WPCc$ 2BEXZ3|P/ (TT) c4#XR  P7jQ6MXP#"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript Room 404HPLAS4.WRSSXj\  P6G;,,^!XP2E*$oX c4#XR  P7jQ6MXP#Times New Roman (TT)CG Times (W1)"5^;B\ddBBBdBBBBddddddddddBBDZY}}vBM}rk}BBBdddYdYdYBdd77d7ddddJM7ddddYYdYDZBddddddddYYYYYY}Y}Y}Y}YB7B7B7B7ddddddddddYdddddrdddddd}d}d}ddddddddddddBdddkMNdBddBYQQddddddFdddFBBggd44ddzBgBFNBdoQQo;B\ddBBBdBBBBddddddddddBBDZY}}vBM}rk}BBBdddYdYdYBdd77d7ddddJM7ddddYYdYBdgdddk4BBggdddzM4;BdddddddddQBdddFFdodBdFdQY}}}}BBBBrdYYYYYYYYYYY7777dddddddddddddd@7PC2XXP\  P6QXPBRC;X6MXR  P7jQXP.Current Windows Form'3 9N`y *:G]y ":I[n':GTa!:Ug{/2s   v3|P/ "5^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CCCCPCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdYddNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5^&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!940400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-442-707-7-94944444$44N$2+00020000-00000000N0>+0-000-&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-2RomanTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)2& Zb"5^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKWWSK[O[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WW((((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OONOgGO,KOOOK((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKSHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript Room 404HPLAS4.WRSSX\  P6G;,,^!P X4 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6Q DXP#page numberpage number 2@Xelifooterfooter` hp x (#8" footnote referencefootnote reference Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font toc 1toc 1` hp x (# !8"B !8"B` hp x (#21! toc 2toc 2` hp x (#p !8"Bp !8"B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#p !8" p !8" ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# !8"  !8" ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5 ` hp x (# x !8"  x !8" ` hp x (#23( c! v# # &toc 6toc 6 ` hp x (# !8" !8"` hp x (#toc 7toc 7  toc 8toc 8 ` hp x (# !8" !8"` hp x (#toc 9toc 9 ` hp x (# !8"B !8"B` hp x (#25/e(*,v.index 1index 1` hp x (#p !8" p !8" ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#p !8"Bp !8"B` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (# !8"  !8" ` hp x (#captioncaption 22lg/r/E0c2_Equation Caption_Equation Caption endnote referenceendnote reference headerheader` hp x (#8" 8" ` hp x (#footnote textfootnote text;#x P7P#2i7(3v6p6k6"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  29k78v8t!9a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2W<9a:; ;a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style StyleB b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2?!<">=#=$>a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers!Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers#h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers$pfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2B%?&@'A(pBa8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%yW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style&. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style'\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style()WD (1) . 2E))C*C+^D,Ea6TechnicalTechnical Document Style))D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style+9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style,8bv{ 2  a.   2H-E.F/%G03Ga1TechnicalTechnical Document Style-F!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style.(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style/(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Style0z   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2N1I2eM3yM4MPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper1E!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:lT?xU@lUa8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf=q Document 8Document 8> Document 4Document 4?  Document 6Document 6@ 2YAl5VBlVCl WDyWDocument 5Document 5A Document 2Document 2B Document 7Document 7C Right Par 1Right Par 1D` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2`EYFl[GS\Hq^Right Par 2Right Par 2E` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3F Right Par 3Right Par 3G` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4H` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#29iI`JbKdLgRight Par 5Right Par 5I` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6J` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7K` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8L` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2GpM(kiN$kO$mPloDocument 1Document 1M` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5N` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6O` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2P 2uQlypR$pSl sT$usTechnical 3Technical 3Q Technical 4Technical 4R` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1S Technical 7Technical 7T` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2U$uwz}Technical 8Technical 8U` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCddddddz z 0*xddcpi.bmpj>y #' ,-(-(ZZW&L eQ "N!A hz # az Ԍ X' Chart 3  $(#(## # (#(#a# $! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! a# ! # # (#(#(#(#l  X|4 12. ` ` Because the Cable CPI is reported monthly, it is possible to compare percent changes from the Cable CPI with those reported in this survey. Between August 1993 and July 1994, the Cable CPI dropped by 2.2%. This compares with a 2.9% drop in average monthly cable rates found in our Survey. Between July 1994 and January 1995, the Cable CPI dropped by about 1.0%. This compares with an increase of 0.6% found by our Survey. These are small differences which can be attributed largely to differences in the composition of the two surveys. For example, the Cable CPI includes installation charges as well as premium channels and payperview, whereas our Survey excludes these services.  X!4 13. ` ` Over the entire period of rate regulation from April 1993 through November 1996, the overall CPI increased by 10.2%. or at a 2.7% compound annual rate, whereas the Cable CPI increased by 8.4%, or at a 2.2% compound annual rate. More recently, looking at the period from January 1995, the latest Survey date, through November 1996, the Cable CPI increased by 11.3%, or at a 6.0% compound annual rate. Within this 23month period, the Cable CPI increased at a 3.7% compound annual rate from January to December 1995, and at a 8.5% compound annual rate for the eleven months from January 1996 to November 1996. X#' ,-(-(ZZ%L 3z # az X Although the BLS does not report subcomponents of the Cable CPI which would enable us to determine the causes of the rise in cable prices during 1996, we note from anecdotal evidence reported in both the trade press and the general news media that cable operators have attributed the recent increases in cable rates to higher programming costs, system upgrades which provide additional channels, and the pass through of the effects of general inflation on  X4cable operators' costs. &4 {O' |$ ԍ#C\  P6QP#See, e.g., Lander, Mark, and Geraldine Fabrikant, "Even Before Deregulation, Cable Rates Are on the Rise,"  {O' |$ The New York Times, April 12, 1996, at D1; "Cable TV Rates Are Climbing Without Curbs," The Wall Street  {O' |$x Journal, June 28, 1996; Glick, Eric, "Cable Operators Play Down Rate Increases," CableWorld, September 2, 1996 at 4. A more thorough analysis of the causes and results of these increases will be conducted as part of the next price survey report.  XH' IV.Survey Methodology  X ' A.` ` Sample  X 4 14.` ` The Survey was conducted between October 12 and December 15, 1995, and covers rates for programming services and equipment as of August 31, 1993, July 14, 1994, and January 1, 1995. The Survey sample consists of two groups: a targeted group of 290 competitive cable franchises (i.e., franchises in which the 1992 Cable Act definition of effective competition was met) and a randomly selected noncompetitive group of 700 cable franchises (i.e., those in which the statutory definition was not met) for a total sample size of 990 cable franchises. The competitive group was compiled using the 1993 cable rate  XK4survey,B K4 {O' |$ #C\  P6QP#эSee Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("The Benchmark Order"), MM Docket No.  yO|'92266, FCC 93177, 8 FCC Rcd 5361, Appendix E (1993).#x P7 XP#B which was supplemented by franchises in which the Commission subsequently ruled that the cable operator was subject to effective competition. The random group was selected from among the approximately 33,000 remaining cable franchises and represents approximately 2.1% of all cable franchises.  X415.` ` A total of 940 completed questionnaires were returned. After review of the returned questionnaires for completeness and accuracy of data, 756 were found to be suitable for analysis, 118 from the competitive group (which represented 214,454 subscribers as of January 1, 1995), and 638 from the noncompetitive group (which represented 2,473,872 subscribers as of January 1, 1995). The remaining 184 questionnaires were found to be unusable because they lacked significant rate information. For purposes of this report, and as required by statute, we compare data from the 118 surveys collected from the competitive group with the data from the 638 surveys collected from the noncompetitive group. For purposes of reporting on the cable industry as a whole, however, we relied on data from the random sample of 638 surveys of the noncompetitive group.  X416.` ` These 638 questionnaires cover approximately 2% of all cable franchises," ,-(-(ZZkL " serving approximately 2.5 million basic cable subscribers, or about 4.5% of all basic cable subscribers, as of January 1, 1995. We believe that these 638 surveys are a sound random sample of the cable industry even though competitive franchise data are excluded. This accurately represents the nation's franchise areas for two reasons: (1) in view of the ratio of competitive franchises in the nation to the total number of franchises (290 to 33,000), the random sample is likely to have included fewer than ten observations from the competitive group had they been included; and (2) since most competitive franchises are small in terms of number of subscribers, on a subscriberweighted basis, the effects of ten (or fewer) additional observations from the competitive group would have been minimal in a sample consisting of  X14more than 600 observations.  X ' B.` ` Variables  X 417.` ` For purposes of this report, five variables were selected to serve as the focus of analysis. These variables are: programming services, equipment, average monthly rates, average number of channels received, and average rate per channel. It should be noted that disaggregated data are available in the attachments to this survey. Programming services, for example, are disaggregated into basic service tier ("BST") and cable programming services tier ( CPST) services, and equipment is disaggregated into nonaddressable converters, addressable converters, and remotes. A brief discussion of each variable follows.  X418.` ` Programming Services. Programming services represents the average sum paid by subscribers each month for programming services such as the BST and CPSTs that may have been subject to the Commissions rate regulations, excluding CPSTs that are New Product Tiers ("NPTs") because their rates are unregulated. This variable is the combination of the BST and any CPSTs that were on a system in the franchise.  X419.` ` Equipment. Equipment represents the average sum paid by subscribers each month for three specific types of equipment: nonaddressable converters, addressable converters, and remote control units.  X7420.` ` Average Monthly Rate. The average monthly rate is the sum of the programming services and equipment variables and constitutes that portion of a subscribers monthly bill that may have been influenced by traditional rate regulation, except for installation costs. Fees for other cable services, such as for NPTs and premium, a la carte, and payperview channels were not included in this survey. The average monthly rate represents the recurring, monthly revenue earned per subscriber by a cable operator that may have been affected by traditional rate regulation.  X#421.` ` Average Number of Channels Received. Average number of channels received represents the average number of channels on regulated tiers (other than NPTs) that subscribers chose to receive. It was calculated using the same weighting methodology as the programming services and equipment variables. Thus, it is comparable to the programming services variable, in that it is adjusted to account for the fact that not all subscribers chose to"#' ,-(-(ZZ%L " receive all of a systems regulated channels.  X422.` ` Average Rate Per Channel. The average monthly rate was divided by the average number of regulated channels received (other than NPTs) to calculate an average monthly rate per channel which, in effect, serves as a proxy for a quality adjustment. Even though the rate per channel is not a perfect measure of consumer value, it does permit a comparison of per channel rates across franchises and over time on a comparable basis. This calculation was performed for each franchise and the results were weighted by the number of subscribers. It is interesting to note that the average number of channels offered to subscribers grew in each time period and for each group surveyed and that, for every category and time period, the average monthly rate per channel stayed the same or dropped, dramatically in some cases.  X ' C.` ` Weighting of Variables  X 423.` ` Weighting by the Number of Subscribers and the Limitation of Weighted  X4Averages. Data for each franchises programming services and equipment variables were calculated by weighting the rate charged for each tier of service, or type of equipment, by the number of subscribers receiving that specific category of service. This method was followed because not all consumers subscribed to all of a cable operators regulated tiers or used all, or, in some cases, any, of the possible equipment types offered by cable operators. Thus, the average prices reported in this survey in all cases reflect averages calculated across all  X4subscribers who received that particular category of service.t 4 yO' |$ #C\  P6QP#эAlthough this weighting scheme produces accurate industrywide averages, it understates what a subscriber who  |$ purchased all services (e.g., basic, CPS, an addressable converter, and a remote) would have paid. A subscriber  |$ receiving these four services on August 31, 1993 would have paid $26.80. On July 14, 1994, this subscriber would  |$ have paid $25.33, a drop of 5.5%. On January 1, 1995, this subscriber would have paid $25.65, an increase from July 1994 of 1.0%.t  X' V.Survey Results  X' A. Competitive and Noncompetitive Franchises  X|424.` ` As mentioned above, the survey sample consists of two groups: a targeted group of competitive franchises and a random sample of noncompetitive franchises. This method was chosen because the 1992 Cable Act requires that the Commission report on both  X74the competitive and noncompetitive segments of the industry. 7x4 yO`#'#C\  P6QP#эCommunications Act, 623 (k), 47 U.S.C. 543(k). The competitive segment is fairly small, consisting of 290 franchises, whereas the total universe of cable franchises consists of approximately 33,000 franchises. In order to ensure the collection of statistically meaningful data on both groups, we sampled 100% of the smaller competitive group, and conducted a random sample of the larger noncompetitive group. Because of the small size of"  ,-(-(ZZkL " the competitive group, relying on the random sample for this group would have resulted in too few observations to be meaningful.  X425.` ` Comparisons of average monthly rates for programming and equipment for the competitive and noncompetitive groups of franchises are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Monthly rates for the noncompetitive group shown in Table 2 (which includes both regulated and  Xv4unregulated franchises) declined by 2.9% between August 1993 and July 1994.'v4 yO' |$! #C\  P6QP#эThe prices reported in this document have not been adjusted for inflation and so are in nominal dollars. During the time period from August 1993 to July 1994, the overall CPI increased by 2.2%.' By contrast, Table 3 shows that average monthly rates for the competitive group (which is made up entirely of unregulated franchises) increased by 2.6% over this same time period. This increase is due to a 3.2% increase in programming service rates which was partially offset by a decrease in equipment rates. Also, between August 1993 and July 1994, per channel rates for the noncompetitive group decreased by 5.2%, while per channel rates for the competitive  X 4group decreased by only 1.7%.n  4 yO' |$ #C\  P6QP#эIn all tables in this report, the percentages are calculated from unrounded data. Some data, therefore, show  |$k small percentage changes from year to year even though the underlying numbers appear to remain the same. For  |$ instance, Table 3 presents an average monthly rate per channel of $0.49 for both August 1993 and for July 1994,  yO'whereas the percentage change, which is calculated from unrounded data, is shown as 1.7%.#x P7 XP#n In addition, the average number of channels received increased in each time period and for both groups. r !ddx  Addx 8 r   ! "y" "Table 2:a  "yR" " Noncompetitive Regulated and Unregulated Franchisesa 8 "R"   yO!'#C\  P6QP#ServiceE"58/31/93 (A)"7/14/94 G(B)".% Change @A&B"b1/1/95 (C)"|% Change C B&C P  "E"  Programming ServicesE"N$20.89E"$20.42E"Aԩ2.2%E"R$20.53E"O 0.5%P P  "EE"  EquipmentQE"w$1.34QE"$1.19QE">ԩ11.2%QE"{$1.21QE"O 1.7%P P  "EE"  Average Monthly RateE"N$22.23E"$21.61E"Aԩ2.7%E"R$21.74E"O 0.6%P P Q "EE"  Average Channels ReceivedE"38.5E"%39.6E"C2.9%E"40.2E"O 1.5%P P  "EE"  Average Monthly Rate Per ChannelAE"w$0.58AE"$0.55AE"Aԩ5.2%AE"{$0.54AE"3 ԩ1.1%P    "El"  Subscribersl"2,424,076l"j2,487,193l"Pvl"2,473,872l"   Al X4#Xj\  P6G; DXP# "7 ,-(-(ZZS"Ԍ r Addx 8  addx 8 r   A "y" " Xz'#X\  P6G;qP##Xj\  P6G; DXP#Table 3:a "yR" "E Competitive Unregulated Franchisesa c "R"   yOL'#X\  P6G;qP##C\  P6QP#ServiceE"58/31/93 (A)"7/14/94 G(B)".% Change @A&B"b1/1/95 (C)"|% Change C B&C P  "E"  Programming Services,E"N$19.81,E"$20.44,E"C3.2%,E"R$20.62,E"O 0.9%P P  "EE"  Equipment| E"w$0.70| E"$0.60| E">ԩ14.3%| E"{$0.63| E"O 5.0%P P , "EE"  Average Monthly Rate E"N$20.51 E"$21.04 E"C2.6% E"R$21.25 E"O 1.0%P P |  "EE"  Average Channels Received E"41.5 E"%43.3 E"C4.3% E"46.4 E"O 7.2%P P   "EE"  Average Monthly Rate Per Channell E"w$0.49l E"$0.49l E"Aԩ1.7%l E"{$0.46l E"3 ԩ5.9%P     "El"  Subscribersl"$198,801l"208,314l"Pvl"(214,454l"   l l X4#Xj\  P6G; DXP#  X4 U 1 xx126.` ` The competitive group experienced a 1.0% increase in total monthly rates during the period from July 1994 to January 1995. For the noncompetitive group, total  X4monthly rates increased at a slightly slower rate, by 0.6% during the same period.F yO '#C\  P6QP#эFor the period between July 1994 and January 1995, the overall CPI increased by 1.4%. This increase was due to slightly higher programming service rates by both regulated and unregulated franchises plus an increase in equipment rates by the unregulated franchises (see Tables 4 and 5). Both competitive and noncompetitive groups experienced a reduction in perchannel rates between July 1994 and January 1995. Thus, the increase in programming services rates during the period was due to an increased number of channels included in programming service offerings.  X' B.` ` Regulated and Unregulated Franchises from the Noncompetitive Group  X427.` ` The Survey included questions intended to identify the respondents regulatory  X4status.XXF yO' |$ #C\  P6QP#эIt should be noted that all of the operators in the competitive group were unregulated since, by definition, they  |$D met the criteria for effective competition provided in the 1992 Cable Act. This group, however, is not included in  yOC!'the calculations shown in Table 5 since doing so would bias the random sample.#x P7 XP# Using this information, we determined that, in August 1993, 43 of the franchises in the noncompetitive group were regulated. The remaining franchises in that group were unregulated at that time. As of July 14, 1994, after the initial round of rate regulation, the number of regulated franchises in the noncompetitive group climbed to 197. On a persubscriber basis, this amounts to over twothirds of the total number of subscribers in the random sample. " ! x,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ X428.` ` For most cable operators subject to rate regulation, the Commission's  X4"benchmark" method of rate regulation provided for a 17% rate rollback.X F yOb' |$& #C\  P6QP#эThe benchmark regulatory approach required operators of noncompetitive cable systems subject to rate  |$. regulation (not all operators of noncompetitive systems are subject to rate regulation) to reduce their rates to a level  |$ that was consistent with comparable rates found in the competitive marketplace. Specifically, the Commission  |$. required a 17% rate rollback in two stages for those systems that were subject to rate regulation. Certain exceptions  |$ were permitted to provide "transition relief" for small systems and for those found to be "low price" systems, and  |$ to those systems choosing the "cost of service" method of rate regulation. Cable operators not subject to rate  |$ regulation were not required to reduce rates. Unregulated operators could become subject to rate regulation on the  |$! BST if the relevant local franchising authority became certified to regulate BST rates and on the CPST if a consumer  |$ filed a complaint with the Commission. It is believed that rate regulation acted as a restraint on the prices charged  |$ by cable operators not subject to rate regulation since, with respect to BST rates, the formerly unregulated operator  |$o would be subject to refund liability for the difference between actual rates and what regulated rates would have been  |$ in the year preceding the implementation date of a local order. The prospect of rate regulation also restrained CPST  |$ rates since rate increases could provoke rate complaints. Thus, rate regulation affected more operators than the group that was subject to the regulation.X Prior to the rate rollback, a rate freeze had been in effect, and systems were not permitted to adjust rates for the general effects of inflation on their costs during the period of the freeze. In order to allow a "catch up" with the effects of general inflation, the Commission permitted those systems subject to the rollback to increase their rates by 3% as an adjustment to the prior  Xv4year's inflation. The net effect was a 14.5% rate rollback. v F yO' |$ #C\  P6QP#эTo illustrate, if we assume a starting index point of 100; a 17% reduction from 100 results in an index value  |$D of 83; a 3% increase on a base of 83 would result in an index value of 85.5; 85.5 is 14.5% below the starting point  |$ of 100. The average monthly rate per channel for noncompetitive systems subject to rate regulation is shown in Table 4 below.  XH429.` ` As shown in Table 4, the average perchannel rate for regulated franchises fell from $0.62 in August 1993 to $0.53 in July 1994, a drop of 14.5%. During the same time period, as shown in Table 5, operators in unregulated franchises experienced an average perchannel price increase of 1.8%, from $0.56 to $0.57 per channel, per month. Between July 1994 and January 1995, the average monthly perchannel rate in regulated franchises remained steady at $0.53 per channel while the rate in unregulated franchises decreased slightly to $0.56 per channel. " h,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ r addx 8  ddx 8 r   l  "y" " X'#X\  P6G;qP##Xj\  P6G; DXP#Table 4:a "yR" "@ Noncompetitive Regulated Franchisesa z "R"   yOc'#X\  P6G;qP##C\  P6QP#Service+E"58/31/93 (A)"7/14/94 G(B)".% Change @A&B"b1/1/95 (C)"|% Change C B&C P  "E"  Programming ServicesCE"N$20.41CE"$20.34CE"Aԩ0.3%CE"R$20.45CE"O 0.5%P P  "EE"  EquipmentE"w$1.28E"$1.14E">ԩ10.9%E"{$1.14E"O 0.0%P P C "EE"  Average Monthly Rate E"N$21.69 E"$21.48 E"Aԩ1.0% E"R$21.59 E"O 0.5%P P  "EE"  Average Channels Received3 E"34.83 E"%40.33 E"@15.8%3 E"40.63 E"O 0.7%P P   "EE"  Average Monthly Rate Per Channel E"w$0.62 E"$0.53 E">ԩ14.5% E"{$0.53 E"O 0.0%P   3  "El"  Subscribersl"$580,441l"j1,698,188l"Pvl"1,651,960l"    l X4#Xj\  P6G; DXP# r ddx 8  ddx 8 r     "y" " X'#X\  P6G;qP##Xj\  P6G; DXP#Table 5:a "yR" "8% Noncompetitive Unregulated Franchisesa } "R"   yOf'#X\  P6G;qP##C\  P6QP#Service.E"58/31/93 (A)"7/14/94 G(B)".% Change @A&B"b1/1/95 (C)"|% Change C B&C P  "E"  Programming ServicesFE"N$21.04FE"$20.59FE"Aԩ2.1%FE"R$20.68FE"O 0.4%P P  "EE"  EquipmentE"w$1.36E"$1.29E"Aԩ5.1%E"{$1.34E"O 3.9%P P F "EE"  Average Monthly RateE"N$22.40E"$21.88E"Aԩ2.3%E"R$22.02E"O 0.6%P P  "EE"  Average Channels Received6E"39.76E"%38.36E"Aԩ3.5%6E"39.36E"O 2.6%P P  "EE"  Average Monthly Rate Per ChannelE"w$0.56E"$0.57E"C1.8%E"{$0.56E"3 ԩ1.7%P   6 "El"  Subscribersl"1,844,028l"789,115l"Pvl"(822,264l"   l X4#Xj\  P6G; DXP#  X' #XP\  P6Q DXP# VI.Conclusion  X430.` ` In the Survey, three conclusions stand out:  X 4XX` ` First, the Survey found that the price differential between the competitive and noncompetitive groups was significant prior to the implementation of rate regulation under the 1992 Cable Act, and that this differential narrowed substantially after rate regulation was instituted. These findings indicate that the intent of the 1992 Cable Act's rate regulation, to simulate the effects of a competitive marketplace, was met. (#`  X&4XX` ` Second, the Survey found that the monthly charge for equipment also dropped"&,-(-(ZZF%~" significantly. This decline was due to the Commission's requirement that equipment and services be unbundled and that equipment should be provided at cost plus a reasonable return. As an example, the monthly rate charged for remotes fell from $1.32, on average, in August 1993, to $0.26 in July 1994. (#`  X4XX` ` Third, on a per channel basis, cable rates dropped substantially between August 1993 and July 1994. Over this period, the average monthly rate per channel charged in franchise areas subject to rate regulation dropped by 14.5%, from $0.62 per channel to $0.53 per channel.(#`  X 431. ` ` These findings indicate that over the timeperiod covered by the Survey, consumers benefited not only from lower rates, but also from more economical service, as indicated by a lower rate per channel.   X ' VII.  ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  Xb432. It is ORDERED that this Report is issued pursuant to authority contained in Section 623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534(k). ` `  Ghh}FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Ghh}William F. Caton ` `  Ghh}Acting Secretary ",-(-(ZZZ~"   ,h #XP\  P6Q DXP#""vD r ddx 8  XddxXH ^kr ҂ ""vD  r ddx 8  XddxXH r  ""vD    ""  Xa'/#y  Attachment A -1 Monthly Basic Services Averaged Across Subscribers Receiving Basic  X3'bNoncompetitive Group   "y" ServiceyOd08/31/93yX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:@]6.5% _r22.6  _^!3.9%q q ' "__" Basic Price Per Channel _k'$0.65  _F$0.54  _2-17.0% _$0.54  _ !-1.2%q Z   "_<" Subscribersz _T 2,424,076 z _+2,487,193 Kc <]c <2,473,872 c <."Z q  "<_" qc  "_"  XL'/#w Attachment A -2 \Basic Price Per Channel   Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  X'bNoncompetitive Group   "y" < DRegulatory StatusjyOd08/31/93jy07/14/94jy C% Changejy{K01/01/95jy% Change   "yy" Unregulatedyk'$0.66 yF$0.55 y2-16.7%y$0.53 y !-3.1% Z j "y<" Subscribersl_T 1,909,042 l_+1,183,489 KU<]U<1,237,176 U<."Z q  "<_" Regulated_k'$0.63 _F$0.53 _2-14.8%_$0.54 _^!0.4%q j  U "_I" SubscribersGl^_468,257 Gl+1,272,064 K0I]0I1,199,708 0I.""N,-(-(ZZd"j   "I"  Xx'/#w Attachment A -3 \Basic Price Per Channel \Grouped By System Size  X3'bNoncompetitive Group Đ/#  "y" Size of SystemyOd08/31/93y07/14/94y C% Changey{K01/01/95y% Change z  "yV" No More Than 15,000 Subscribers Vk'$0.88  VF$0.65  V2-26.0% V$0.64  V !-1.6%z q  "V_" Subscribers _^_411,523  _~427,604  _] _F433,798  _."q q   "__" Over 15,000 Subscribers _k'$0.61  _F$0.52  _2-14.5% _$0.51  _ !-1.3%q Z   "_<" Subscribersc _T 1,965,776 c _+2,027,949 KL<]L<2,003,086 L<."Z Z  "<<" /# /#ZL "<"  X'/#w Attachment A -4 TVNumber of Basic Channels   Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  X'bNoncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Regulatory StatuslOd08/31/93l07/14/94l C% Changel{K01/01/95l% Change  a "R" UnregulatedRr20.2 R23.1 R714.7%Rr23.4 R^!1.0%aq l "R_" Subscribers>_T 1,796,855 >_~759,843 >_]>_F787,518 >_."q q  "__" Regulated_r20.8 _21.0 _>]0.7%_r22.1 _^!5.3%q Z > "_<" Subscribers _^_468,257  _+1,695,710 K <] <1,649,356  <."Z  "<j" /# /# /# /# /# /# /# /#"$,-(-(ZZ #}"  "j"  Xx'/#w Attachment A -5 Q4Number of Basic Channels \Grouped By System Size  X3'bNoncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Size of SystemOd08/31/9307/14/94 C% Change{K01/01/95% Change  J "/" No More Than 15,000 Subscribers /r17.4  /19.4  /711.2% /r19.7  / >!1.6%Jq  "/_" Subscribers _^_411,523  _~427,604  _] _F433,798  _+"q q   "__" Over 15,000 Subscribers _r20.9  _22.1  _>]5.6% _r23.1  _ >!4.4%q Z   "_<" Subscribersc _T 1,965,776 c _+2,027,949 KL<]L<2,003,086 L<+"Z   "<" /#  X'/#w Attachment A -6 WTotal Monthly Basic Rate   Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  Xx'bNoncompetitive Group Đ/#  L "" Regulatory Status Od08/31/93 07/14/94  C% Change {K01/01/95 % Change  aJ "R" UnregulatedlRd$11.46 lR$11.64 lR>]1.5%lR$11.67 lR >!0.2%aZ   "R<" Subscribers_T 1,909,042 _+1,183,489 K<]<1,237,176 <+"Z q l "<_" Regulated7_d$13.80 7_$10.89 7_2-21.1%7_$11.40 7_ >!4.8%q j   "_I" Subscribersl^_468,357 l+1,272,064 KI]I1,199,708 I+"j  a7 "IR" /#",-(-(ZZ"aa "RR" a "R"  X'/#w Attachment A -7 WTotal Monthly Basic Rate \Grouped By System Size  X'bNoncompetitive Group Đ/#  a "" Size of System'Od08/31/93'07/14/94' C% Change'{K01/01/95'% Change  Jf "/" No More Than 15,000 Subscribersq /d$12.92 q /$12.06 q /9-6.6%q /$12.07 q / >!0.1%Jq ' "/_" Subscribers _^_411,523  _~427,604  _] _F433,798  _+"q q q  "__" Over 15,000 SubscribersS _d$11.72 S _$11.08 S _9-5.4%S _$11.42 S _ >!3.1%q j    "_I" SubscriberslT 1,965,776 l+2,027,949 KI]I2,003,086 I+"j  .S I ",-(-(ZZ "  ,h  #X\  P6G;qP##XP\  P6Q DXP# r XddxXH   ddx Kr j  S  ""  Xx'/#v Attachment B -1  Xa'8 Monthly CPS Services Averaged Across Subscribers Receiving CPS  XJ'_Noncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Service4< 08/31/93T  d l"$'t)+$.|02,5794<>@RI $11.03 >R$11.59 >RI5%>R$11.60 >R^!0.1%aZ  "R<" Number of CPS Channels  <Wc22.4  <22.8  <>]1.6% <r22.7  < !-0.4%Z q > "<_" CPS Price Per Channel _P $0.51  _J$0.54  _>]6.0% _$0.54  _^!0.1%q Z   "_<" Subscribersz _9 1,976,700 z _1,971,786 z _]z _1,926,204 c <."Z   "<" /#  X'v Attachment B -2  X'^ C PS Price Per Channel  Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  X'_Noncompetitive Group Đ/#  c  "" T "4< 08/31/93"07/14/94" E% Change"{K01/01/95"% Change  aa "R" UnregulatedRP $0.49 RJ$0.56 R713.5%R$0.54 R !-3.1%aq " "R_" Subscribers_9 1,640,302 _930,364 _]_F955,388 _."q q  "__" Regulatede_P $0.58 e_J$0.52 e_2-10.3%e_$0.54 e_^!3.3%q    "_l" SubscriberslC7 311,790 l1,028,741 l]lF955,528 l."",-(-(ZZ"  e "l" /#  Xa'/#v Attachment B -3 ^CPS Price Per Channel YGrouped By System Size  X'_Noncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Size of System4< 08/31/9307/14/94 E% Change{K01/01/95% Change  J "/"  X'' No More Than 15,000  X 'Subscribers  /P $0.56  /J$0.64  /714.8% /$0.63  / !-1.7%Jq  "/_"  X ' Subscribers j _C7 325,612 j _314,325 j _]j _F320,345 j _."q q   "__"  X ' Over 15,000 Subscribers  _P $0.50  _J$0.52  _>]4.4% _$0.52  _^!0.4%q j  j  "_I"  Xc ' Subscribers \l9 1,626,480 \l1,644,780 \l]\l1,590,571 EI."j    "I"  X'/#v Attachment B -4 VXNumber of CPS Channels  Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period _Noncompetitive Group  Xa4 /#  E "" Regulatory Status 4< 08/31/93 07/14/94  E% Change {K01/01/95 % Change  aJ "R" UnregulatedlRWc23.3 lR20.3 lR2-12.6%lRr21.4 lR^!5.1%aq   "R_" Subscribers_9 1,595,979 _564,392 _]_F585,234 _."q q l "__"  Xe'RegulatedN_Wc19.5 N_23.7 N_721.6%N_r23.2 N_ !-2.2%q j   "_I" SubscriberslC7 431,957 l1,394,713 l]l1,325,682 I."",-(-(ZZq"j  N "I" /#  Xa4/#   XJ'/#v Attachment B -5 VXNumber of CPS Channels YGrouped By System Size  X'_Noncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Size of System4< 08/31/9307/14/94 E% Change{K01/01/95% Change  J "/" 1x!u#a&(*I-/1Q469Y;= @aBDGiIKNqPR!UyW)1 N 9AI Q#%(Y*, /a136i8:=q?No More Than 15,000 Subscribers /Wc18.7  /19.4  />]3.4% /r19.5  /^!0.4%Jq  "/_" SubscribersS _C7 325,612 S _314,325 S _]S _F320,345 S _."q q   "__" Over 15,000 Subscribers _Wc23.2  _23.4  _>]0.9% _r23.3  _ !-0.4%q Z S  "_<" Subscribers5_9 1,626,480 5_1,644,780 5_]5_1,590,571 <."Z   "<" /#  X'/#v Attachment B -6 YTotal Monthly CPS Rate  Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  XJ'_Noncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Regulatory Status4< 08/31/9307/14/94 E% Change{K01/01/95% Change  a "R" Unregulated>RI $11.22 >R$11.26 >R>]0.4%>R$11.39 >R^!1.2%aq  "R_" Subscribers_9 1,595,979 _564,392 _]_F585,234 _."q q > "__" Regulated _I $10.11  _$11.68  _715.6% _$11.65  _ !-0.3%q j   "_I" SubscriberslC7 311,790 l1,394,713 l]l1,325,682 I."j  a  "IR" /#",-(-(ZZg"a "R" /#  Xa'/#v Attachment B -7 YTotal Monthly CPS Rate YGrouped By System Size  X'_Noncompetitive Group Đ/#   "" Size of System4< 08/31/9307/14/94 E% Change{K01/01/95% Change  J "/" No More Than 15,000 Subscribers /I $10.37  /$11.37  />]9.7% /$11.54  /^!1.5%Jq  "/_" Subscribersj _C7 325,612 j _314,325 j _]j _F320,345 j _."q q   "__" Over 15,000 Subscribers _I $11.15  _$11.59  _>]4.0% _$11.58  _ !-0.1%q j  j  "_I" Subscribers\l9 1,626,480 \l1,644,780 \l]\l1,590,571 EI."j  * I  yO.'#K\  P@QqP# eef",-(-(ZZ0 "  yO'eef   @vuu  X88   hh #XP\  P6Q DXP# r  ddx K hddx. Fr j    ""  X@'=#v Attachment C -1 eiMonthly Equipment Rates Averaged Across Subscribers Receiving Each Equipment Type  X']Noncompetitive Group Đ=#   "" ServiceOh08/31/9307/14/94$m% Change201/01/95% Change  a "R" Non Addressable ConvertersRk+$1.58 Rq$1.27 RXu-20%R$1.29 R!1.4%aq  "R_" Subscribersw _^c375,048 w _472,790 w _x'w _-476,656 w _<#q q  "__" Addressable Converters _k+$2.46  _q$2.17  _M-11.9% _$2.20  _!1.4%q Z w  "_<" SubscribersY _^c701,614 Y _1,008,647 Y _x'Y _>1,090,45S3 B <<#Z q   "<_" Remotes_k+$1.32 _q$0.26 _M-80.3%_$0.25 _!-4.0%q q B  "__" Subscribers$_^c723,033 $_881,091 $_x'$_-969,044 $_<#q  "_" =#  X'=#v Attachment C -2 } Total Monthly Non-Addressable Converter Rate  Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  XP']Noncompetitive Group Đ=#  $ "" Regulatory StatusOh08/31/9307/14/94$m% Change201/01/95% Change  a" "R" UnregulatedDRk+$1.51 DRq$1.14 DRM-24.3%DR$1.17 DR!2.0%aq  "R_" Subscribers_^c232,008 _175,252 _x'_-174,866 _<#q q D "__" Regulated&_k+$1.74 &_q$1.35 &_M-22.4%&_$1.37 &_!1.1%q    "_l" Subscribersl^c136,474 l290,900 lx'l-294,688 l<#",-(-(ZZ8"  & "l" =#  Xa'=#v Attachment C -3 } Total Monthly Non-Addressable Converter Rate YGrouped By System Size  X']Noncompetitive Group Đ=#   "" Size of SystemOh08/31/9307/14/94$m% Change201/01/95% Change  J "/" No More Than 15,000 Subscribers /k+$1.75  /q$1.21  /M-31.2% /$1.22  /!1.4%Jq  "/_" Subscribersj _e50,391 j _ 67,668 j _x'j _72,314 j _<#q q   "__" Over 15,000 Subscribers _k+$1.57  _q$1.28  _M-18.2% _$1.30  _!1.5%q   j  "_l" Subscribers\l^c318,091 \l398,484 \lx'\l-397,240 \l<#    "l" =#  X'=# vAttachment C -4 P Total Monthly Addressable Converter Rate  Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period  Xa']Noncompetitive Group Đ=#  \ "" Regulatory StatusOh08/31/9307/14/94$m% Change201/01/95% Change  a3 "R" UnregulatedURk+$2.52 URq$2.29 URTC-9.4%UR$2.35 UR!2.6%aq  "R_" Subscribers_^c557,707 _491,568 _x'_-514,517 _<#q q U "__" Regulated7_k+$2.23 7_q$2.05 7_TC-8.0%7_$2.06 7_!0.5%q    "_l" Subscribersl^c129,921 l502,286 lx'l-560,880 l<#" +&&N"  7 "l" =#  Xa4   XJ'v Attachment C -5 P Total Monthly Addressable Converter Rate YGrouped By System Size  X']Noncompetitive Group Đ=#   "" Size of SystemOh08/31/9307/14/94$m% Change201/01/95% Change  J "/" No More Than 15,000 Subscribers /k+$2.73  /$1.75 /Mԩ36.0% /8$1.78 /!2.3%Jq  "/_" SubscribersS _e33,253 S _ 83,603 S _x'S _89,769 S _<#q Z   "_<" Over 15,000 Subscribers <`on$2.46<?$2.21<Mԩ10.2%<|8$2.23<!1.3%Z q S  "<_" Subscribers_b654,375_910,251_x'_p985,628_<#q  "_" =#  X'=#v Attachment C -6 K Total Monthly Remote Rate  Grouped By Regulatory Status In Each Period _Noncompetitive Group X3'8b#    "" 2 Oh08/31/9307/14/94$m% Change201/01/95% Change  a "R" Unregulated>Rk+$1.57 >Rq$0.30 >RM-81.0%>R$0.28 >R!-4.8%aq  "R_" Subscribers_^c571,391 _440,468 _x'_-458,646 _<#q q > "__" Regulated _k+$0.30  _q$0.18  _M-40.7% _$0.18  _!3.1%q    "_l" Subscribersl^c139,841 l427,502 lx'l-496,115 l<#" +&&+"     "l "  Xx'=#      X'v Attachment C -7 K Total Monthly Remote Rate YGrouped By System Size  X']Noncompetitive Group Đ=#    " " Size of SystemS Oh08/31/93S 07/14/94S $m% ChangeS 201/01/95S % Change  J  "/" No More Than 15,000 Subscribers /k+$1.85  /q$0.56  /M-69.6% /$0.44  /M!-21.8%Jq S  "/_" Subscribers_e79,375 _ 96,493 _x'_-103,783 _<#q q   "__" Over 15,000 Subscribers_k+$1.25 _q$0.20 _M-84.3%_$0.20 _!4.0%q    "_" Subscribers ^c631,857  771,477  x' -850,978  <#  + yO '#K\  P@QqP#