*Pages 1--3 from Microsoft Word - 2612.doc*
Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 1655
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D. C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc. ) CUID No. PA1703 (Colwyn)
)
Complaint Regarding )
Cable Programming Services Tier Rates )
and Petition for Reconsideration )
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
AND RATE ORDER
Adopted: July 25, 2000 Released: July 26, 2000
By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:
1. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration (" Petition") filed by the above-referenced
operator (" Operator") of our Order, DA 95- 1229 (" Prior Order") 1 which granted a complaint
filed against the rate charged by Operator for its cable programming services tier (" CPST") in the
community referenced above. On July 12, 1995, Operator filed its Petition along with a petition for stay of
our Prior Order (" Stay"), which was granted by our Order, DA 95- 1795. 2 On November 17, 1998,
Operator filed a supplement to its Petition (" Supplement") and in response to a Cable Services Bureau
(" Bureau") staff request, Operator filed additional supplemental information on September 1, 1999. 3 In our
Prior Order, we stated that our findings "do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for
CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations." 4 In this Order, we grant Operator's
Petition in part, modify our Prior Order and vacate the Stay as moot. We also address the reasonableness
of Operator's CPST rates in effect after May 14, 1994.
2. Under the Communications Act, 5 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 Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992 6 (" 1992 Cable Act") required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the
filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber or local franchising authority (" LFA"). The
1 See In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., DA 95- 1229, 10 FCC Rcd 6501 (1995).
2 See In the Matter of Battlefield Cable TV Co., et al., DA 95- 1795, 10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995).
3 See letter dated September 1, 1999 to the Cable Services Bureau from Seth A. Davidson, counsel for Operator.
4 Prior Order at n. 1.
5 Communications Act, Section 623( c), as amended, 47 U. S. C. §543( c) (1996).
6 Pub. L. No. 102- 385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).
1
Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 1655
2
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (" 1996 Act") 7 and our rules implementing the legislation (" Interim
Rules"), 8 required that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission by an LFA that has
received more than one subscriber complaint. 9 The filing of a complete and timely complaint triggers an
obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. 10 The Operator has the burden
of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are reasonable. 11 If the Commission finds a rate to
be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 12
3. Operators must use the FCC Form 393 to justify rates using a benchmark methodology
prior to May 15, 1994. Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify rates for the period
beginning May 15, 1994. 13 Cable operators may also justify quarterly rate increases based on the addition
and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs and inflation, by filing FCC Form 1210. 14
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. 15 Any incurred cost that is not projected may be
accrued with interest and added to rates at a later time. 16
4. In its Petition and in supplemental information, Operator points out two clerical errors in
the FCC Form 393 information which the Bureau reviewed for our Prior Order. Specifically, Operator
alleges that the number of channels on the CPST was 26 rather than 23, increasing Operator’s maximum
permitted rate (" MPR") to $11.37, rather than the CPST MPR of $10.76 calculated in our Prior Order. 17
Secondly, Operator provided information that the franchise fee charged by the LFA during the pertinent
time period was five percent rather than three percent, reducing the actual CPST rate charged to $10.79
rather than $11.02, 18 when franchise fees are excluded. We conclude that Operator provided sufficient
information concerning the correct channel count and franchise fee percentage to warrant the modification
7 Pub. L. No. 104- 104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
8 See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937
(1996).
9 See Communications Act, Section 623( c), as amended, 47 U. S. C. Section 543( c) (1996).
10 See Section 76.956 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. §76.956.
11 Id.
12 See Section 76.957 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 76.957.
13 See Section 76. 922 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 76.922.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Operator originally argued in its Petition that the CPST channel count was 24. In its Supplement, Operator
argued that the real CPST channel count was 26.
18 Operator’s original FCC Form 393 stated the actual CPST rate as $11.02, exclusive of franchise fees.
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 1655
3
of our Prior Order. Therefore, we will grant Operator’s Petition in part. Because Operator’s actual CPST
rate of $10.79, effective February 18, 1994 19 through May 14, 1994, does not exceed its MPR of $11.37,
we find Operator’s actual CPST rate of $10.79, effective February 18, 1994 through May 14, 1994, to be
reasonable. We will modify our Prior Order to the extent indicated herein and vacate the Stay as moot. We
decline to address any additional issues raised in Operator’s Petition.
5. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200, we find Operator’s actual CPST rate of
$10.79, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 20
6. 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 GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT
INDICATED HEREIN.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.32l and 1.106 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0.321 and 1.106, that In the Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., DA 95- 1229, 10
FCC Rcd 6501 (1995), IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47
C. F. R. § 0.321, that the stay of DA 95- 1229, granted in the Matter of Battlefield Cable TV Co., et al., DA
95- 1795, 10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995), IS VACATED.
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47
C. F. R. § 0.321, that the CPST rate of $10.79, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above,
effective February 18, 1994 through May 14, 1994, IS REASONABLE.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47
C. F. R. § 0.321, that the CPST rate of $10.79, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above,
effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47
C. F. R. § 0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the CPST rate charged by Operator in the
community referenced above IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William H. Johnson
Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau
19 The first valid complaint against Operator’s CPST rate was filed with the Commission on February 18, 1994.
20 These findings are based solely on the representations of Operator. Should information come to our attention
that these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take any appropriate action. This
Order is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or
argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.
3