******************************************************** 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 ) ) Time Warner Cable ) CUID No. FL0706 (Tampa) ) Petition for Reconsideration ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: March 30, 1999 Released: April 5, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration of a rate order concerning the January 1, 1998 rate increase of the above-referenced operator ("Operator") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. On August 12, 1998, we issued a rate order concerning Operator's January 1, 1998 CPST rate increase ("Prior Order"). On September 11, 1998, Operator filed a petition for reconsideration of our Prior Order ("Petition"). Consequently, this Order addresses Operator's Petition for Reconsideration. 2. Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") is authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing the legislation ("Interim Rules"), require that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received more than one subscriber complaint. 3. The filing of a complete and timely complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. The Operator has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are reasonable. If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 4. To justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series. Operators are permitted to make changes to their rates on a quarterly basis using FCC Form 1210. Operators may justify 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. 5. In our Prior Order, we found that Operator had not correctly calculated its maximum permitted rate ("MPR") on its FCC Form 1240 for the projected period January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998. In particular, we found that Operator had failed to use the most current FCC Inflation Factors available at the time Operator signed its FCC Form 1240. Therefore, we revised Worksheet 1 (True-Up Period Inflation) which adjusted Line C3 (Inflation Factor for True-Up Period 1) to 1.0193. We also revised Line C5 (Current FCC Inflation Factor) to 1.0114. These revisions reduced Operator's MPR to $23.88 for its non-rebuild area and $25.47 for its rebuild area, for the projected period January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998. Because Operator was actually charging a CPST rate of $19.25 for its non-rebuild area and $22.05 for its rebuild area, we found Operator's actual CPST rates to be reasonable, effective January 1, 1998. 6. In its Petition, Operator argues that Operator's failure to use the most currently published inflation figures available at the time it prepared its filing is not a defect and the inflation factors should not have been refreshed. However, because Operator was filing revised forms, Operator was required to use the most currently available information. This issue was addressed by the Commission in Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P. ("Cencom"). In Cencom, the Commission explained its policy regarding refreshing inflation: 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 maximum permitted rate 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. [footnotes in original] 7. Because we find that our action in our Prior Order is consistent with the Commission's holding in Cencom, we reject Operator's argument and deny Operator's Petition. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106, that Operator's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321, that In the Matter of Time Warner Cable, DA 98-1592, 13 FCC Rcd 17704 (1998), IS AFFIRMED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau