******************************************************** 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: ) ) VALLEY CABLE TV, INC. ) File No. CSB-A-0191 ) Appeal of Local Rate Order to Set Basic) Equipment Rates in the City of Alice, Texas) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 18, 1998 Released: March 23, 1998 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Pursuant to Section 76.944(b) of the Commission's rules, Valley Cable TV, Inc. ("Valley Cable"), a franchised cable operator serving the City of Alice, Texas ("City"), has filed an Appeal from a local rate order ("Local Rate Order") issued by the City as the local franchising authority ("LFA"). The issue is whether the City enacted a rate order that properly explained its rejection of Valley Cable's proposed rates. The City has not filed an opposition to Valley Cable's Appeal. 2. Under the Communications Act, the Commission reviews appeals of rate orders issued by local cable franchising authorities ("LFA"). When considering appeals, the Commission will not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the LFA's decision as long as it did not act unreasonably in applying Commission regulations. If the Commission reverses an LFA's decision, it will not substitute its own judgment, but will remand the case to the franchising authority with instructions to resolve it consistent with the decision. II. DISCUSSION 3. In a one-page resolution dated May 22, 1995, the City rejected Valley Cable's request to increase equipment and installation rates. Valley Cable argues that the City violated Commission regulations by not adequately explaining its rejection. Valley Cable asks the Commission to reject the City's rate order, remand this case to the City, and allow its proposed rates to take effect. 4. The City failed to issue a proper rate order. When an LFA rejects an operator's proposed rates, it must issue a written decision affirmatively demonstrating why the rates are unreasonable. A written order protects the due process rights of the cable operator by explaining why the rate was disapproved and providing a basis to refile the rates or appeal the decision to the Commission. The Commission has previously rejected local rate orders that summarily or vaguely rejected an operator's proposed rates. Although the City states that it reviewed Valley Cable's rates and that interested parties had an opportunity to participate in the review, the City does not provide any reason for the rejection. We will remand this case to the City for resolution consistent with the terms of this decision. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Valley Cable's Appeal IS GRANTED and this case IS REMANDED to the City for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 6. This action is taken by the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR  0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John E. Logan Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau