10 FCC Red No. 16 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1607
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of: \
TCriKR OF HOUSTON
Appeal of Local Rate Order 
of City of 
League City, Texas
ORDER
Adopted: July 18,1995; Released: July 24,1995
By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On May 15. 1995, TCI TKR of Houston d/b/a/ TCI 
Cablevision of Houston ("TCI-H"), filed with the Commis 
sion an appeal ("Appeal") of the local rate order ("local 
order") adopted by the City of League City, Texas (the 
"City") on April 13, 1995.' In its local order, the City 
denied a proposed rate increase sought by TCI-H. In its 
Appeal, TCI-H argues that the City failed to provide a 
written decision which comports with Commission require 
ments.
2. Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising 
authorities may be appealed to the Commission.2 In ruling 
on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will not 
conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the 
franchising authority's decision as long as there is a reason 
able basis for that decision.3 The Commission will reverse a 
franchising authority's decision only if it is determined that 
the franchising authority acted unreasonably in applying 
the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.4 If 
the Commission reverses a franchising authority's decision, 
it will not substitute its own decision, but instead will
remand the issue to the franchising authority with instruc 
tions to resolve the case consistent with the Commission's 
decision on appeal.5
II. DISCUSSION
3. The City, by resolution dated April 13, 1995, denied a 
proposed rate increase sought by TCI-H in its FCC Form 
1210 filing.6 The City's written decision consists of a one- 
page document that merely states that the City denies 
TCI-H's proposed rate increase. The local order does not 
state why the City found TCI-H's proposed rates to be 
unreasonable. In rate regulation proceedings, the cable op 
erator bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of all 
of its proposed regulated rates.7 The local franchising au 
thority, however, must provide the cable operator with an 
opportunity to participate in the rate review proceedings 
and to provide documentation supporting its proposed 
rates.8 While a local franchising authority is free to seek the 
assistance of a consultant to review and verify the informa 
tion presented in an operator's rate justification filings, 
nothing in our rules requires the local franchising 
authorities to do so. Similarly nothing in our rules requires 
a local franchising authority to provide cable operators 
with reports and calculations that it may have relied upon 
in rendering its rate decision. If the local franchising au 
thority determines that the operator's proposed rate exceeds 
the maximum permitted level as defined by the Commis 
sion's rate standards, it may prescribe ap rate different 
from the proposed rate provided that, after giving the 
operator an opportunity to participate, the local franchis 
ing authority explains in a written decision why the oper 
ator's rate is unreasonable and why its prescribed rate is 
reasonable.9
4. In order to comply with our rules, the City's rate 
order should have contained such an explanation. 10 Since it 
appears from the record below that the City's written de 
cision did not comport with our rules in this area, we 
remand this case for further proceedings consistent with 
this decision."
1 The City did not file an opposition to the Appeal.
2 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.944.
3 See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Con 
sumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 
Report and Order. MM Docket No. 92-266. 8 FCC Red 5631, 
5731 (1993) ("Rate Order"): and Implementation of Sections of 
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 
of 1992; Rate Regulation & Buy-Through Prohibition. Third 
Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 92-262. 
9 FCC Red 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Reconsideration Order").
4 Id.
5 See Rate Order, 8 FCC Red at 5732: See also Third Reconsi 
deration Order, 9 FCC Red at 4346.
6 See Appeal, Exhibit A. FCC Form 1210 is used by cable 
operators to adjust their maximum permitted rates based upon 
changes in the number of regulated channels and to permit 
operators to pass through certain external costs and inflation to 
their subscribers. Cable operators must file FCC Form 1200 
before they can file the Form 1210. See Instructions For FCC 
Form 1210 Updating Maximum Permitted Rates For Regulated 
Cable Services.
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.937; See also Sammons Communications,
Inc., DA 95-194 (Cities of Burbank and Glendale. CA), at f 14 
(Cab. Serv. Bur., released February 10. 1995). 
* See Rate Order, 8 FCC Red at 5723-5724.
9 Id.
10 See Rate Order, 8 FCC Red at 5723-5724; See also Falcon 
Cablevision, DA 95-1178 (Warrensburg. MO) at H 12 (Cab. Serv. 
Bur., released June 1, 1995) and Chillicothe Cablevision, Inc., 
DA 95-479 (Washington Court House, OH) at 1 9 (Cab. Serv. 
Bur., released March 14, 1995).
11 TCI-H has requested that, as a remedy for the City's actions, 
we permit its proposed rates to go into effect subject to any 
refund liability that may be later imposed by the City. Such a 
remedy is inappropriate for the Bureau to impose in this case 
and we decline to do so. We are remanding the case to the City 
in order to permit it to comply with our rules governing 
written decisions by local franchising authorities. Existing rates 
remain in effect until such time as the City approves TCI-H's 
proposed rates. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.942. Since the City has 
already reviewed TCI-H's Form 1210 filing, it should take the 
City no longer than 30 days to issue a written decision which 
complies with Commission rules.
8063
DA 95-1607_____ Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red NO. 16
III. ORDERING CLAUSE
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that TCI-H's Appeal of 
the local order of the City of League City. Texas, is hereby 
REMANDED to the City for further proceedings consistent 
with this Order.
6. This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services 
Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of 
the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.321.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Meredith J. Jones
Chief, Cable Services Bureau
8064