -  >ԍxId. at 7407. More recently, Congress amended Section 623 of the Communications Act to allow greater  xideregulation for "small cable operators," defined as operators that "directly or through an affiliate, [serve] in the  xaggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and [are] not affiliated with any entity or  xKentities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000." Telecommunications Act of 1996  x-("1996 Act"), Pub. L. No. 104104,  301(c), 110 Stat. 56, approved February 8, 1996; Communications Act   x623(m), 47 U.S.C.  543(m). Pursuant to this amendment, the rate regulation requirements of Sections 623(a), (b)  xand (c) do not apply to a small cable operator with respect to "(A) cable programming services, or (B) a basic service  xhtier that was the only service tier subject to regulation as of December 31, 1994," in areas where the operator serves  {O-50,000 or fewer subscribers. Id.   S`- ` }x3.` ` The Small System Order defines a small system as any system that serves 15,000 or fewer  S:- xsubscribers.^: {O-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7406.^ The Commission recognized that systems with no more than 15,000 subscribers were  x/qualitatively different from larger systems with respect to a number of characteristics, including: (1)  xkaverage monthly regulated revenues per channel per subscriber; (2) average number of subscribers per  S- xmile; and (3) average annual premium revenues per subscriber.Kv {O-ԍXxId. at 7408.(#K The magnitude of the differences between  x.the two classes of systems as to these characteristics indicated that the 15,000 subscriber threshold was  xthe appropriate point of demarcation for purposes of providing for substantive and procedural regulatory  SJ -relief.; J  {O-ԍxId. ;  S - ` x4.` ` Rate relief provided under the Small System Order and the Commission's rules is also  S - xNavailable only to a small system affiliated with a small cable company, which is defined as a cable  S - xoperator that serves a total of 400,000 or fewer subscribers over all of its systems. ^  {O!-  [ԍxId. A small system is deemed affiliated with a cable company if the company "holds more than a 20 percent  {O"- xequity USESESUSinterest (active or passive) in the system or exercises de jure control (such as through a general partnership  {Oz#-or majority voting shareholder interest)." Id. at 741213, n.88. The Commission  x\adopted this threshold because it roughly corresponds to $100 million in annual regulated revenues, a  xstandard the Commission has used in other contexts to identify smaller entities deserving of relaxed  S4- x[regulatory treatment.F 4 {O'-ԍxId. at 740911.F The Commission found that cable companies exceeding this threshold would find"4R ,`(`(88,"  xit easier than smaller companies to attract the financing and investment necessary to maintain and improve  S- xservice.C  {O@-ԍxId. at 7411.C In addition, the Commission determined that cable companies that exceeded the small company  xdefinition "are better able to absorb the costs and burdens of regulation due to their expanded  S-administrative and technical resources."C Z {O-ԍxId. at 7409.C x` `  S8- ` ox5.` ` In addition to adopting the new categories of small systems and small cable companies,  S- xthe Small System Order introduced a form of rate regulation known as the small system costofservice  S- xmethodology.F {Ov -ԍxId. at 741828.F This approach, which is available only to small systems owned by small cable companies,  x[is more streamlined than the standard costofservice methodology available to cable operators generally.  xyIn addition, the small system rules include substantive differences from the standard costofservice rules  x[to take account of the proportionately higher costs of providing service faced by small systems. Eligible  x[systems establish their rates under this methodology by completing and filing FCC Form 1230. In order  xjto qualify for the small system costofservice methodology, systems and companies must meet the new  S - xsize standards as of either the effective date of the Small System Order, or on the date thereafter when  S -they file the documents necessary to elect the relief they seek. ~ {O-ԍxId. at 7413. The effective date of the Small System Order was August 21, 1995.  S - ` x6.` ` Cable systems that fail to meet the numerical definition of a small system, or whose  xjoperators do not qualify as small cable companies, may submit petitions for special relief requesting that  xthe Commission grant a waiver of its rules to enable the petitioning systems to utilize the various forms  S - x.of rate relief available to small systems owned by small cable companies.F  {O-ԍxId. at 741213.F The Commission stated that  S- xpetitioners should demonstrate that they "share relevant characteristics with qualifying systems.": {O&-ԍxId.: Other  xlpotentially pertinent factors include the degree by which the system fails to satisfy either or both  xdefinitions and evidence of increased costs (e.g., lack of programming or equipment discounts) faced by  Sl- xthe operator.:l4  {O@-ԍxId.: If the system fails to qualify for relief based on its affiliation with a larger cable company,  xthe Commission will consider "the degree to which that affiliation exceeds our affiliation standards, and  xwhether other attributes of the system warrant that it be treated as a small system notwithstanding the  S- xpercentage ownership of the affiliate.";  {OZ#-ԍxId. ; The Commission also stated that "a qualifying system that seeks  xjto obtain programming from a neighboring system by way of a fiber optic link, but that is concerned that  xinterconnection of the two systems will jeopardize its status as a standalone small system, may file a  S|- xpetition for special relief to ask the Commission to find that it is eligible for small system relief."C|X  {Ot'-ԍxId. at 7413.C The"|,`(`(88"  x=Commission specifically stated that this list of relevant factors was not exclusive and invited petitioners  S-to support their petitions with any other information and arguments they deemed relevant.: {O@-ԍxId.:  S- II.xTHE PETITION  S8- ` x7.` ` In its Petition, Lake seeks authority to establish regulated rates for its Winder system in  xLaccordance with the small system costofservice methodology. As noted, that form of rate regulation is  x{only available to small systems owned by small cable companies. According to the Petition, as of  S- xDecember 31, 1995, Lake served a total of approximately 39,000 subscribers across all of its systems.?Z yO -ԍxPetition at 2.?  S- xLake states that it therefore qualifies as a small cable company.: {O" -ԍxId.: Nevertheless, Lake is in need of special  Sp- xrelief because its Winder system exceeds the 15,000 subscriber limit for small systems.:p| {O-ԍxId.: As of December  SH -31, 1995, Lake's Winder cable system served an average of approximately 16,286 subscribers.:H  {O-ԍxId.:  S - ` x8.` ` In support of its Petition, Lake notes that it easily qualifies as a small operator, and that  S - xits Winder system fails to meet the numerical definition of a small system by only a small degree.:  {O-ԍxId.: In  x=addition, Lake argues that its Winder system shares several relevant characteristics with qualifying small  S - xsystems even though its system does not meet the numerical definition of a small system.B 2  {OR-ԍxId. at 35.B According  xto the Petition, the Winder system serves approximately 16.6 subscribers per mile, which is below the  x[average number of 35.3 subscribers per mile served by systems with fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and  x/far below the average number of 68.7 subscribers per mile served by systems with more than 15,000  S- xNsubscribers.B  {OD-ԍxId. at 34.B The Winder system also has an average monthly regulated revenue per channel per  xsubscriber of approximately $0.58, as compared to the $0.86 average monthly regulated revenue per  S- xchannel per subscriber for systems serving fewer than 15,000 subscribers.@V  {O!-ԍxId. at 3.@ Finally, the Petition indicates  Sh- xthat the Winder system has an average annual premium revenue per subscriber of $53.80.@h {O#-ԍxId. at 4.@ This figure  xyis closer to the average of $41.00 for systems with fewer than 15,000 subscribers than it is to the average  S-of $73.13 for systems with more than 15,000 subscribers.z {O2'-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7408. See also Petition at 4." ,`(`(88"Ԍ S- ` Bԙx9.` ` In further support of the Petition, Lake argues that a grant of special relief would be in  xLthe public interest. Lake contends that it faces financial constraints similar to those faced by other small  S- xcable operators.E  yO-ԍxPetition at 5.E Specifically, the Petition indicates that Lake cannot "achieve economies of scale  xavailable to much larger systems in the area of equipment purchasing, system maintenance, or program  S`- xkacquisition.":!`X {OX-ԍxId.: Lake further argues that it faces high operating costs because it has been committed to  S8-"providing first class cable service, notwithstanding the limited size of its subscriber base."v"\8 {O -  \ԍxId. Lake mentions investments of more than $1.5 million and improvements to its system including the  xaddition of upgraded electronics and 125 strand miles of optical fiber to increase channel capacity and to improve  {OT -signal quality and reliability. Id. at 56.v  S- ` Ax 10.` ` On June 10, 1996 the City of Lula, Georgia filed an Opposition to the Petition for Special  xRelief. On June 17, 1996 the City of Winder, Georgia also filed an Opposition to the Petition for Special  xRelief. Lake filed a consolidated Reply to Oppositions to Petition for Special Relief on June 20, 1996. The substance of the oppositions and Lake's reply are discussed in Section III below.  S - III.xDISCUSSION  S - ` x 11.` ` In the Small System Order, the Commission defined a small cable company as a cable  S - xjcompany "serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers over all of its systems."^#  {OX-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7406.^ The Commission also defined  S - xa small cable system as a system that "serves 15,000 or fewer subscribers."^$  {O-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7406.^ Lake serves a total of  xapproximately 39,000 subscribers across all of its systems, and thus easily falls within the definition of  x0a small cable company, but its Winder system exceeds the small system definition with a total of  S - xkapproximately 16,286 subscribers.?% 2  yO-ԍxPetition at 2.? Lake may not, therefore, establish regulated rates for its Winder system in accordance with the small system costofservice methodology absent special relief.  S- ` Bx 12.` ` We believe that Lake is entitled to special relief for its Winder system. We previously  xhave granted small system status to systems that exceed the 15,000 subscriber limit by only a small  xamount where it has been shown that the system in question shares relevant characteristics with systems  S- xserving fewer than 15,000 subscribers.|&^  {O|"-  {ԍxSee In the Matter of Insight Communications Company, L.P., DA 952334, 11 FCC Rcd 1270 (1995)  {OF#- xL("Insight"); see also In the Matter of Rifkin & Associates d/b/a Columbia Cablevision, DA 962026 (released  {O$-December 4, 1996) ("Rifkin").| In Insight, we granted special relief so that the cable operator  xcould use the small system rate rules for its systems serving 16,348, 16,328 and 17,798 subscribers,  S- xrespectively.S' {OT'-ԍxInsight, 11 FCC Rcd at 1274.S We found that "even the largest of the three systems exceed[ed] the 15,000 subscriber"z',`(`(88$"  S- xstandard by only a relatively small amount.":( {Oh-ԍxId.: With only 16,286 subscribers, Lake's Winder system is  S- xsmaller than any of the above mentioned Insight systems and exceeds the 15,000 subscriber limit by only  S-1,286 subscribers.I)Z {O-ԍxSee Petition at 2.I  Sb- ` Bx 13.` ` In Insight, we also found that there was no evidence that the systems in question were  S<- x"experiencing, or anticipate[d] experiencing, a high rate of subscriber growth."u*< {O -ԍxSee Insight, 11 FCC Rcd at 1274; see also Petition at 4.u The cities of Lula and  xWinder, Georgia claim that the Winder system's growth rate during 1994 and 1995 averaged 16.5%  xLannually and that the system serves sections of Gwinnett County that will continue to experience a high  S- xKgrowth rate according to data gathered by the county.r+~ yO -ԍxCity of Lula Opposition at 23; City of Winder Opposition at 23.r However, Lake states, in its Reply to Oppositions,  xthat the difference in subscribers noted by the cities did not result from an increase in the number of  xpeople choosing to receive Lake's services, but rather resulted from "a systemwide audit which discovered  SL - xhundreds of nonpaying users of Lake's service."X,ZL  yO-  ԍxReply to Oppositions at 2. Lake estimates that its maximum growth rate over the next five years is likely  xto be less than 10% rather than 16.5%, and that its subscribership is more likely to be near 19,500 by the year 1998.  {O-Id. at 23.X Lake also disputes the accuracy of the rates for  S$ - xpopulation growth estimated by Gwinnett County and cited in the cities' oppositions.@-$ 0  {O-ԍxId. at 3.@ Lake claims that  S - xdata compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau indicate a much lower growth rate for the two cities.:.  {O^-ԍxId.: We note  xthat the rate of population growth in the county does not serve as direct evidence that Lake's subscribership is likely to grow at any particular rate. x  S\- ` x 14.` ` In the Small System Order, the Commission observed that systems with fewer than 15,000  xsubscribers differed from systems with more than 15,000 subscribers with respect to three main  xcharacteristics, including average number of subscribers per mile, regulated revenues, and non-regulated  S- xj(or premium) revenues.^/T  {O-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7408.^ With respect to subscriber density, Lake's Winder system serves an average of  xonly 16.6 subscribers per mile, which is less than half of the small system average of 35.3 subscribers per  S- xmile and less than a quarter of the larger system average of 68.7 subscribers per mile.0 {O#-ԍxPetition at 34. See also Small System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7408. Low subscriber  xdensity was specifically relied on by the Commission to establish the 15,000 subscriber threshold for small  SF- x>systems.^1Fx {O^&-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7408.^ The Commission noted in the Small System Order that commenters had observed that "a  xsmaller system serving a large rural area faces increased construction costs due to the increased amount"  1,`(`(88"  xof cable that must be installed to reach the entire area and increased operating costs given the greater  S-amount of facilities that must be maintained."C2 {O@-ԍxId. at 7402.C  S- ` x15.` ` The Commission also found that the average monthly regulated revenue per channel per  S`- x{subscriber is $0.86 for systems with fewer than 15,000 subscribers.C3`Z {OZ-ԍxId. at 7408.C The $0.58 average monthly  xregulated revenue per channel per subscriber of Lake's Winder system compares favorably with this small  S-system standard.?4 yO -ԍxPetition at 3.?  S- ` x16.` ` The Winder system furthermore reports an average annual premium revenue per subscriber  xjof only $53.80, which is closer to the $41 average for smaller systems than it is to the $73.13 average for  Sp- xklarger systems.x5p| {O-ԍxId. at 4. See also Small System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7408.x This disparity with respect to unregulated or premium revenues was another factor  SH -specifically recognized in the Small System Order as a justification for the small system definition.^6H  {O-ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7408.^  S - ` x17.` ` In the Small System Order, the Commission stated that it would also consider "evidence  S - xof increased costs (e.g., lack of programming or equipment discounts) faced by the operator."D7  {O-ԍxId. at 7412. D The cities  xof Lula and Winder, Georgia claim that Lake does not provide any data in its Petition indicating that the  S - xLcosts for its Winder system are similar to those of systems that meet the small system definition.n8 2  yOV-ԍxCity of Lula Opposition at 4; City of Winder Opposition at 4.n The  xcities also suggest that Lake simply recover any additional costs that it may incur through a standard cost S4- x<ofservice showing.:94  {O-ԍxId.: As we have previously noted, small systems with a low subscribership density often  S - xface increased costs.`:Z T  {O-  zԍxId. at 7402. See supra at para. 12. Lake also notes that the cities' argument fails to recognize that small  xsystem relief is designed to avoid the lengthy and expensive process involved in a standard costofservice proceeding. Reply to Oppositions at 45.` The Petition indicates that, with an average of only 16.6 subscribers per mile, Lake  S- xhas a very limited subscribership resembling that of a small system,?;v yO"-ԍxPetition at 4.? and Lake claims that it cannot  x"achieve economies of scale available to much larger systems in the area of equipment purchasing, system  S- xmaintenance, or program acquisition."F< {O:&-ԍxId. at 5.F Lake also argues that it faces "high operating costs" due to  xseveral improvements and expenditures that it has made in an attempt to improve service to its limited"l<,`(`(88"  S- xsubscribership.B= {Oh-ԍxId. at 56.B According to Lake, most of its "subscriber growth will come via line extensions, not  S-urban growth, thereby exacerbating the cost and operational challenges" it faces.K>Z yO-ԍxReply to Oppositions at 4.K  S- ` px18.` ` We believe that Lake should be allowed to defray its increased costs using the small  S`- xjsystem costofservice methodology. In the Small System Order, the Commission adjusted its definition  x0of small systems in order to further Congress' goal of reducing the regulatory burdens and cost of  S- x[compliance for smaller cable concerns.d? {O -ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7395, 7406.d The Commission noted that the goals expressed by Congress in  xthe 1992 Cable Act Statement of Policy would also be furthered if it expanded the category of small  S- x-systems entitled to reduced regulatory burdens.@| {O -ԍxId. at 740607, citing 1992 Cable Act, Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992),  2(b)(1)(3). The Small System Order allows for the filing of petitions  xfor special relief so that systems that fail to meet the numerical small system definition may still show that  St- xthey are similar to systems that meet the definition, and are therefore entitled to relief.IAt {O"-ԍxId. at 7412.I Lake's Winder  xsystem exceeds the small system definition by only a small amount. Lake has also shown that its Winder  xxsystem has characteristics that compare favorably with the various characteristics that the Commission used  S - xto determine the category of systems deserving of regulatory relief. For these reasons, we believe that granting the Petition will further the intent of Congress and will therefore serve the public interest.  S - IV.xSCOPE OF THE WAIVER  S4- ` x19.` ` As a result of our grant of the Petition, Lake's Winder system shall be deemed a small  xsystem for purposes of rate regulation. Accordingly, to the extent Winder's basic service tier and/or cable  S- x=programming service tier offerings are subject to rate regulation,^B yO$-  !ԍxAs of the 1996 Act's enactment on February 8, 1996, rate regulation does not apply to a small cable  xZoperator with respect to CPSTs, or a BST that was the only service tier subject to regulation as of December 31,  x1994. For purposes of this provision, a "small cable operator" is defined as one that, directly or through an affiliate,  xserves in the aggregate fewer than 615,000 subscribers and is not affiliated with any entity whose gross annual  {OD- xrevenues exceed $250,000,000. 47 U.S.C.  543(m); Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CS Docket No.  x9685, 11 FCC Rcd 5937, 5947 (1996). As discussed above, small system relief under our rules is available only  xto systems that serve fewer than 15,000 subscribers and are not affiliated with a cable operator that serves more than  {O - x400,000 subscribers, absent a waiver. See supra paras. 34. Accordingly, a rate complaint that is filed concerning  xa cable system that is deemed a small system under our rules may not invoke rate regulation of the system's CPST, or of its BST if the BST was the only service tier subject to regulation as of December 31, 1994.^ Lake may now set rates prospectively in accordance with the small system costofservice methodology.  Sl- ` x20.` ` We next must determine the duration of the waiver. In the Small System Order, after establishing the new small system and small cable company definitions, the Commission stated: "<B,`(`(88S"Ԍ `  ` XxX` ` To qualify for any existing form of [small system] relief, systems and  ` companies must meet the new size standards as of either the effective  ` date of this order or on the date thereafter when they file whatever  ` Udocumentation is necessary to elect the relief they seek, at their election.  ` . . . A system that is eligible for small system relief on either of the  `  dates described above shall remain eligible for so long as the system has  ` 15,000 or fewer subscribers, regardless of a change in the status of the  `  company that owns the system. Thus, a qualifying system will remain  ` eligible for relief even if the company owning the system subsequently  ` exceeds the 400,000 subscriber cap. Likewise, a system that qualifies >> ` )shall remain eligible for relief even if it is subsequently acquired by a  SH -company that serves a total of more than 400,000 subscribers.C\H & {O -  ԍxId. at 7413. The quoted text was discussing a system's initial and continuing eligibility for "any existing  xform of relief," which did not include the small system costofservice methodology. However, later in the order  {OB -the Commission applied the same eligibility standards to that methodology as well. Id. at 742728.x`  `    S - ` 2x21.` ` The Commission adopted this grandfathering treatment for qualifying systems to enhance  S - xtheir value "in the eyes of operators and, more importantly, lenders and investors."CD  {O\-ԍxId. at 7413.C As the Commission  xstated: "The enhanced value of the system thus will strengthen its viability and actually increase its ability  S -to remain independent if it so chooses.":E ~ {O-ԍxId.: x` `  S0- ` #x22.` ` Upon exceeding the 15,000 subscriber threshold, a system that has established its rates in accordance with the small system costofservice methodology:  ` XxX` ` . . . may maintain its then existing rates. However, any further  ` adjustments shall not reflect increases in external costs, inflation or  ` channel additions until the system has reestablished initial permitted rates  S@-in accordance with our benchmark or costofservice rules.HF@ {O-ԍxId. at 742728. Hx`  S- ` x23.` ` Since Lake's Winder system has already exceeded 15,000 subscribers, there is no obvious  xnumerical limit to serve as a cutoff for its continued eligibility for small system treatment. Although Lake  xdoes not anticipate that its Winder system's subscribership will move very far from the 15,000 limit for  Sx- xsome time,?Gx yO"-ԍxPetition at 4.? we believe it is reasonable to presume that the system will continue to grow. Thus, we must  xplace some duration on the waiver, since the alternative would be to grant small system status indefinitely,  xregardless of the eventual size of the system. This latter alternative is clearly inconsistent with the  xyCommission's decision to limit small system relief to systems who are in need of it due to their relatively small size. " 2 G,`(`(88-"Ԍ S- ` 2x24.` ` Therefore, as we have ordered in the context of a similar waiver situation, the Lake waiver  S- xwill terminate two years from the date of this order, subject to the conditions set forth below.H {O@-  ԍxSee Insight, 11 FCC Rcd at 1276. The cities of Lula and Winder, Georgia request that we limit any waiver  xof our rules to one year or less based on their claims of high subscriber growth. City of Lula Opposition at 3; City  xof Winder Opposition at 3. However, in light of our discussion above, we see no need to grant Lake's Winder  {O- xsystem a shorter waiver term, than we have previously granted other systems entitled to special relief. See Insight,  {Od-11 FCC Rcd at 1276; see also Rifkin at para. 22. During  xthe waiver period, Lake may file only one Form 1230 for each franchise area it serves. This should give  xLake adequate regulatory certainty for the foreseeable future, while still ensuring that the system is not  xypermitted to charge rates indefinitely under a scheme designed for smaller systems. Of course, Lake may  xseek continued eligibility for small system treatment by filing a petition for special relief at the end of the waiver period.  S- ` `x25.` ` Limiting the waiver period to two years means that any Form 1230 to be filed by Lake  xjmust be submitted with the appropriate regulatory authorities within two years of the date of this order.  x]In any franchise area where the system is currently subject to regulation, Lake may reestablish its  xmaximum permitted rates by filing Form 1230 at any time in the next two years. Where the system is  xnot currently subject to regulation but becomes subject to regulation within the next two years, Lake may  xthen file Form 1230 within the normal response time. Where the system is not now subject to regulation,  xand does not become subject to regulation until more than two years from now, Lake will not be eligible for small system treatment under this waiver.  SX- ` 3x26.` ` After filing its initial Form 1230 and giving the required notice, Lake may set its actual  xyrates in the franchise area at any level that does not exceed the maximum rate, subject to the standard rate  xreview process. Subsequent increases, not to exceed the maximum rate established by the Form 1230,  S- x[shall be permitted, subject to the 30 days' notice requirement of the Commission's rules.I\~ {O-  ԍxSmall System Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7426. Under the small system rules, rate increases taken after the  xinitial Form 1230 has been approved are not subject to further regulatory review, as long as the rate is no higher than  {O-that permitted by the previouslyfiled form. Id. As noted, the  xLmaximum rate established by the initial Form 1230 shall be a cap on the system's rates during the waiver  xperiod. If the system reaches that cap and subsequently wishes to raise rates further, it will have to justify  xthe rate increase in accordance with our standard benchmark or costofservice rules. Alternatively, the  xsystem can file another petition for special relief and seek continued treatment as a small system. Limiting  xLake to a single Form 1230 filing for each franchise area provides further assurance that the system will not have grown too large to be establishing rates under the small system costofservice methodology. " I,`(`(88"Ԍ S- V.xORDERING CLAUSES  S- ` Rx27.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Special Relief filed by Lake  S-Cablevision, Inc. and Lake Cablevision (Winder), Inc. IS GRANTED.  S8- ` x28.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the  S-Commission's rules.FJ yOx-ԍx47 C.F.R.  0.321.F x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau