WPC 2MBVRKZ3|M+ 7jC:,9Xj\  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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4Si (Add) RM 700; LPT2HPLA4SA0.PRSXj\  P6G;\!#^XP2E a K3|M+ Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicCG Times"i~'^#)2<<.<<<<)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<</>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN]toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2f?'`@vEbAbBdtoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2mC)gDGiEekFvmindex 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2sGl+nHrnK oKTq_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH "i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd48HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""Normalf$ Xx  @ 2wgX hix KK,HeadergFootnotehÍ/"i~'^.6@PP}666PZ*6*-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZFsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc6-6JP6FPFPF6PP--P-}PPPP6=-PPsPPFM MV6*VJ666*66666666P-sFsFsFsFsFhjFcFcFcFcF6-6-6-6-sPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsFsPsNsPsPsPZPsFsFsFjFjFjVjFsecFcFcFcFsPsPsPsVsPsVsP6-6P666PpZVVsPc-c@c6c6c-sP^sPsPsPsPsj6j6j6Z=Z=Z=ZVcCc-cJsPsPsPsPsPsPssVcFcFcFsPc6sPZ=c6sPe*PP55WppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN:``:JP6FPPPPP-3zzP03zzPz066FFP77`PPby:``:_ZZ6FP0"jjjjzzPz`]VPZ``P"i~'^FR`xxʻRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxCCjݭR[ӭ⭭RCRnxRjxjxjRxxCCxCxxxxR[Cxxxxjs0sR>nRRR>RRRRRRRRxCjjjjjӜjjjjjRCRCRCRCxxxxxxxxxxjxvxxxxjjjjjjjjjjxxxxxRCRxRRRxxC`RRCxxxxxӭRRR[[[eCnxxxxxx⭭jjjxRx[Rx>xxP+PWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVnxRjxxxxxCMxHMxHRRjjxRRxx듶VVȆRjxH"x𐋂x됐x2 f KKZK",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"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌u"i~'^FRxxRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVȆRxxH"x𐎂x됐x"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌u2b"(y.X80,HX\  P6G;P)7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP *7nC:,WXn4  pG;X+y.\80, \4  pG;,W!@(#,8.h@\  P6G;hP -H5!,,5\  P6G;,P\.{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X \85hC:,%5Xh*f9 xr G;XX6jC:,<MXj9 xOG;X9t,U5.,U\  P6G;PW!B(#,}hB4  pG;hz-X80,<X9 xOG;\X >(#,%3h>*f9 xr G;hX8wC;,XH, yO 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  543(c).> In enacting the legislation, Congress stated its intent that the 1992 Cable Act be implemented to "ensure that  X 4consumer interests are protected in the receipt of cable service." x, {OC'ԍ1992 Cable Act  2(b)(4), 106 Stat. at 1463; see also H.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. at 34 (1992).  X 43. On September 10, 1996, the Commission adopted an order instructing the Bureau to serve the Resolution as proposed ("Proposed Resolution") on all local franchising authorities in the benchmark and costofservice franchise areas covered by the Proposed Resolution and on any  X 4party other than a local franchising authority that filed a valid complaint. , {Ob'ԍAdelphia Communications Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 11255 (1996). As noted above, the Resolution does not affect any costofservice franchise areas. The order provided  X4a 30day period for comments on the proposal and a 15day period for replies.$d , yO'ԍIn response to a request for additional time filed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Office of Cable  {Om'Television, the Bureau extended each of these deadlines by 14 days. Public Notice, Cable Services Bureau Announces Extension of Time To File Comments on the Proposed Resolution for Adelphia Communications  {O'Corporation (DA 961648), 11 FCC Rcd 12303 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1996).   Xb44. The Resolution resolves complaints regarding CPST rates and pending BST  XK4proceedings in the franchise areas listed in Exhibit 1 for the period ending December 31, 1995.  X44 Although it does not admit that it violated Commission rules, Adelphia agrees to make refunds  X4totaling approximately $2.45 million,H P , {O"'ԍSee Resolution, Exhibit 2.H which includes interest computed through December 31, 1996, plus additional interest computed from January 1, 1997, through the date of payment. Adelphia also will reduce rates in 17 communities. Because the Resolution affects matters within the jurisdiction of local franchising authorities, they may opt out of certain aspects of it. " ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X45. Adelphia's refund liability is due principally to its decision to remove all of its  X4programming from its CPSTs and offer it individually and also in a la carte packages (known as "CableSelect") to subscribers. On November 18, 1994, the Bureau released a Letter Of Inquiry  X4decision ("South Dade County") , {O6'ԍAdelphia Cable Partners, L.P. (South Dade County, Florida), 9 FCC Rcd 7781 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994),  {O'application for review denied, 11 FCC Rcd 2461 (1995), petition for reconsideration pending. concluding that the CableSelect a la carte package Adelphia offered in South Dade County, Florida, which included all 32 channels that Adelphia had offered previously on its CPST, constituted an evasion of regulation and must be treated as a regulated  Xz4CPST. The Commission denied Adelphia's Application for Review of the Bureau's order.y z$, {OO 'ԍAdelphia Cable Partners, L.P. (South Dade County), 11 FCC Rcd 2461 (1995).y The  Xc4Bureau issued similar orders ("Bucyrus Order" and "Charlottesville Order") concluding that  XN4Adelphia's a la carte packages in Bucyrus, Ohio, and Charlottesville, Virginia, constituted  X94evasions and should be treated as regulated CPSTs.a ^9, {O'ԍPetition of the City of Bucyrus, Ohio (DA 95662), 11 FCC Rcd 782 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1995) (Bucyrus Order);  {Oj'MultiChannel T.V. Cable Co. d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (DA 95157), 10 FCC Rcd 2345 (Cab. Serv.  {O4'Bur., 1995) (Charlottesville Order).a Adelphia filed Applications for Review in both of those cases, which are now pending. Adelphia also had sought court review of the  X 4Commission's Going Forward Order  , {O'ԍImplementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate  {Ob'Regulation ("Rate Regulation"), MM Docket Nos. 92266, 93215, Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and  {O,'Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 1226, 1241 (1994), aff'd, Adelphia  {O'Communications Corp. v. FCC, 88 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("Adelphia v. FCC"). The regulations that were  {O'adopted or modified by the Going Forward Order are referred to hereinafter as the Going Forward Rules. Į with regard to the Commission's regulation of a la carte  X 4packages. In the Going Forward Order, the Commission concluded that a la carte packages are  X 4CPSTs within the meaning of Section 3(l)(2) of the 1992 Cable Act . On July 23, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Commission's  X 4regulations and denied Adelphia's appeal.S , {O'ԍAdelphia v. FCC, supra note 13.S  X46. During the course of the Bureau's discussions with Adelphia, the Bureau and Adelphia proposed to resolve the treatment of the CableSelect channels by agreeing that Adelphia would include all but four of the channels in its benchmark channel counts (hereinafter referred to as the "minusfour channel count") for the purpose of determining the maximum permitted CPST and BST rates from September 1993 forward. The Bureau has ruled that packages of small  X4numbers of a la carte channels may be excluded from CPSTs for such purposes in orders involving other cable operators that adjusted their channel offerings on the eve of regulation by  X4moving a small number of channels into such packages.\(, {O%'ԍFor example, in Warner Cable Communications (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), 9 FCC Rcd 7777, 7780 (Cab. Serv.  {O&'Bur., 1994), where Warner Cable moved four channels from regulated tiers to an a la carte package, we ruled that it was not clear the realignment constituted an evasion of regulation and allowed Warner Cable to retain the package. "S',N(N(%"  {O'See also Nashoba Cable Serv. (Danvers, Massachusetts), 10 FCC Rcd 994 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (movement of  {OZ'six channels to a la carte package); U.S. Cable Corporation (City of Lake Forest and Village of Lake Bluff, Illinois),  {O$'10 FCC Rcd 533 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (movement of four channels to a la carte package); Comcast Cablevision  {O'(Mt. Clemens, Michigan), 10 FCC Rcd 103 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (same); MultiVision Cable TV (Prince George's  {O'County, Maryland), 10 FCC Rcd 91 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (same); Comcast Cablevision (Tallahassee, Florida),  {O'9 FCC Rcd 7773 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994), aff'd, 11 FCC Rcd 1246 (1995) (same).  The effect of this aspect of the"L,N(N(ZZ" Resolution is to increase the perchannel rate Adelphia is entitled to charge under our rules above the rate that would apply if the four channels were included in the benchmark channel count.  X47. In addition, with respect to several of Adelphia's Form 393, 1200, and 1210 filings, Adelphia demonstrated that, after giving effect to the removal of four channels, its BST and/or CPST rates were lower than the maximum permitted rates authorized under the Commission's rules. Under the Resolution, in any community in which BST or CPST rates still exceed maximum permitted levels, the overcharges will be offset, or reduced, by any undercharges in the corresponding CPST or BST rates in that community for purposes of determining refund  X14amounts.1L, {O.'ԍA similar calculation was approved by the Commission in Continental Cablevision, Inc. Amended Social  {O'Contract, 11 FCC Rcd 11118, 11142 (1996) ("Continental Amended Social Contract").  X 4m 2 III. SUMMARY OF RATE RESOLUTION ă  X 48. All 320,000 subscribers in the 40 communities that are included in the Resolution will participate in the refunds of $2.45 million that Adelphia will make under the terms of the Resolution. The Resolution provides a minimum $3.00 refund per subscriber, with larger refunds for subscribers in 17 communities. The minimum refund condition will benefit subscribers in  Xy4the 23 communities in which the Resolution rates produced no refund liability.y, yO'ԍThe $3.00 minimum refund increased Adelphia's refund liability by approximately $670,000 above the refund it would have been obligated to pay without this condition.  XK49. Refunds will vary from $3.00 per subscriber to as much as $55.22 per subscriber.K , {O'ԍSee Resolution, Exhibit 2. Subscribers residing in Saranac Lake will eligible for the $55.22 refund, which will be paid through a monthly credit of approximately $4.60. The persubscriber refunds are shown in Exhibit 2 of the Resolution. Adelphia will pay the appropriate refund to individuals in each of the communities who are subscribers as of the date of payment. Refunds will be paid in the form of monthly billing credits of at least $0.50, and payment will start no later than 120 days after the Commission adopts this Order. Refunds will be paid in full within 12 months of the date Adelphia commences refund payments. Interest will"Z ,N(N(ZZ" accrue until refunds are fully paid. Adelphia will not seek to recover approximately $94,000 in  X4overpayments of franchise fees from those communities to which it is making refunds.I, yOb'ԍSections 76.942(f) and 76.961(e) of the Commission's rules require local franchising authorities to refund to cable operators any franchise fees paid by the operator with respect to past rate overcollections that the operator refunds to subscribers. 47 C.F.R.  76.942(f) (BST rates), 76.961(e) (CPST rates). Because Adelphia, the intended beneficiary of these rules, has agreed not to assert its rights, we are finding them waived. Local franchising authorities and their subscribers will benefit from this aspect of the Resolution. I  X4 10. Adelphia also will reduce current BST and CPST rates in all communities in which existing rates exceed the benchmark rates. The monthly reductions in BST rates range from $0.17 to $5.17 per subscriber. The reductions in CPST rates range from $0.09 to $2.48 per subscriber. These rate reductions are shown in Exhibit 3 of the Resolution. Adelphia agrees to cap its BST and CPST rates at current levels (after any applicable reductions are implemented), subject to any inflation and external cost increases Adelphia is entitled to recover, including any Form 1240 increases that Adelphia may implement.  X 4 11. In certain communities, Adelphia will create a lowcost "Lifeline Rate" for BST  X 4service, which is calculated by including in the benchmark channel count the four a la carte  X 4channels that were excluded in calculating refund liability. x, yO'ԍAdelphia will not implement a Lifeline Rate in those communities that are not exercising their right to regulate BST rates. This will result in a lower perchannel rate and a lower overall rate for the BST. The affected communities are listed in Exhibit 3. Adelphia will implement Lifeline Rates no later than 120 days after the Commission adopts the Resolution. The BST rate reduction necessary to implement Lifeline Rates will vary by community. In those communities where the actual BST rate is low already, little or no reduction  Xd4will occur.d, yO'ԍIn some communities, the current BST rate is already equal to or less than the Lifeline Rate, and Adelphia therefore will not be required to reduce the BST rate in those communities. In those communities with relatively high BST rates, current rates will be reduced  XM4by as much as $5.17 per month when Adelphia implements the Lifeline Rates.M( , {O&'ԍSee Resolution, Exhibit 3. The $5.17 rate reduction will apply to subscribers in Palm Beach Shores, Florida. Adelphia may increase CPST rates by an amount up to the amount by which the BST rate is reduced from the maximum permitted level (using a minusfour channel count), except that CPST rates will be further capped so that the combined actual BST and CPST rates do not exceed the combined maximum permitted rates for both tiers. As a result, Adelphia will not be able to fully recover  X4the aggregate BST rate reductions through CPST rate increases. , yOE#'ԍThis is because BST subscribers outnumber CPST subscribers in each of the affected communities.  X4 12. In addition, Adelphia may create a single Migrated Product Tier ("MPT") on each of the systems subject to the Resolution by moving a maximum of four regulated services to the MPT. Adelphia may also include in the MPT up to two services that Adelphia added to the"~J ,N(N(ZZ" system after September 30, 1994. The migrated channels in each system will be priced at the perchannel rate applicable to the system's regulated tiers; however, an unlimited number of additional new channels can be added to each MPT, and the MPT rate may be increased for each new channel by up to $0.20 plus license fees. Adelphia may also increase the price of an MPT for inflation and external costs as allowed by Section 76.922 of the Commission's rules governing  X4CPST rates.E, yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(f).E As of January 1, 1998, the MPTs may be treated as New Product Tiers ("NPTs")  Xv4under the Commission's Going Forward Rules.vX, {O 'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.986(c). Adelphia may also create other NPTs or singlechannel offerings pursuant to the Commission's rules.  XH4 13. Adelphia may not require MPT subscribers to take any programming service except basic service, and it may not require CPST subscribers to take the MPT. If it does create an MPT, Adelphia will not have to remarket it to subscribers who previously received the migrated services. Services added to an MPT will not be considered new services for the purpose of the  X 4limit on service additions and rate increases under the Commission's Going Forward Rules.s , {OO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(e); Going Forward Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 124955.s  X 4 14. Because we are calculating BST rates and refund liability, the Proposed Resolution includes an "optout" provision under which a local franchising authority may decide to opt out of the refund portion of the Resolution and make its own refund calculations. However, even if a local authority does opt out, it will be bound to our minusfour channel count for purposes of calculating refunds and establishing revised rates. Adelphia will not be required to create a Lifeline Rate in such communities or forego collection of franchise fee overpayments associated with any refund liability. Regardless of whether they opt out, local franchising authorities will be bound by the Resolution provisions governing future rate increases (except with respect to CPST offsets related to the creation of Lifeline Rates) and the creation of MPTs and NPTs.  X4  X415. The Resolution vacates the Charlottesville Order and the Bucyrus Order, and upon our adoption of this Order, Adelphia will be deemed to have withdrawn its Applications for  X4Review of those orders.y\D, {O'ԍSection 13(j) of the Resolution erroneously refers to petitions for reconsideration of the Charlottesville Order  {Ok 'and Bucyrus Order. Adelphia did not file petitions for reconsideration of these orders, and we are therefore amending the Resolution, on our own motion, to eliminate the erroneous references.y The Resolution also effectuates Adelphia's withdrawal of its petition  X4for reconsideration of our order denying its Application for Review in South Dade County.<h , {O#'ԍSupra note 10.< The Resolution resolves all pending CPST rate complaints and BST proceedings filed or initiated as of December 31, 1995, in the affected communities, other than CPST complaints for which Adelphia submitted costofservice justifications. "; ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X416. The Resolution allows Adelphia to avail itself of existing laws and regulations, including applicable modifications of any laws or regulations governing the CPST. However, notwithstanding such laws and regulations or modifications thereto, Adelphia must provide refunds according to the terms of the Resolution.  X4< IV. COMMENTS ă  X_417. Eighteen parties submitted comments. Adelphia filed reply comments and supplemental reply comments. Thirteen of the commenters, all local franchising authorities,  X14support adoption of the Proposed Resolution.+x1, yO 'ԍThese are: the Township of Berkeley, New Jersey; the City of Charlottesville, Virginia; the County of Frederick, Virginia; the Township of Haverford, Pennsylvania; the Town of Hilton Head, South Carolina; the City of Hudson, Ohio; the Borough of Island Heights, New Jersey; the Township of Lacey, New Jersey; the City of Lorain, Ohio; the City of Macedonia, Ohio; the Municipality of Murrysville, Pennsylvania; the Township of Ocean, Ocean County, New Jersey; and the City of Waynesboro, Virginia. The City of Waynesboro, Virginia, states in its comments that "[t]he City believes that the Proposed Resolution is in the best interests of the residents of Waynesboro and supports its final adoption by the FCC." The other comments in support include similar statements. + Another local franchising authority, the New Jersey State Board of Public Utilities ("New Jersey Board" or "Board"), supports adoption of the Proposed Resolution with one modification concerning the distribution of refunds. The remaining  X 4four commenters oppose the Proposed Resolution. , yO'ԍComments in opposition were filed by: Lee and Judith Borland of Lake Placid, New York; Anthony W. Daniel of Saranac Lake, New York; the Village of Saranac Lake, Inc.; and a group of six local franchising authorities located in Southwestern Pennsylvania outside of the City of Pittsburgh (Peters Township, the Municipality of Bethel Park, the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon, the Township of Upper St. Clair, the Borough of Pleasant Hills, and the Borough of West Mifflin). Lee and Judith Borland object generally to  X 4the level of the refunds and prospective rate reductions.e , yO>'ԍComments of Lee and Judith Borland ("Borland Comments") at 2.e Anthony W. Daniel enumerates several concerns and objects generally to the "level of compensation, and the manner in which it is  X 4proposed . . . ."_ H , yO'ԍComments of Anthony W. Daniel ("Daniel Comments") at 2._ The Village of Saranac Lake ("Saranac Lake") echoes the sentiments expressed  X4by Mr. Daniel and states that "an appropriate penalty should be added to the repayment plan."v!, yO'ԍComments of the Village of Saranac Lake, Inc. ("Saranac Lake Comments"), at 1.v A group of six local franchising authorities in Southwestern Pennsylvania ("Southwestern  Xb4Pennsylvania Communities")v"bh, {O{"'ԍSee supra note 30 (listing the six local franchising authorities).v opposes the Resolution and requests that we reject it on the grounds that local franchising authorities were not included in the Bureau's discussions with Adelphia concerning the Proposed Resolution and that the refunds are too low as a result of the channel count used to derive them. In its reply comments, Adelphia addresses the comments in"",N(N(ZZ"  X4opposition to the Resolution and the comments of the New Jersey Board.f#, yOy'ԍAdelphia's reply comments do not address the Borland Comments.f Adelphia also submitted a schedule of revised and reduced refunds for three New York communities. In its supplemental reply comments, however, Adelphia reiterates its support for the Resolution even without the revised refund levels. The comments opposing the Resolution, the comments of the New Jersey Board, and Adelphia's reply comments and supplemental reply comments are discussed more fully below.  X_4; V. DISCUSSION ă  X1418. As an initial matter, we find that the Commission has authority to approve the Resolution. The Communications Act of 1934 provides the Commission with wide discretion to resolve rate cases. Section 4(i) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to "perform any and all acts . . . not inconsistent with [the] Act, as may be necessary in the  X 4execution of its functions.">$ X, yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  154(i).> Section 4(j) provides that "[t]he Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the  X 4ends of justice. . . .">% , yO@'ԍ47 U.S.C.  154(j).> Our action in this case is fully consistent with the 1992 Cable Act and  X4with Congress's dual objectives of simplifying cable rate regulation and protecting consumers.&x, {O'ԍSee 1992 Cable Act  2(b), 106 Stat. at 1463; 47 U.S.C.  521(6); see also 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(2)(A). As we have concluded in other recent proceedings, the Commission has authority to consider the Proposed Resolution and to determine, after review and consideration of comments, that the rates  XK4set forth in the Resolution are not unreasonable.'K , {O'ԍSee TCI Communications, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 14696, 1469970 (1996) ("TCI"); Garden State Cablevision, L.P.,  {O'11 FCC Rcd 7327, 732930 (1996) ("Garden State").  X419. We find that the rates and refunds provided for in the Resolution are not unreasonable  X4within the meaning of section 623(c)(1) of the Communications Act.A(f , yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  543(c)(1).A The Bureau reviewed FCC Form 393s, Form 1200s, and Form 1210s for the 40 community unit identification numbers  X4("CUIDs") included in the Resolution.r) , yO"'ԍThe Commission has assigned CUIDs to local communities across the country.r The Resolution takes into consideration certain offsets and channel count adjustments claimed by Adelphia and also the public interest benefit to" ),N(N(ZZ"  X4consumers of prompt, certain relief. The major features of the Resolution reflect principles that  X4have been adopted by the Commission in previous rate orders.X*, {Ob'ԍ TCI, 11 FCC Rcd at 14723, 1472526 (global resolution of rate complaints, establishment of MPTs); Comcast  {O,'Cable Communications, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 4029, 403233 (1995) (global resolution of rate complaints); Social  {O'Contract for Time Warner, 11 FCC Rcd 2788, 285455, 285862 (1995), appeal pending sub nom. Intercommunity  {O'Cable Regulatory Comm'n v. FCC, No. 96-1027 (D.C. Cir., filed Jan. 29, 1996) (motion to hold in abeyance granted by order dated June 12, 1996) (global resolution of rate complaints, exclusion of channels from benchmark formula  {OR'rate calculation, creation of lifeline BST rates, establishment of MPTs, waiver of franchise fee repayment); Social  {O'Contract for Continental Cablevision, 11 FCC Rcd 299, 34345 (1995) (global resolution of CPST rate complaints and BST rate proceedings, creation of lifeline BST rates and MPTs, adoption of local franchising authority "opt out"  {O 'provision); Continental Amended Social Contract, 11 FCC Rcd at 11170 (exclusion of channels from benchmark  {Ox 'formula rate calculation); Garden State, 11 FCC Rcd at 7331, 7334 (global resolution of rate complaints, establishment of MPTs). X  X420. Were the Commission to resolve the pending CPST complaints by ordering Adelphia to issue refunds and reduce rates without the offsets and channel count adjustments incorporated in the Resolution, Adelphia would be able to prolong the ultimate resolution of these matters by filing petitions for reconsideration of each such order and by seeking review of our orders on reconsideration in a federal appeals court. Under the Resolution, Adelphia will not seek reconsideration or appellate review of the refund levels and rate reductions required by the Resolution, and it will issue its first refunds and reduce rates within 120 days of our adoption of this Order.  X 421. The courts have long recognized that regulatory agencies have broad discretion to choose among ratemaking methods and procedures in ratemaking determinations, provided that  X 4the resulting rates are within a range of reasonableness.+& 8 , {O'ԍSee Federal Power Comm'n v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 315 U.S. 515, 58586 (1942); cf. FERC  {Oq'v. Pennzoil Producing Co., 439 U.S. 508, 517 (1979) (construing ratemaking standard under the Natural Gas Act);  {O;'Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 797 (1968) (construing ratemaking standard under the Natural Gas Act and affirming aggregated ratemaking approach). The process of adjudicating each of the rate complaints individually and litigating those rulings through the courts a process that would likely take several years would not be in the public interest, given that the Resolution ensures that subscribers will benefit from reasonable rates and will receive refunds immediately.  XK422. To the extent that adoption of the Resolution requires waiver of any of our rules, or modifications to the information required on Commission forms, we find that such waiver or modification is in the public interest, because the Resolution will ensure the expeditious resolution of a large number of rate complaints while protecting consumers' statutory interest in CPST rates that are not unreasonable. We recognize that our rules contemplate an adjudication of each CPST  X4rate complaint pursuant to specified ratemaking standards.X,&, {O%'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.922, 76.950963.X To the extent that we have diverged from these rules by adopting this Resolution, we find good cause to waive these rules pursuant" ,,N(N(ZZ"  X4to section 1.3 of our rules.-, yOy'ԍSection 1.3 of the Commission's rules provides: "Any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion . . . if good cause therefor is shown." 47 C.F.R.  1.3. Specifically, we find that such a waiver furthers the purpose of the rules and advances the public interest because the Resolution will effectively achieve the objectives of the 1992 Cable Act by ensuring the expeditious resolution of all pending benchmark rate complaints regarding the affected systems while protecting consumers from unreasonable BST and CPST rates through rate reductions and prompt issuance of refunds. We further observe that the Commission's authority to resolve cases in an analogous manner has been affirmed in  Xv4other contexts..v , {OG 'ԍSee New York State Dep't of Law v. FCC, 984 F.2d 1209, 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (consent decree settling enforcement action upheld).  XH423. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities object to the Commission's adoption of the Resolution in part because the Bureau did not permit local franchising authorities to participate in discussions with Adelphia about the Proposed Resolution before it was finalized. Instead, the Commission sought, received, and reviewed their positions through the written comment procedure after the Proposed Resolution had been developed. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities state that the exclusion of local franchising authorities from the Commission's rate resolution discussions with operators "permits cable operators to have separate private discussions with a local franchising authority and also with the FCC and permits the operator to then adopt the settlement proposal which is in the best interest of the cable operator,  Xy4and not the subscribers."/ yz, yO'ԍ"Comments to Proposed Resolution of Adelphia Communications Corporation Complaints Filed On Behalf of: Peters Township PA1519, Municipality of Bethel Park PA1344, Municipality of Mt. Lebanon PA1231, Township of Upper St. Clair PA1459, Borough of Pleasant Hills PA1232, and Borough of West Mifflin PA0666" ("Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments") at 2. They aver that the Commission should reform the "rules that are  Xb4construed to permit such a system."10bb , {Ou'ԍId.1  X4424. No party has submitted information indicating that a local franchising authority or other party has been prejudiced by our process. We have sought to balance the need to present a reasonable resolution of a myriad of contested rate complaints with a real opportunity for those interested to present their views. We think we have done so here. The Bureau complied with all applicable rules in conducting its communications with Adelphia, including the requirement  X4that it make additional information provided by Adelphia available to the public.91 , {Of#'ԍSee Public Notice, Additional Information Available for Public Inspection on Adelphia Communications  {O0$'Corporation Cable Service Tier Rates (DA 961519), 11 FCC Rcd 10632 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1996); see also 47 C.F.R.  {O$' 1.1204(b)(7) & note (permitting ex parte presentations in restricted proceedings that have not been set for hearing if such communications are requested by the Commission or its staff in connection with the resolution of issues and requiring that new information be made available to the public). For purposes of this provision, the Commission's  {OT''review of a CPST rate complaint is a restricted proceeding. Rate Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice"T'0,N(N(k#"  {O'of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 585758 (1993). See generally New York State Dep't of Law v. FCC, 984 F.2d at 121718 (finding settlement discussions permissible under 47 C.F.R.  1.1204(b)(7)).9 We note that" "1,N(N(ZZ" our standard procedures for the review of CPST rates do not include an opportunity for local franchising authorities, complainants, or other members of the public to participate in our decisionmaking process prior to the issuance of an initial order resolving the complaint that  X4triggered our review.2"", {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.957 ("The Commission will consider the complaint and the cable operator's response and then determine by written decision whether the rate for the cable programming service or associated equipment is unreasonable or not"). The complainant and the cable operator participate in the decisionmaking process before the initial order is issued only by submitting the complaint and any response to the complaint. Here, in contrast, interested parties were given the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Resolution. We find no basis for adopting the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' suggestion that we reform our rules pertaining to public participation in the resolution of CPST rate complaints. In any case, the suggestion that we modify our rules is outside the scope of this adjudicatory proceeding.  X1425. Local franchising authorities and other interested parties were given a full and fair opportunity to participate in our deliberative process by submitting comments on the Proposed Resolution, which, by its terms, was not binding on any party prior to our adoption of it in this Order as a final Resolution. We afforded ample time for initial comments. We extended the original 30day comment period by 14 days in response to a request by the New Jersey Board. Commenters had over six weeks to develop and submit their initial comments. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities have not alleged that the timing of their opportunity to present their  X4views (i.e., after, as opposed to before, the Proposed Resolution was developed) impaired their ability to present their views fully and effectively. All commenters had the opportunity to offer  Xd4detailed explanations of their concerns and to propose alternative approaches.h3d , yO!'ԍThe Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' only substantive objection appears to be that the refund levels  {O'are "too low," presumably because they are not based on a full channel count. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2. They do not provide a more specific critique of the refund levels or identify with any specificity how the perceived deficiency should be rectified. Of the commenters opposing the Proposed Resolution, only the Borlands offered a specific alternative methodology for calculating refunds and revised rates.h  X6426. Contrary to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' assertion, our procedures do not allow cable operators to negotiate separate arrangements with both the Commission and local franchising authorities and then choose the more favorable agreement. In this instance, the operator's discussions with the Commission included the matter of refunds and rates applicable to BST service. Local franchising authorities are not bound by the operator's choice to resolve BST rate matters through the Commission. They may opt out of the refund aspect of the Resolution and seek to enforce their own rate orders.  X4  X~427. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities also object to the channel count used in the Resolution. They assert that the "District Court" affirmed the Commission's determination"g 3,N(N(ZZ"  X4that Adelphia should count all of its CPST channels for purposes of deriving permissible rates;4$, yOy'ԍSouthwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2. The comments do not include a citation or case name for the referenced District Court decision. The reference presumably refers to the decision of the United States Court  {O 'of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Adelphia v. FCC, in which the court upheld the Commission's  {O'Going Forward Rules as they concern a la carte offerings. that the Resolution would "reverse" the Commission's earlier determination that all of the CableSelect channels should be regulated as part of the CPST; and that the minusfour channel count "rewards recalcitrant behavior by the cable operator and also constitutes a hardship on local franchising authorities that spent significant amounts of money regulating cable television rates  X4and trying to comply with Commission rules."75, {O 'ԍId.7 They also point out that each of the six local franchising authorities issued rate orders in the summer of 1995 "which adhered to the principles  X_4of the South Dade County decision of the Cable Services Bureau and ordered rate rollbacks and  XJ4refunds."\6JF, yOA'ԍSouthwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 1.\ They note that Adelphia has appealed all of the rate orders and has filed lawsuits in state court and that the BST appeals and CPST complaints for all six communities are pending  X 4before the Commission.17 , {O'ԍId.1 The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities argue that the refunds "do not at all take into account the fact that the refund orders issued by the . . . communities have been pending for well over one year, in addition to the time that the refund orders related back  X 4prior to the date of issuance."78 h , {O'ԍId. at 3.7  X 428. We believe that our calculation of the benchmark rates using the minusfour channel count instead of the full channel count is a reasonable means of resolving the dispute regarding Adelphia's removal of all of its CPST channels from the CPSTs in the systems covered by the Resolution. We do not agree that this aspect of the Resolution "rewards recalcitrant behavior,"  XM4as the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities assert. The Resolution requires Adelphia to offer all but four of the former CableSelect channels on the CPST for each system. The minusfour perchannel rate will apply to the four excluded channels even though they may be included in an MPT instead of or in addition to the CPST. We are calculating the benchmark rates as if Adelphia initially had moved only four CPST channels, rather than all of those channels, into the  X4CableSelect a la carte package. The Commission has determined in other cases that an operator's movement of four channels out of the CPST did not constitute evasion of our rules and therefore  X4was not prohibited.R9 , {OY$'ԍSee cases cited supra note 15.R However, instead of allowing Adelphia to offer those four channels on a marketpriced basis, the Resolution ensures that the four channels will continue to be regulated as part of an MPT and subject to the price caps specified in the Resolution until January 1, 1998, when Adelphia may convert the MPT to an NPT. As the Commission concluded in the Going"i 9,N(N(ZZ" Forward Order, the conditions for offering NPTs will ensure that NPT rates will not be  X4unreasonable.V:, {Ob'ԍGoing Forward Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1235.V In addition, the Lifeline Rates for BST service will be calculated using a full channel count, and the combined charge for a Lifeline Rate BST and a CPST may not exceed the charge that could have been imposed on the basis of a minusfour channel count.  X429. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities believe the minusfour channel count reverses a prior Commission decision and state that there is "no legal or public policy reason" for  X_4the reversal "other than FCC workload."\;_Z, yOj 'ԍSouthwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2.\ We assume the referenced Commission decision is the  XH4South Dade County order finding that all of Adelphia's packaged a la carte channels should be  X34treated as regulated CPST channels.R<Z3, yO 'ԍIt is not clear which decision the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities believe the Resolution would reverse, but it is evident that they are concerned that the minusfour channel count deviates from Commission policy with  {O^'respect to the treatment of a la carte packages.R While South Dade County was not reviewed by any court,  X 4the D.C. Circuit subsequently affirmed the Commission's determination in the Going Forward  X 4Order that, with limited exceptions, it would regulate as CPSTs a la carte packages created  X 4between April 1, 1993, and September 30, 1994. = , {O'ԍSee Adelphia v. FCC; Going Forward Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 124143; 47 C.F.R.  76.986, 76.987.ĝ Adelphia's CableSelect packages were created during this period.  X 430. The Resolution does not reverse the South Dade County decision. The Resolution  X4does not include the South Dade County system, and the South Dade County orders are not affected by the Resolution, except that Adelphia withdraws its petition for reconsideration of our  Xn4order on review in South Dade County. The conditions imposed on Adelphia by the Resolution  XY4do differ from the remedy ordered in South Dade County in that the latter mandated the inclusion  XD4of all a la carte package channels in the computation of maximum permitted rates, whereas the  X/4Resolution uses a minusfour channel count. However, the Resolution, unlike the South Dade  X4County order, resolves multiple CPST complaints, as well as BST proceedings, and will ensure prompt payment of refunds and immediate rate reductions. The implementation of these provisions will not be delayed by Adelphia's attempt to modify or reverse them through review procedures because the Resolution includes an agreement by Adelphia to forego further Commission or appellate review of its terms.  X431. Administrative agencies are not precluded from modifying their approach to particular issues when circumstances warrant such action. Agencies may depart from prior decisions so  Xd4long as they have a rational basis for doing so and explain their reasoning.>\Xd, {O%'ԍNational Conservative Political Action Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 626 F.2d 953, 959 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("Agencies are under an obligation to follow their own regulations, procedures, and precedents, or provide a rational  {OE''explanation for their departures"); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (1970), cert. denied,"E'=,N(N(%" 403 U.S. 923 (1971) ("An agency's view of what is in the public interest may change . . . . But an agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored . . . ." (footnotes omitted)). We have explained"d >,N(N(ZZ" our rationale for departing in the Resolution from the rate calculation methodology we mandated  X4in South Dade County. We believe that the resulting refund levels and rate reductions required by the Resolution strike an appropriate balance between maximizing the compensation due subscribers for past overcharges and minimizing delay and uncertainty in the payment of refunds and the implementation of prospective rate reductions.  Xx432. The resolution of multiple CPST complaints and BST proceedings in a consolidated fashion and by agreement with Adelphia does reduce Commission workload and conserve  XJ4administrative resources.?J, yO 'ԍIn this respect the Resolution furthers the policy goals we established in our policy statement on the use of  {O 'alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"). Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures in Commission  {Ou'Proceedings and Proceedings in Which the Commission Is a Party, Initial Policy Statement and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5669, 5670 (1991) (stating that the Commission will use ADR "to expedite and improve its administrative processes" and to avoid "the expense and the delay of adversarial proceedings," which will benefit the parties involved and the  {O'American public), modified, 7 FCC Rcd 4679 (1992); 47 C.F.R.  1.18. We do not believe this conflicts with our statutory duties to ensure  X34that rates for cable services are reasonable.A@X3f , yOJ'ԍIndeed, in directing the Commission to promulgate regulations governing BST rate review, Congress stated that the Commission "shall seek to reduce the administrative burdens on subscribers, cable operators, franchising authorities, and the Commission." 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(2)(A).A It certainly is not the only goal the Resolution promotes or the most important goal. In furtherance of our duty to protect consumer interests, the Resolution also implements reasonable BST and CPST rates and ensures that subscribers will benefit from immediate rate reductions and refunds, which Adelphia will not challenge at the Commission or in court.  X 4 33. We do not agree with the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' claim that the Resolution "constitutes a significant hardship on local franchising authorities that spent significant amounts of money regulating cable television rates and trying to comply with Commission  Xd4rules."fAd , {O'ԍSee Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2.f Local franchising authorities are free to opt out of the refund aspect of the Resolution.Bd, yO- 'ԍAs noted above, however, local franchising authorities that opt out must use the minusfour channel count when they calculate refunds.  X64!34. Section 76.986(d) and (f) of the Commission's rules gives local franchising  X4authorities the right to determine initially whether a la carte packages are to be treated as CPST  X 4or NPT packages for purposes of determining maximum permitted rates.FC p, yO+&'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.986(d), (f).F An operator or subscriber may appeal a local franchising authority's initial determination to the Commission, and"C,N(N(ZZ"  X4the Commission's ruling on appeal will govern the BST rate calculation.1D, {Oy'ԍId.1 Our enforcement of the minusfour channel count with respect to local franchising authorities that opt out of the Resolution departs from those provisions to the extent it would prevent a local franchising authority from enforcing an initial decision that uses a full channel count to calculate benchmark rates. We believe the combined benefits of the Resolution outweigh the potential adverse effect on local franchising authorities and subscribers that may be caused by our enforcement of the minusfour channel count with respect to BST rates in optout communities. Accordingly, we find that waiver of the foregoing provisions is appropriate in this instance.  X14"35. Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake are concerned that Adelphia's restructuring and its  X 4resulting service offering above the BST level on an a la carte basis occurred during the Commission's rate freeze and constitute an evasion of rate regulation in violation of the 1992  X 4Cable Act.)E Z, yO'ԍDaniel Comments at 1; Saranac Lake Comments at 1. The rate freeze required operators to freeze the average amount of revenues received per subscriber for regulated cable services at the level in effect on April 5, 1993. The rate freeze became effective on April 5, 1993, and through a series of orders was extended to the earlier of May 15,  {OQ'1994, or the date on which an operator's BST became subject to regulation. See Rate Regulation, MM Docket No.  {O'92266, Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2921 (1993), clarified, 8 FCC Rcd 2917 (1993), extended, FCC 93304 (June 15, 1993),  {O'erratum, 8 FCC Rcd 4511 (1993), extended, FCC 93494 (Nov. 10, 1993), extended, 9 FCC Rcd 1299 (1994).) They assert that many subscribers were subject to negative option billing for both  X 4service and equipment charges.F , yO`'ԍDaniel Comments at 1; Saranac Lake Comments at 1. The Commission's rule against negative option billing prohibits cable operators from charging subscribers for services they did not affirmatively request. 47 C.F.R.  76.981. However, the rule does not prohibit the addition or deletion of channels to existing tiers, the restructuring or division of tiers, or adjustments to rates to reflect inflation, external costs, or the addition and deletion of channels, provided the changes do not constitute a fundamental change in the nature of an existing service and are consistent  {OH'with other applicable regulations. Id.  Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake also question whether Adelphia will offer service above the BST level "except as is currently provided" and ask, "What consideration is given to those subscribers that were upgraded to an expanded and increased cost  X4level of service?"[GR , yO'ԍDaniel Comments at 12; Saranac Lake Comments at 1.[ Saranac Lake states that it "does not consider the repayment of overcharges to the consumer (without interest) adequate restitution for the above practices" and contends that  Xd4"an appropriate penalty should be added to the repayment plan."CHd, yO 'ԍSaranac Lake Comments at 1.C Mr. Daniel also believes subscribers should receive "some additional compensation above the proposed level to send the  X64message to Adelphia that this type of action is unacceptable."=I6r, yOY$'ԍDaniel Comments at 1.= "I,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X4#36. Adelphia disagrees with Mr. Daniel's and Saranac Lake's assertions that Adelphia  X4violated the Commission's rate regulations and subjected subscribers to negative option billing.IJ, yOb'ԍAdelphia Reply Comments at 1415.I Adelphia also objects to the allegation that it upgraded subscribers to a service they were not previously receiving. Adelphia explains that it "simply unbundled an existing tier; no subscribers  X4were forced to receive more service than they were previously receiving."8KX, {O'ԍId. at 15.8 Adelphia also asserts  X4that it did not violate the rate freeze.<L, {O( 'ԍId. at 1415. <  X_4$37. The concerns raised by Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake do not convince us that modification or rejection of the Resolution is warranted. Although Adelphia moved services from  X14a regulated tier to an a la carte package, Adelphia's restructuring of its services did not violate our rules against negative option billing because subscribers were not forced to receive and pay  X 4for services that they had not previously requested.M" |, {O2'ԍSee Comcast Cablevision (Tallahassee, Florida) (LOI932), 10 FCC Rcd 2106, 2108 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1995) (stating that the purpose of the negative option billing prohibition is to protect subscribers from being billed for services they never ordered and concluding that when the service received is not altered but is merely unbundled a finding of no violation is consistent with this purpose).  Any unjustified rate increases that Adelphia implemented as a result of the restructuring, including any rate increases during the rate freeze and any retiering that could be construed as an evasion of Commission regulations, were considered in the Commission's evaluation of the Proposed Resolution and, in our view, are intended to be remedied by the refunds and proposed rate reductions that will be implemented  X4by the Resolution.Nf , yO'ԍThe Resolution provides, however, that Adelphia does not concede that it violated Commission rules. Nothing in this Order is intended to constitute a ruling on the merits of that issue.  Xd4%38. Likewise, we conclude that a penalty per se is not necessary to protect subscribers or deter Adelphia from unlawful conduct. Among other things, the Resolution provides for minimum $3.00 persubscriber refunds in communities that would not otherwise receive any refund, Lifeline Rates for BST service, and a cap on the CPST rate increase designed to offset rate reductions associated with the creation of Lifeline Rates. Together with the refunds and rate reductions ordered by the Resolution and the provisions governing Adelphia's creation of an MPT, the Resolution assures that subscribers will receive immediate benefits at a not inconsequential cost to Adelphia. We do not believe Adelphia will interpret the Resolution as a green light to violate our rate regulations.  X4&39. Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake also contend that Adelphia should pay refunds to each subscriber in the form of a lump sum check, rather than as a credit against subscribers' regular"i N,N(N(ZZ"  X4monthly charges.YO, yOy'ԍDaniel Comments at 2; Saranac Lake Comments at 1.Y In addition, Saranac Lake apparently believes the refunds will not include  X4interest.CPX, yO'ԍSaranac Lake Comments at 1.C  X4'40. The Commission's regulations allow an operator, at its discretion, to implement a refund in one of two ways either through identification of actual subscribers or through a one X4time credit that results in a prospective percentage reduction of the rates to current subscribers.mQ, yO& 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.942(d) (BST refunds), 76.961(c) (CPST refunds).m We conclude that Adelphia's payment of refunds through a credit to current subscribers instead of through a lumpsum check is consistent with our rules. The Resolution deviates from our rules only by allowing Adelphia to pay refunds through a series of credits instead of through a one X14time credit.`R1x, {OZ'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.942(d)(2), 76.961(c)(2).` We believe waiver of this aspect of our rules is appropriate under the circumstances because Adelphia's payment of the refund through a series of credits will not adversely affect  X 4subscribers and is not unreasonable.S , {O'ԍIn addition, we have previously approved this form of refund crediting. See Cablevision Industries Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 7341, 734647 (1996). Interest will accrue on the unrefunded amount (contrary to Saranac Lake's belief) until the full amount of the refund is credited, and the length of the payout period is limited.  X 4(41. Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake state that the Resolution provision allowing Adelphia to create an MPT would confer "an unfair advantage for Adelphia in calculating the rate per  Xy4channel."YTyd , yO'ԍDaniel Comments at 2; Saranac Lake Comments at 1.Y  XK4)42. We disagree. The Resolution allows Adelphia to create MPTs that do not exceed rateregulated prices on a perchannel basis, until the channels are later converted to NPTs. Furthermore, as Adelphia notes in its reply comments, the creation of an MPT will not affect the  X4calculation of Adelphia's perchannel benchmark rates in the future.JU , yO 'ԍAdelphia Reply Comments at 14 n.5.J Channels may be added to MPTs only at the perchannel price found acceptable in our Going Forward Rules. The price for the tiers from which services are migrated will decrease to the extent channels are removed from them, so that subscribers will not pay more per channel for the channels remaining in the rateregulated tiers.  X|4*43. The creation of MPTs and NPTs is intended to expand the programming choices available to subscribers. Subscribers need only buy the BST in order to select service on the"e U,N(N(ZZ" MPT; they are not required to purchase the CPST in order to obtain MPT service. Adelphia has an incentive to maintain the quality of the CPSTs to avoid losing revenue, because subscribers perceiving a decrease in quality in a CPST may discontinue that CPST service. Subscribers will have the choice to continue or discontinue services on any tier, except the BST, without affecting the receipt of any other tier of service. Thus, the Resolution does not have the effect of forcing subscribers to receive and pay for unwanted services. The creation of the MPT also has the potential for increasing subscriber choices because where both the CPST and the MPT will be offered, consumers can choose to take either or both. In addition, new channels can be added to both tiers. For these reasons, we believe that permitting the formation of an MPT and the later movement of those channels to an NPT without requiring Adelphia to remarket the service is in the public interest in the overall context of the Resolution. We therefore find good cause for granting waivers, to the limited extent necessary to effectuate this Resolution, of Section  X 476.922(e) of the Commission's rules,AV , yOe 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(e).A which governs changes in the number of channels on a  X 4regulated tier, as well as Section 76.987(b)(2) and (b)(3),KW X, yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.987(b)(2)(b)(3).K which (i) prohibits operators from dropping channels that were offered on their BSTs or CPSTs on September 30, 1994, and moving them to NPTs unless they wait at least two years from the dates the channels were dropped and (ii) requires them to remarket their BSTs and CPSTs when they create an NPT.  Xb4+44. The Borlands believe the proposed refunds and rate reductions are "a step in the right direction" but nevertheless are insufficient "to atone for the years of rate hike abuse we have had  X44and continue to experience with Adelphia Cable.">X4, yO'ԍBorland Comments at 2.> The Borlands suggest that the Commission "roll back the cable rates to the 1986 level, add the actual cost of living increases for each of the following years, and add a maximum of 2% additional per year to take into consideration factors  X4such as facility upgrading, channel enhancements, etc."7Yx, {O'ԍId. at 1.7  X4,45. The Borlands' suggested methodology, while it appears to reflect some of the rate  X4principles we have adopted in our rules, is inconsistent with our regulations.Z , yOe 'ԍThe Borlands' methodology includes both an initial rate reduction and an inflation adjustment to the reduced rates. Our rules directed certain operators to reduce rates by up to 17% after the 1992 Cable Act was first implemented but also permit operators to increase rates at regular intervals to include external cost changes, changes in the number of channels offered, and an inflation adjustment. 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(g). In addition, in response  {O#'to the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Time Warner v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1995), we recently amended our rules to permit operators to recover socalled "gap period" external costs, which are external costs that operators incurred between September 30, 1992, and the date their rates  {O%'first became regulated. See Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 96491,  2628 (Dec. 31, 1996) (amending 47 C.F.R.  76.922(f)(4)). Although the Borlands' methodology includes a percentage increase designed to compensate Adelphia for external costs, the Borlands' percentage increase is"q'Y,N(N(n "  {O'contrary to the methodologies prescribed by our external cost rules. See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(f).  Our rules prescribe"ZZ,N(N(ZZ" a benchmark formula for determining maximum permitted BST and CPST rate levels in instances  X4in which an operator does not submit a costofservice showing.[Z, {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6)(i) (requiring operators to file FCC Forms 1200, 1205, 1210, and 1215); 47 C.F.R.  922(h). The refund levels are derived from our established rate methodology and, though they are less than the full refund amount that Adelphia might be liable for in some communities absent the tier offsets and with a full channel count, other communities that had forfeited the right to order BST refunds or rate reductions will nevertheless receive minimum refunds of $3.00 per subscriber.  X_4-46. The New Jersey Board requests that we modify the Resolution with respect to the BST refunds to be credited to subscribers in the four New Jersey communities that are covered by the Resolution by distributing the total refund due these subscribers among subscribers in all  X 416 communities served by Adelphia's subsidiary Clear Cablevision, Inc. ("Clear").\ , yO'ԍNew Jersey Board Comments at 2, 4. The Commission did not receive complaints regarding CPST service in the other 12 communities. The Board,  X 4which is the local franchising authority for cable television operators in the State of New Jersey,7] , {O'ԍId. at 1.7 explains that it regulates BST rates on a systemwide basis, rather than on a CUID basis, and that state law requires it to ensure that regulated rates are uniform for contiguous systems in the same  X 4geographic region regardless of CUID boundaries.9^ , {O 'ԍId. at 23.9 Stating that the subscribers in the four  X 4covered communities represent approximately 33% of all of Clear's New Jersey subscribers,7_ 0 , {O'ԍId. at 2.7 the  X4Board acknowledges that distribution of the total refund to all such subscribers would reduce the  Xy4persubscriber refund set forth in the Resolution.`y , {O'ԍId. at 4. The Board does not state exactly how much the proposed redistribution would reduce the refunds to subscribers in the four communities. The Board asserts, however, that its proposed redistribution of the refund to all of Clear's New Jersey subscribers "would represent an equitable distribution . . . and would result in consistent treatment of rates within the New Jersey  X44franchise area."1a4, {O"'ԍId.1  X4.47. Adelphia replies that it does not oppose the Board's request, based on its understanding that the redistribution of refunds would not increase Adelphia's total refund"a,N(N(ZZ"  X4liability.Eb, yOy'ԍAdelphia Reply Comments at 7.E Adelphia cautions, however, that other communities in which a CPST complaint was  X4not filed should not be included in the Resolution.1cX, {O'ԍId.1  X4/48. We deny the Board's request. The Resolution covers only those communities from which the Commission received a valid CPST complaint. We do not regulate the CPST rates charged by cable operators unless we receive a valid complaint with respect to the operator in  Xv4question. d&v, {O 'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(7) (defining initial date of regulation for cable programming service as the date on  {O 'which the first valid complaint is filed with respect to such service); Implementation of Sections of the Cable  {O 'Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation and BuyThrough Prohibition, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 92262, Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4358 (1994).   XH4049. Adelphia raises one new issue in its reply comments, which concerns adjustments to the refunds to be paid to subscribers in the New York communities of Lake Placid, Saranac Lake,  X 4and Tupper Lake.re , yO'ԍThe CUIDs for these communities are NY001, NY002, and NY003, respectively.r In a supplemental filing, however, Adelphia reiterates its support for the Resolution in all respects, even if the Commission does not adjust the refund levels reflected in  X 4the Proposed Resolution.f  h , yO'ԍLetter from Randall D. Fisher, Vice President and General Counsel, Adelphia, to Meredith Jones, Chief, Cable Services Bureau (Jan. 9, 1997). The issue raised by Adelphia in its reply comments relates to the period of time used to calculate the refund levels for the three communities. Adelphia stated that the BST refunds shown in Exhibit 2 to the Proposed Resolution should be reduced to reflect a shorter refund period. Adelphia Reply Comments at 8. We adopt the Resolution without changes in the refund amounts for the New York communities.  X 4Q 0 VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Xy4150. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is in the public interest to adopt the Resolution.  X44251. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Resolution attached to this Order as  X4Attachment A IS ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN .  X4352. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all CPST rate complaints under the jurisdiction of the Commission against Adelphia Communications Corporation as of December 31, 1995,  X4 ARE GRANTED to the extent necessary to effectuate the Resolution and ARE DENIED in all  X4other respects. "P f,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X4453. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending BST appeals filed by Adelphia concerning rate orders that were issued by the communities listed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution  X4and that address rates subject to the Resolution ARE HEREBY DISMISSED as moot.  X4554. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Bucyrus Order (DA 95662) and  X4Charlottesville Order (DA 95157) ARE HEREBY VACATED .  Xc4655. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Adelphia's Applications for Review of the  XL4foregoing orders and its petition for reconsideration of our order in South Dade County (FCC 95 X74378) ARE DEEMED WITHDRAWN .  X 4756. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that waivers of 47 C.F.R.  76.942(d)(2), 76.961(c)(2), 76.942(f), 76.961(e), 76.922(e), 76.987(b)(2)(b)(3), and 76.986(d) and (f), as  X 4discussed herein, ARE GRANTED .  X 4857. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that waivers of 47 C.F.R.  76.922 and 76.950963,  X4to the extent individual adjudication of CPST rate complaints is required thereby, ARE  X4GRANTED .  XQ4958. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests for modification and the request for  X:4rejection of the Resolution ARE DENIED .  X 4:59. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Cable Services Bureau IS GIVEN delegated authority to oversee implementation of this Resolution, as adopted.  X4;60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order IS EFFECTIVE upon adoption. ` `  &.hh6FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  &.hh6William F. Caton ` `  &.hh6Acting Secretary "f,N(N(ZZ!"  X4< ATTACHMENT A ă  X4#Xw P7 &f,N(N(ZZ*" described in this subparagraph and will be permitted to establish BST and CPST rates equal to the maximum permitted rates calculated using the channel count described in subparagraph (d).(#  Xv4X` ` (g) &At any time at its discretion, Adelphia may package four of the services that were available as CableSelect offerings on September 1, 1993, together with up to  X 4two new services (i.e., services first added to the system after September 30, 1994), as a single "Migrated Product Tier" in any Resolution Community. Adelphia may not require the subscription to any other tier, other than the BST, as a condition for subscribing to any MPT created pursuant to this subparagraph and may not require subscription to any such MPT as a condition for subscription to any other tier. The retiering of these services is permitted under Section 76.981(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.981(b); does not constitute a negative option under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; and, when the MPT is offered, Adelphia will not be required to remarket the MPT to existing subscribers who previously received all of the migrated services contained in the MPT. These actions can be taken without regard to any state or local law which may be inconsistent with the terms of this subparagraph.(#  X$4X` ` (h) &In any community in which Adelphia creates an MPT pursuant to subparagraph (g), Adelphia will set the initial rate for said MPT, (i) with respect to the four services that were available as Cable Select offerings on September 1, 1993, on a per  X"4channel basis, at a level equal to the rate then being charged for any CPST offered in such community, calculated consistent with this resolution, and (ii) with respect to the two new services referred to in subparagraph (g), at $0.20 per channel plus the amount of">&f,N(N(ZZ*" program license fees for each of such services. Adelphia may thereafter add any number of new services to its MPT and may increase the price for the MPT up to $0.20 plus the amount of the program license fee for each new service added. Adelphia may increase the price of an MPT for inflation and external costs and new services consistent with the Commission's rate regulations governing CPSTs, and these new services shall not be considered new services added for purposes of the limit on service additions and rate increases pursuant to the Going Forward Rules.(#  X 4X` ` (i) &On or after January 1, 1998, Adelphia may reclassify any MPT created pursuant to subparagraphs (g) and (h) as a New Product Tier ("NPT"), as defined in Section 76.987 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.987, including subsequent clarifications or amendments thereto. These NPTs will be treated as all other NPTs under the Commission's rules. The reclassification is permitted under Section 76.981(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.981(b); does not constitute a negative option under the 1992 Cable Act; and does not require Adelphia to remarket the reclassified NPT to existing MPT subscribers. Nothing in the Resolution shall be construed to prevent  XN4Adelphia from creating other NPTs and/or offering a la carte channels pursuant to the Commission's rules. These actions can be taken without regard to any state or local law which may be inconsistent with the terms of this subparagraph.(#  X 4X` ` (j) &The Commission, consistent with the terms set forth herein, hereby reconsiders on its own Motion, the Bucyrus, Ohio and Charlottesville, Virginia Orders, and Adelphia hereby petitions to withdraw its pending applications for review of said Orders and such petitions to withdraw are hereby granted by the Commission. The">&f,N(N(ZZ*" decision that four CableSelect channels will not be counted as regulated channels for benchmark rate calculation purposes will be deemed incorporated in such reconsidered Orders and shall be binding on any decision relating to Adelphia's BST or CPST rates. As of the Effective Date, the Resolution Order will vacate and supersede the Bucyrus, Ohio and Charlottesville, Virginia Orders. Upon the vacating of these rulings, Adelphia's pending applications for review concerning said rulings will be deemed to be withdrawn. In addition, Adelphia's pending petition for reconsideration of the Commission's decision (FCC 95378) denying Adelphia's application for review of the Bureau's South Dade County LetterofInquiry ruling (DA 941277) also will be deemed to be withdrawn.(#  Xb4X` ` (k) &A copy of this Resolution shall be provided for comment to all LFAs in the Resolution Communities and to each additional party that filed a valid complaint on FCC Form 329, pursuant to Section 76.950 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.950.(#  X4X` ` (l) &Except as provided in subparagraph (m) hereof, the terms of this Resolution may not be terminated or modified without the mutual written consent of Adelphia and the Commission. The Commission's consent to any such modification or termination shall be demonstrated by an order of the Commission.(#  X4X` ` (m) &Notwithstanding the terms hereof, Adelphia may avail itself of any applicable modifications of any law or regulation governing the rates charged in any community that it serves, including the adoption by the Commission of any regulation governing rates as applied to the cable industry generally. If Adelphia exercises this election, the terms contained herein shall be superseded upon the effective date of such":&f,N(N(ZZ*" law or regulation, except that Adelphia shall provide Refunds to Resolution Community Eligible Subscribers pursuant to the terms of this Resolution.(#  X4X` ` (n) &Nothing herein shall restrict the ability of Adelphia to adjust its rates of any community that it serves in the event such rates are not regulated for any reason, including changes from the 1996 Telecommunications Act or relevant Commission rules.(#  X 414.` ` The Resolution Order shall affirmatively state that any and all waivers of Commission Rules, and any modifications to Commission forms, necessary to effectuate these terms are deemed to be granted. The Commission will not assert in any proceeding that Adelphia's compliance with the terms of the Resolution violates any Commission rule or order, and, in any proceeding before the Commission brought by a third party, a showing by Adelphia that it has complied with these terms shall constitute a defense to any claim that Adelphia's actions in meeting the terms constitute a violation of any applicable Commission rule or order.  X415.` ` Assuming the adoption of these terms, these terms shall become effective when the Commission issues the Resolution Order.  X|416.` ` If any provision, clause, or part of this Resolution as embodied in the Resolution Order is invalidated by a court, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in effect; provided, however, that if such invalidation is material to this Resolution, Adelphia and the Commission shall attempt in good faith to reconstitute the Resolution in a form that is, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the original intent of the Resolution. If any such good faith effort to reconstitute the Resolution is not successful, neither Adelphia nor the Commission will be bound by its terms.  X:&4":& f,N(N(ZZ*"  b4 I. A. 1.(a)(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1.(a)(1)(a) i) a)> EXHIBIT 1 B  b44  ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS  b 42 COMMUNITIES SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION  B Y ddx !ddx! Y '$ '$  (   X' COMMUNITY  X4Syracuse !L L (L L L L L L West Seneca Amherst Cheektowaga Colden Lake Placid Saranac Lake Tupper Lake Berkeley Ocean Lacey Island Heights Lorain Hudson Macedonia Hiram Bucyrus Haverford Marple Peters Upper St. Clair Pleasant Hills West Mifflin Mt. Oliver Mt. Lebanon Bethel Park Suterville Murrysville Charlottesville Crozet Waynesboro Frederick Hilton Head Palm Beach Shores Greenacresq&&  X' CUID NY0728 NY0320 NY0353 NY0319 NY1341 NY0001 NY0002 NY0003 NJ0086 NJ0216 NJ0153 NJ0198 OH0202 OH0923 OH0926 OH1288 OH0054 PA1140 PA1131 PA1519 PA1459 PA1232 PA0666 PA1245 PA1231 PA1344 PA1355 PA0153 VA0039 VA0202 VA0040 VA0121 SC0058 FL0088 FL0481 Z''  X'E SUBSCRIBERS  X'JsI BST JsN@40,217 N@14,803 N@32,149 N@27,111 Q<668 O1,106 O2,118 O1,744 N@18,442 O2,139 O9,114 Q<697 N@18,210 O5,408 O2,187 Q<136 O5,012 N@12,479 O6,371 O4,948 O5,885 O2,924 O7,573 O1,229 N@11,160 N@11,187 Q<292 O5,676 N@12,353 Q<847 O7,075 O6,815 N@17,688 Q<556 O3,427 Th ThC((  X' SUBSCRIBERS  X'^ CPST `d30,807 d14,117 d30,346 d25,847 g645 e-1,022 e-1,935 e-1,691 d17,649 e-2,046 e-8,773 g675 d17,863 e-5,269 e-2,139 g131 e-4,883 d12,284 e-6,221 e-4,760 e-5,725 e-2,813 e-7,327 e-1,196 d10,611 d10,763 g292 e-5,676 ]i11,639/8,920* b801/705* e-6,600 e-6,474 d16,379 g480 je-3,312"%!f,N(N(ZZ)"'$     (      X' COMMUNITY Greenacres Delray Beach Wellington Palm Beach Gardens Williamstown Total   X' CUID FL0522 FL0749 FL0420 FL0087 MA0005  X'I SUBSCRIBERS  Xq'ThI BST JsQ<481 O1,707 O7,950 O9,354 O2,511 Th M321,749  X'_ SUBSCRIBERS  Xq'j^ CPST `g464 e-1,644 e-7,640 e-8,901 `e2,368/612* j ce300,208j`    BB B* denotes existence of more than one CPST." "f,-(-(ZZ"  a49 #|\  P6G;hʼP#EXHIBIT 2 REFUNDS#Xj\  P6G;XP#  X 4B 7 h !ddx! Addx#N@ h "       " ""   X4 CUID ă  X4 " BST  X'" SUBS   X'2 CPST  X'1 SUBS *   X'Cc REFUND  X'B=PER CUID   X'T REFUND TPER BST  Xm'UMSUB *   X'd REFUND c:PER CPST  Xm'e/SUB *   q  ""  fNY0728 $ 40,217 < Eh$120,651 Y$3.00#n!q q  ""  fNY0320h#$ 14,803h#<h#G044,409h#Z3.00h#n!q q  "" #fNY0353 #$ 32,149 #< #G096,447 #Z3.00 #n!q q h "" #fNY0319J #$ 27,111J #<J #G081,333J #Z3.00J #n!q q   "" #fNY1341 #' 668 #< #MXH2,004 #Z3.00 #n!q q J  "" #fNY0001,#% 1,106,#<,#G033,854,#Y30.61,#n!q q   "" #fNY0002#% 2,118#<#F116,958#Y55.22#n!q q , "" #fNY0003#% 1,744#<#G086,224#Y49.44#n!q q  ""  NJ0086#$ 18,442#617,649#F311,855#^RZ3.00#iX17.54q q  "" #NJ0216#% 2,139#7T2,046#G042,045#Z3.00#iX20.41q q  "" #NJ0153a#% 9,114a#7T8,773a#F149,006a#Z3.00a#iX16.87q q  "" #NJ0198#' 697#9675#H2,091#Z3.00#n!q q a "" #fOH0202C#$ 18,210C#<C#F462,499C#Y25.40C#n!q q  "" #fOH0923#% 5,408#7T5,269#F151,467#Z3.00#iX28.67q q C "" #fOH0926%#% 2,187%#7T2,139%#G030,943%#Z3.00%#iX14.40q q  "" #fOH1288#' 136#9131#J,896#Z3.00#j6.72q q % "" #fOH0054#% 5,012#<#G015,036#Z3.00#n!q q  "" #PA1140x#$ 12,479x#<x#G037,437x#Z3.00x#n!q q  "" #PA1131 #% 6,371 #< #G019,113 #Z3.00 #n!q q x "" #PA1519Z"#% 4,948Z"#<Z"#G022,934Z"#Z4.63Z"#n!q q   "" #PA1459##% 5,885##<##G017,655##Z3.00##n!q q Z" "" #PA1232<%#% 2,924<%#7T2,813<%#G041,064<%#Z5.91<%#j9.08q q # "" #PA0666&#% 7,573&#7T7,327&#F101,053&#Z4.78&#j8.85q q <% "" #PA1245(#% 1,229(#<(#H3,687(#Z3.00(#n!"5'#f,-(-(ZZ54"q q & "" #PA1231q#$ 11,160q#<q#G033,480q#Z3.00q#n!q q  "" #PA1344#$ 11,187#<#G033,561#Z3.00#n!q q q "" #PA1355S#' 292S#9292S#H2,730S#Z3.00S#j9.35q q  "" #PA0153#% 5,676#<#G017,028#Z3.00#n!q q S "" #fVA00395#$ 12,3535#<5#F177,7985#Y14.395#n!q q  "" #fVA0202#' 847#<#H2,541#Z3.00#n!q q 5 "" #fVA0040 #% 7,075 #7T6,600 #G042,107 #Z3.00 #j6.16q q  "" #fVA0121 #% 6,815 #< #G020,445 #Z3.00 #n!q q   "" #SC0058 #$ 17,688 #< #G053,064 #Z3.00 #n!q q   "" #FL0088j#' 556j#<j#H1,668j#Z3.00j#n!q q   "" #FL0481#% 3,427#<#G010,281#Z3.00#n!q q j "" #FL0522L#' 481L#<L#H1,443L#Z3.00L#n!q q  "" #FL0749#% 1,707#<#H5,121#Z3.00#n!q q L "" #FL0420.#% 7,950.#<.#G023,850.#Z3.00.#n!q q  "" #FL0087#% 9,354#<#G028,062#Z3.00#n!q q . "" #FMA0005#% 1,899#9612#H9,132#Z3.00#j5.61q    "" # X'^ TOTAL #* #<# X'C $2,452,957 #^R#n!  )B  X4 * Refunds per subscriber may be higher or lower than amounts indicated, depending on final subscriber count prior to payment date and on final interest calculations; provided, however, that all subscribers will receive at least $3.00 in refunds. In the case of CPST subscribers, the $3.00 minimum refund is incorporated in the Refund Per CPST Subscriber amounts listed above. The number of CPST subscribers is omitted in those communities where CPST subscribers are not due any additional refunds beyond the $3.00 minimum refund."'$f,$$ *!"  a4> #|\  P6G;hʼP#EXHIBIT 3 B 5 REDUCTIONS IN BST RATES TO  a4.LIFELINE BASIC MAXIMUM PERMITTED LEVELS * #Xj\  P6G;XP# B c Addx#N@ addx(%( ( ( c  z    jCOMMUNITY D @CUID"]BST REDUCTIONz q (   Lake Placid, NY NY0001 $4.13q q    Saranac Lake, NY  NY0002  $4.44q q    Tupper Lake, NY  NY0003  $4.44q q     Berkeley, NJ [rebuild]f  NJ0086f  $1.17q q     Ocean, NJ  NJ0216  $1.17q q f    Lacey, NJH NJ0153H $1.17q q     Hudson, OH OH0923 $1.26q q H   Pleasant Hills, PA* PA1232* $0.17q q    Palm Beach Shores, FL FL0088 $5.17q q *   Greenacres, FL  FL0481  $4.32q      Greenacres, FL FL0522 $2.57    X4B * Not all communities receive reductions because BST rate is already at or below Lifeline calculation or because BST rate is not regulated at the local level.  Xh'B  aQ45r #|\  P6G;hʼP#REDUCTIONS IN CPST RATES TO  a[45D MAXIMUM PERMITTED LEVELS* #Xj\  P6G;XP# B T addx(%( ( ( ddxe%( ( ( T         COMMUNITY  CUID  CPST REDUCTION q e   Berkeley (nonrebuild)g NJ0086g $2.48q q    Hiram, OH  OH1288  $0.73q q g   Suterville, PAI" PA1355I" $0.98q q     Charlottesville, VA# VA0039# $0.17 [CPST 1]""%f,$$ .-"q q I"   Waynesboro, VAq VA0040q $0.73q q    Palm Beach Shores, FL FL0088 $0.09q   q   Williamstown, MA MA0005 $1.21 [CPST 2]   X4B * Only communities whose CPST rates, as of December 31, 1995, exceeded maximum permitted levels are affected.