******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Bresnan Communications Company ) CUID Nos. MI0101 (Bay City) ) MI0102 (Essexville) ) MI0118 (Hampton) ) MI0122 (Midland) Complaints Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rates ) and ) Petition for Reconsideration ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION and RATE ORDER Adopted: September 19, 1997 Released: September 22, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider complaints and a petition for reconsideration concerning the rates the above-captioned operator ("Operator") was charging for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the communities referenced above. Operator has attempted to justify its CPST rates through benchmark showings on FCC Forms 1200, 1210, 1235, and 1240. We have already issued a separate order which found that the Operator's rates in effect before May 15, 1994 were unreasonable ("Prior Order"). Operator filed a Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition") of our Prior Order on July 28, 1995. On August 10, 1995, the City of Midland (the "City") filed an Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration ("Opposition"). Operator filed its Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration ("Reply") on August 21, 1995. Accordingly, this Order addresses Operator's Petition For Reconsideration of our Prior Order for CUID Nos. MI0101, MI0102, MI0118 and MI0122 and the reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates in effect from May 15, 1994 to present for CUID No. MI0122. 2. The Communications Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber or local franchise authority ("LFA"). If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the new legislation, requires that complaints against CPST rates be filed with the Commission by a franchising authority that has received subscriber complaints. A franchising authority may not file a CPST rate complaint unless, within 90 days after such increase becomes effective, it receives more than one subscriber complaint. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Operators with valid CPST complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994, were required to demonstrate that their CPST rates were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994, through a benchmark showing had to complete and file FCC Form 393. The period under review for the Prior Order was the early period commencing from date of filing of the first valid CPST complaint with the Commission on October 12, 1993 to May 15, 1994. 4. Cable operators attempting to justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must use the FCC Form 1200 series. Cable operators may also justify rate increases based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210. FCC Form 1210 must be filed at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go into effect where the Commission has found the CPST rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. Cable operators may justify adjustments to their rates on an annual basis using FCC Form 1240 to reflect reasonably certain and quantifiable changes in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are projected for the twelve months following the rate change. Any incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later time. If actual and projected costs are different during the rate year a "true-up" mechanism is available to correct estimated costs with actual cost changes. 5. Cable operators that incur increases in operating costs associated with a significant network upgrade will be permitted to charge additional rates as justified by their FCC Form 1235 filing. FCC Form 1235 is an abbreviated cost of service filing used in cases of network upgrades. It allows cable operators to justify rate increases related to significant capital expenditures used to improve rate-regulated services. This option is extended only in cases of significant upgrades requiring added capital investment, such as bandwidth capacity and conversion to fiber optics, and for system rebuilds. Normal improvements and expansions of service will remain subject to the usual rate adjustments allowed by filings of FCC Forms 1210, 1220 and 1240. 6. In our Prior Order, we found that Operator had not correctly calculated the maximum permitted rate ("MPR") for its CPST in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122. We concluded therefore that, in order to arrive at a proper MPR, adjustments would be necessary. We reduced the number of CPST channels from 24 to 22 on Form 393, Part I and Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 102 and the number of rate- regulated channels from 44 to 42 on Part II, Worksheet 1, Line 121. We also reduced the number of satellite channels used in calculating the benchmark from 24 to 22. Further, we corrected Columns A, B, C and D of Worksheet 1 of Part II of Forms 393 since Operator completed information for three separate tiers although its rate cards showed only two tier offerings consisting of basic service programming and cable programming service with related charges. Worksheet 1 was adjusted to reflect only the two tiers and to include tier channels and tier charge information consistent with the rate cards. Moreover, we adjusted Worksheet 1, Line 104 entries since they did not represent its current monthly equipment revenue as of the initial date of regulation. Since Operator restructured its rates, including its equipment rates, on September 1, 1993, in an attempt to comply with the Commission's regulations, the monthly equipment costs figures it entered on Line 34 of Step G, Part III should have been close to the figure entered on Line 104, Worksheet 1, otherwise the subscribers paid in excess of a reasonable rate. 7. Another adjustment was a revision of the inflation adjustment figure for the period ending September 1993, based upon the use of the Gross National Product Price Index ("GNP-PI") data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") on July 29, 1994, rather than the GNP-PI data released on May 28, 1993, used by Operator to justify its rate. By "refreshing" the inflation adjustment factor with the more recent and accurate July 29, 1994 data from Commerce, we determined that the MPR calculated by Operator should be $10.98 (plus franchise fee) for Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122. We ordered Operator to refund to subscribers that portion of the amounts paid for cable programming service that exceeded the MPR of $10.98. 8. In its Petition, Operator alleges that the Bureau erred in refreshing its Form 393 data. Operator argues that it was not until November 10, 1993, after Operator restructured its rates, that the Commission released a "Question and Answer" Sheet explaining that operators should complete the Form 393 using information updated as of the initial date of regulation. Operator contends that this approach creates a serious problem for operators like Operator who had previously established regulated rates based on then-available information. Operator contends that in recognition of this problem, the Commission subsequently "grandfathered" operators who had accurately relied on data available at the time they restructured their rates. Operator cites Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC rcd 4216 at  95-96 (March 30, 1994 and 47 C.F.R. 76.922 (b)(9). Operator argues that its rates should be grandfathered. Moreover, Operator argues that if the Form 393 is to be refreshed, then the Bureau should have also refreshed Line 108 of Worksheet 1. 9. As we explained in Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P., ("Cencom"): The Commission is charged with protecting subscribers from paying unreasonable CPST rates, while also providing system operators with a fair return. Accurate information, including accurate inflation information, is central to setting an initial regulated rate that meets the standard. Thus, the Commission requires that data used in setting a rate be refreshed with the most current data available when an operator's rates become regulated and are justified. Because final inflation data for the period addressed in rate justifications may not be available when a justification is filed, the Commission directs operators to estimate inflation by using the most recently available inflation data published on an interim basis in the Commerce "Survey of Current Business" at Table 7.3, Line 5. The Bureau practice when reviewing rate justifications is to verify that the operator has used this inflation data. The Bureau also determines whether the other information in the rate justification is correct, and on the basis of the inflation and other information in the form, including any corrections, whether the operator's rate meets the statutory requirement that the rate not be unreasonable. The Bureau does not find a rate unreasonable solely because more accurate inflation data has become available by the time it makes its review. This would churn rates, causing significant administrative expenses to operators and confusion to subscribers. However, if a rate is unreasonable on its face or has to be adjusted for reasons other than the availability of a more accurate inflation figure, e.g., because the operator failed to provide correct information in its rate justification or failed to complete its rate justification form correctly, the Bureau recalculates the MPR using the most accurate inflation information available, rather than earlier estimates. This practice is consistent with 47 C.F.R. 76.922(b)(9)(iii), which provides: [I]f the rates charged by a cable operator are not justified by an analysis based on the data available at the time it initially adjusted its rates, the cable operator must adjust its rates in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of the analysis. 10. Determining the most accurate maximum permitted rate possible when rate adjustment is needed is not inconsistent with the instruction that operators use the best available information when filing rate forms. Moreover, where review indicates that an adjustment is required, it would be unfair to operators and subscribers alike not to use the most recent and accurate figures applicable to that period, even though those figures may not have been available to the cable operator at the time of its filing. In some instances, such an adjustment may be advantageous to cable subscribers and, in others, to the operator. In all instances, however, the required adjustment will more accurately ensure that the rates being charged to subscribers are in fact not unreasonable. When inflation is refreshed, neither consumers nor the operator are harmed, because consumers pay only for the inflation experienced by the operator, and the operator recovers the full cost of the inflation it experienced. Since future rate adjustments are computed from the initial regulated rates, refreshing results in more accurate rates both initially and in the future. For these reasons, we reject Operator's arguments. 11. Operator also argues that if the Bureau refreshes Operator's FCC Form 393, it must refresh all of the FCC Form 393, specifically Line 108 (Franchise Fee Expense). Operator contends that the Line 108 entry should be $0.50 for the basic service tier ("BST") and $0.60 for the CPST. Operator's reliance on the concept of refreshing is misplaced. The instructions for Line 108 require the operator to "[c]alculate the franchise fees [it] pay[s] for regulated tiers of service for the community unit during an average month . . .[and] [e]nter that monthly total payment in Column E of Line 108." On its FCC Form 393, dated November 12, 1993, Operator entered $14,456.60 on Column E of Line 108. In its revised FCC Form 393, the Bureau also entered $14,456.60 on Column E of Line 108. If the Bureau is required to refresh data, it must do so using the most accurate data available at the time of the analysis. There was no more accurate data available to the Bureau when it reviewed Operator's Line 108 than the number submitted by Operator. The Bureau took into account the $0.50 BST franchise fee and the $0.60 CPST franchise fee, as submitted by Operator, where it was relevant, specifically, when calculating Operator's Monthly Tier Charge (Line 101). Operator, however, did not submit a new figure for total monthly franchise fees paid. Consequently, the Bureau used the most accurate data available to it during its analysis, the data filed provided by Operator. 12. Operator also contends, in its Petition and Reply, that it should be allowed to count channels that provide duplicate programming as separate channels. Operator argues that the channels providing duplicate programming were not added to evade rate restrictions, but as a "direct response to specific requests from the local franchising authority and local subscribers." Operator's summary of its decision to provide duplicate programming indicates that it upgraded its system on February 16, 1993. In conjunction with its upgrade, Operator repositioned several channels to higher channel locations. Operator estimates that some 1,000 subscribers with an upper frequency level of 318 Mhz (36 channels) could not receive the newly positioned channels. Operator resolved the issue by holding a public meeting and agreeing to offer a "revamped" channel line-up, which included duplicate programming on Channels 19 and 21. The City indicates, in its Opposition, that it did not require Operator to provide duplicate programming, but merely concurred with Operator's proposal to do so. The City also argues that Operator should not be permitted to recover twice for programming it pays for once. 13. As we determined in our Prior Order, Operator's arguments are not persuasive. In Warner Cable Communications of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, we indicated that channels offering identical programming might be counted as separate units of cable service if our must-carry rules were implicated, technological limitations existed and more than a de minimis number of subscribers would benefit from the offering. Here, although Operator alleges problems with potential interference, it was not obligated by any local, state or federal authority to provide the additional channels of duplicate programming. And its provision of such channels did not separately benefit any subscriber. We affirm our finding in our Prior Order, and Operator may not charge subscribers for these channels as separate units of cable service. 14. Operator further argues that if we uphold the adjustments to its rate calculations, then it should be allowed to offset any refund due to the CPST overcharges against Operator's BST undercharges. Operator claims entitlement to an offset because it miscounted the number of CPST channels. It asserts that failure to allow an offsetting adjustment would violate the Commission's policy of ensuring that operators are not required to reduce rates beyond the maximum reduction that is determined under the benchmark approach. In support of its argument that offsets should be allowed between different tiers of service, Operator cites the Third Order on Reconsideration, which allows operators to offset between the basic service rate and equipment charges. It also refers to Section 76.942 of the Commission's Rules, which it maintains, provides for "balancing" refunds or the "offsetting" it is requesting. Finally, Operator contends that the decision in TCI Cablevision of North Central Kentucky ("TCI Cablevision") removed any doubt on the issue of refund balancing by reiterating that operators could calculate refunds by comparing aggregate "actual" revenue with the aggregate "permitted" revenue, i.e., that overcharges must be balanced against undercharges. Operator believes that the Commission should clarify here, before a refund plan is submitted, that it is entitled to calculate its refund liability by claiming credit for any past undercharges. The City contends, in its Opposition, that Section 76.942 of the Commission's rules does not permit offsetting as argued by the Operator. That section, it argues, allows an operator to base its refund liability "on the difference between the sum of the old [program services and equipment] charges and the sum of the new, unbundled program service and equipment charges." The City believes that the intent of the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's rules would be violated by any other result. 15. We have previously addressed offsets between tiers in Cencom. The Communications Act sets up a dual regulatory structure for cable services, giving local franchising authorities jurisdiction to regulate BST and associated equipment rates, and giving the Commission jurisdiction to regulate CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint. While the Commission has prescribed standards and procedures for local rate regulation and is authorized to consider appeals from local rate orders, the Commission generally is not otherwise involved in local rate regulation and is not in a position to evaluate offsets between tiers as a matter of routine. Absent an appeal, it may be uninformed about local matters potentially affecting the BST rates. Its processes are not coordinated with local rate review processes. Allowing inter- tier offsets under the current statutory scheme would create practical problems in determining the correct BST rates for offset purposes, further burdening the administrative processes of cable rate regulation, and would be discordant with the dual regulatory structure Congress envisioned. 16. In the limited context of global resolutions of rate complaints for all or a substantial number of a company's cable systems, the Commission has allowed inter-tier offsets when determining refund liability. But, it has done so only after reviewing rates for BSTs, and where both individual complainants and local franchising authorities were able to participate in the rate resolution through comments on the proposal. We have learned from this process that there often are considerations affecting rates at the local level that are not apparent from the face of the rate form filed to justify CPST rates and to which the Commission is not normally privy. The special circumstances applicable to the rate resolutions are not present here. 17. The rule and legal precedents cited by Operator address offsets within the BST and not inter-tier offsets. Section 76.942 of the Commission's Rules and the Third Order on Reconsideration direct local franchising authorities to base refunds on the amount by which aggregate actual revenues exceed aggregate permitted revenues for BST service and equipment rates under their regulatory jurisdiction. TCI Cablevision directed a local franchising authority to calculate refunds consistent with  76.942 and the Third Order on Reconsideration. None of the authorities cited by Operator provides for aggregating revenues for services and equipment costs from basic service and cable programming service tiers. Indeed, Operator's refund offset request is inconsistent with the Commission's conclusion in the Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate Regulation, MM Docket 92-266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ("Rate Order") that cable operators should not balance low BST rates with CPST rates that exceed the maximum permitted rate for the tier. Operator is seeking to accomplish through the refund process what it was prohibited from doing when setting its rates, without demonstrating any special circumstances that justifies such treatment. We deny Operator's request and its Petition for Reconsideration. 18. Our Prior Order indicates that the findings in that review "do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the prices for CPS service after May 14, 1994." Consequently, the CPST rates beginning May 15, 1994, and subsequent rate increases, are subject to Commission review and are addressed in this Order. On June 4, 1997, the LFA filed its complaint against Operator's April 1, 1997 CPST rate of $16.85. In its complaint, the LFA asserts that it has received more than one subscriber complaint against Operator's CPST rate increase, thereby triggering the Commission's jurisdiction to review this complaint. The valid complaint from the LFA triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates with the LFA. Thus, in this case, Operator is required to justify the increase in its CPST rate which is the subject of the LFA's complaint. 19. Upon review of Operator's FCC Forms 1200, 1210, 1235 and 1240, we find that Operator has not correctly calculated its MPR beginning May 15, 1994, as discussed in the paragraphs below. 20. To justify CPST rates in effect from May 15, 1994 to November 7, 1994, Operator filed FCC Form 1200 on August 15, 1994. Upon review of the FCC Form 1200, we revised the channels per tier in Module A, Line A1 and the monthly charge per tier in Module A, Line A6 to reflect instructions given in our Prior Order. We also adjusted Module A, Line A10 to exclude franchise fees. These adjustments resulted in an MPR of $10.83 instead of the $10.95 calculated and charged by Operator. Consequently, we find that the CPST rate in effect from May 15, 1994 to November 7, 1994 is unreasonable. 21. On October 12, 1994, Operator filed its first FCC Form 1210, covering the period July 1, 1994 to September 30, 1994, to justify its CPST rate of $11.51, effective November 8, 1994. Upon review of this FCC Form 1210, we adjusted Operator's starting rates in Module A, Lines A1 and A2 to reflect the correct transition rate and permitted charge, respectively, from Operator's FCC Form 1200. We also adjusted Module C, Lines C1 and C3 to accurately reflect Operator's previous number of regulated channels per tier. These adjustment resulted in an MPR of $11.43 instead of the $11.51 calculated and charged by Operator. Thus, Operator has failed to demonstrate that its November 8, 1994 CPST rate of $11.51 was not unreasonable. 22. On February 8, 1995, Operator filed its second FCC Form 1210, covering the period October 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, to justify a CPST rate of $11.72, effective March 8, 1995. We adjusted Module A, Line A2 to reflect the correct previous MPR of $11.43 brought forward from the prior FCC Form 1210. This adjustment resulted in a corrected MPR of $11.64. However, Operator was actually charging $11.72 for its CPST, in excess of the MPR. Thus, Operator has failed to demonstrate that its March 8, 1995 rate of $11.72 for its CPST was not unreasonable. 23. On May 23, 1995, Operator filed its next FCC Form 1210, covering the period January 1, 1995 to March 31, 1995, to justify a CPST rate of $12.22, effective July 8, 1995 We adjusted Module A, Line A2 to reflect the correct previous MPR of $11.64 brought forward from the prior FCC Form 1210. We also adjusted Module C, Line C14 to accurately reflect Operator's previous external costs. These adjustments resulted in a corrected MPR of $11.74. However, Operator was actually charging $12.22 for its CPST, in excess of the MPR. Thus, Operator has failed to demonstrate that its July 8, 1995 rate of $12.22 for its CPST was not unreasonable. 24. Operator filed its last FCC Form 1210, covering the period April 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995, to justify a CPST rate of $12.46, effective October 1, 1995 on August 31, 1995. We adjusted Module A, Line A2 to reflect the correct previous MPR of $11.74 brought forward from the prior FCC Form 1210. This adjustment resulted in a corrected MPR of $11.97. However, Operator was actually charging $12.46 for its CPST, in excess of the MPR. Thus, Operator has failed to demonstrate that its October 1, 1995 rate of $12.46 for its CPST was not unreasonable. 25. On March 1, 1996, Operator filed FCC Form 1240 to justify a CPST rate of $13.66 effective April 1, 1996. We adjusted Module A, Line A1 of this FCC Form 1240 to reflect the corrected MPR of $11.97 brought forward from the prior FCC Form 1210. We adjusted Module C, Line C1 to apply the correct published rate of 2.22% for the period July 1995 to December 1995 and 2.39% for the period January 1996 to February 1996. In addition, we adjusted Module C, Line C3 to apply the correct published inflation factor of 2.39%. Our adjustments to Operator's FCC Form 1240 resulted in a reduction of the MPR for CPST to $12.91. Thus, Operator has failed to demonstrate that its April 1, 1996 rate of $13.66 for its CPST was not unreasonable. 26. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240 to justify the April 1, 1997 CPST rate increase, we find that Operator incorrectly calculated its MPR. First, we adjusted Line A1 to $12.91 to correspond with the MPR on Operator's previous revised FCC Form 1240. We also adjusted Line C3 (Inflation Factor for True-Up Period 1) to 1.0141. We also corrected Line D6 (Current True-Up Segment) to $0.0600 and Line D7 (Current Inflation Segment) to $0.1929. We also corrected Line E2, Worksheet 2 - Caps Method (For the True-Up Period) from 12 months to 8 months and Worksheet 8 (True-Up Rate Charged) from 12 months to 8 months. Finally, we adjusted Line F8 (True-Up Segment for True-Up Period 1) to $0.0600. In total, our adjustments reduced the MPR for the projected period to $15.00. 27. Operator's April 1, 1997 rate increase reflects not only the annual increase as reported on FCC Form 1240, but also the recovery of costs for its network upgrade as reflected on FCC Form 1235. The instructions to FCC Form 1235 set forth the minimal technical standards for an upgrade as requiring bandwidth to be increased to at least 550 MHz with upgrade capability to 750 MHz, and no more than 1,500 homes per node. Operator states that the upgrade is to 750 MHz with each node serving approximately 600 homes. Operator has certified that the BST and the CPST will see improved picture quality as a result of this rebuild and that this increase in quality will come about because of a reduction in cascade as well as the use of higher performance amplifiers. Further, Operator states that the architecture of the system is Hybrid Fiber Coax, generally recognized as the most current concept for broadband systems. Consequently, we find that the Operator has met the minimum technical standards and we accept Operator's FCC Form 1235. 28. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1235, we adjusted Operator's allocations of rate base and expense costs based on its channel ratios following its upgrade because Operator's tier charges are aligned with those ratios. We also based Operator's calculations on the maximum allowable Federal tax rate of 34% instead of the 35% reported by Operator. Our adjustments resulted in an MPR of $1.46. When the FCC Form 1240 MPR of $15.00 is combined with the FCC Form 1235 MPR of $1.46, the combined MPR is $16.46. However, Operator's actual combined rate is $16.85. Thus, Operator has failed to demonstrate that its April 1, 1997 rate of $16.85 for its CPST was not unreasonable. 29. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rates charged by Operator in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122, from May 15, 1994 to the present ARE UNREASONABLE. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $10.83 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from May 15, 1994 to November 7, 1994. 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $11.43 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from November 8, 1994 to March 7, 1995. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $11.64 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from March 8, 1995 to July 7, 1995. 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $11.74 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from July 8, 1995 to September 30, 1995. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $11.97 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from October 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $12.91 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in the Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122 that portion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $16.46 per month (plus franchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period from April 1, 1997 to the day before Operator implements the maximum permitted CPST rate of $16.46. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Operator shall promptly determine the overcharges to CPST subscribers for the stated periods, including any over-recovery as detailed in its accounting report, and shall file, within 30 days of the release of this Order, a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amounts so determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of the Commission approval of the plan. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaints against the CPST rate charged by Operator in Midland, Michigan, CUID No. MI0122, ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 39. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration seeking reversal of Bresnan Communications Company, 10 FCC Rcd 7184 (1995) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau