FCC Web Documents citing 76.933

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1554A1.txt
  • that the City denied it due process by failing to hold a proceeding to review the 1996 Form 1205. Because we are vacating that part of the City's Third Rate Order prescribing rates for the period starting June 1, 1996 and ordering the Company to submit revised rates, this due process issue is moot. Timeliness of Local Rate Order Section 76.933(g) of the Commission's rules provides that an operator submitting proposed changes to its rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment costs using the annual filing system must do so no later than 90 days before the effective date of the new rates. If the franchising authority has taken no action within this 90-day review period, then the proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1068A1.txt
  • opposed by the Cities. Because of the commonality of issues in these matters, we are consolidating them for administrative convenience. petition for reconsideration Charter had appealed local rate orders issued by each of the Cities, arguing that the Cities had improperly reduced Charter's rates for its wire maintenance plan (``WMP'') and ordered refunds beyond the refund period permitted by section 76.933(g)(2) of the Commission's rules. The Consolidated Order denied Charter's appeal with respect to the rates for its WMP, but remanded the Cities' refunds orders to the extent they ordered refunds beyond the period established by section 76.933(g)(2). The Cities had argued when opposing the appeals that the refund period in section 76.933(g)(2) is inapplicable because Charter had not filed a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1459A1.txt
  • of connections for additional television receivers are permitted by section 623(b)(3)(B) of the Communications Act and section 76.923(b), (h) of the Commission's rules and are recoverable as part of the Equipment Basket described in section 76.923. Charges for additional connections used to receive the basic service tier are subject to franchising authority review pursuant to the procedures established in section 76.933 of the Commission's rules. An additional outlet charge applied solely to CPST subscribers, as was the case with the charge addressed in the Resolution and Cox Communications, Inc., would have been subject to Commission review upon the timely filing of a complaint with the Commission. In light of FrontierVision's description of the charge as a basic service tier charge, it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1460A1.txt
  • its own decision but instead will remand the issue to the franchising authority with instructions to resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal. discussion Basic Service Tier Rates After Cencom filed FCC Forms 1210 to justify BST rate increases and Forms 1205 to justify equipment rate increases, each of the Cities issued tolling orders pursuant to section 76.933 of the Commission's rules. These orders extended the Cities' period for reviewing the proposed rate increases and delayed Cencom's implementation of the increases. When the review periods expired, Cencom put its new rates into effect and added to the rates proposed in its Forms 1210 the value of the revenue lost during the tolling periods, amortized over the remaining period
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-268A1.txt
  • lines, including telephone and satellite as well as cable television, and is competitive with the unregulated inside wire maintenance offerings of the ILEC, Pacific Bell. Finding that the whole house scope of the plan was not established, the Cities treated the plan as a cable-only plan, prescribed a lower rate, and ordered refunds beyond the refund period permitted in section 76.933(g)(2) of the Commission's rules for operators using the annual rate adjustment. Charter argues that this narrow view of its plan was not reasonable but, even if reasonable, that the refund period is in violation of section 76.933(g)(2). According to Charter, its wire maintenance plan has been offered since April 1997 and should not be subject to cable rate regulation. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-439A1.txt
  • that the LFA "had completed its review of C-TEC's/MERCOM's cost-of-service filings and has determined that C-TEC's/MERCOM's rates are reasonable." Although the LFA did not withdraw its petition, we find that the petition for special relief is moot because the LFA already reviewed the subject filings, and we will dismiss it. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the Petition for Special Relief, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello, Acting Chief Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau On December 6, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission received notification, pursuant to Section 76.400 of the Commission's rules, of a change of mailing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-440A1.txt
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $8.27 effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $8.27 charged by Operator in the franchise areas referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-825A1.txt
  • opposition, the PCTA argues it can work backward to the filing date of the company's most recent rate form when the form does not purport to justify the SPP rate and the operator has refused to provide the requested justification for the rate. When an operator uses the annual rate adjustment method for justifying its rates, the procedures in section 76.933(g) govern the review process. An operator files its proposed rates with the franchising authority no later than 90 days before the effective date of the proposed rates. If the franchising authority does not act within this 90 day period, the operator can put its new rates in effect, but the franchising authority will have 12 months from the date the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-362A1.txt
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $10.69 effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $10.69 charged by Operator in the franchise areas referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-363A1.txt
  • for small system relief, for the system in the community referenced above, IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly BST rate of $7.91, charged by Operator in the community referenced above effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 76.933(d) and 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.933(d) and 0.321, that this decision is binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Bedford, Virginia, and the cable operator, Cable Equities of the Virginias', Inc. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau See Letter from Jacqueline Spindler, Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-967A1.txt
  • Appeal at 17-18. See section 76.922(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(1). Subject to certain exceptions, an operator electing the annual rate adjustment methodology may not adjust rates more than annually. An operator may change its annual filing date, but at least 12 months must pass before the operator can implement its next annual adjustment. Id. See section 76.933(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g) (an operator must file its rate form ``no later than 90 days from the effective date of the proposed rates'' (emphasis added)); id. § 76.933(g)(2) (if the franchising authority has taken no action within the 90-day review period, ``the proposed rates may go into effect at the end of the review period,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1151A1.txt
  • of the Resolution was delivered to TCI on April 3, 1995. Finally, the City argues that even if one assumes the City's orders were late, the City only loses the opportunity to order refunds but still retains the authority to regulate rates on a prospective basis. Therefore, the City could only lose its authority to order retroactive refunds under section 76.933. 10. In reply, TCI alleges that the City does not dispute that it missed the 30-day deadline because the official recording and delivery of the Resolutions did not occur until after the deadline. TCI asserts that the orders are untimely. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, a cable operator's proposed rates go into effect 30 days after their submission to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-149A1.txt
  • of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731-32 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Reconsideration Order"). San Jose is certified by the Commission to regulate basic cable television rates. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(g). MB Docket No. 02-144, FCC 02-177 (released June 19, 2002). Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation (``Going Forward Order''), 10 FCC Rcd 1226, 1260 (1994). In the Matter of Revisions to Cable Television Rate Regulations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (``Reconsideration Order''), FCC 02-228
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-150A1.txt
  • § 76.922. 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(5)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 76.944. Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731-32 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Reconsideration Order"). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(g). MB Docket No. 02-144, FCC 02-177 (released June 19, 2002). Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation (``Going Forward Order''), 10 FCC Rcd 1226, 1260 (1994). In the Matter of Revisions to Cable Television Rate Regulations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, Order, FCC 02-228 (August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2339A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. § 76.922. 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(5)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 76.944. Harron Commun. Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 7901 (2000) ¶ 2; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993), 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ¶ 81. See Commission web page, http://www.fcc.gov/mb/mbform.html (visited June 24, 2003). Under 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2), if the franchising authority fails to act within 12 months, it may not order a refund or reduction. Extension of Time to File Form 1205 Pursuant to Sections 76.922, 76.923 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 10193, 10194-95 (1996) ¶ 4 n.14. Opposition of the Cable Television Division of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy to Adelphia Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3127A1.txt
  • (1994) ¶ 81. Adelphia of Winchester Appeal at 2; City of Winchester Opposition, Attachment 2 at 1. City of Winchester Opposition, Attachment 2 (Adelphia of Winchester's 2002 Form 1240) at 4, Part III, line I9; Exhibit I. Id., Exhibit I. Id., Attachment 2 at 4, Part III, line I10. Winchester Rate Order, supra note 1, at 1. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2). Adelphia of Winchester Appeal at 2-3. Winchester Rate Order, supra note 1, at 1; Adelphia of Winchester Appeal at 1. Adelphia of Winchester had notified the City of its intention to do so. Winchester Rate Order, supra note 1, at 1. Winchester Rate Order, supra note 1. Adelphia of Mt. Sterling Appeal at 2; City of Mt. Sterling Opposition, Attachment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3537A1.txt
  • to a year. Section 76.942(c) specifies that the refund period shall run, not from the date of the local order, but either (1) From the date the operator implements a prospective rate reduction back in time to September 1, 1993, or, one year, whichever is shorter. (2) From the date a franchising authority issues an accounting order pursuant to § 76.933(c), to the date a prospective rate reduction is issued, then back in time from the date of the accounting order to the effective date of the rules; however the total refund period shall not exceed one year from the date of the accounting order. King implemented a unilateral rate reduction on August 15, 1995. The Cities issued accounting orders on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4108A1.txt
  • Frontiervision Operating Partners, supra note 34, at ¶¶ 6-9. Frontiervision Operating Partners, supra note 34, at ¶ 15, citing TCI Cablevision of Dallas, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 7379, 7381 (2000) ¶ 8 and Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 427 (1995) ¶ 95. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g). Frontiervision Operating Partners, supra note 34, at ¶¶ 14-15. Compare Frontiervision Operating Partners, supra note 34, at ¶¶ 10-13, with Comments at 7-10. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.922(e)(1), (2)(i), (ii)(A), (iii)(A-C), o. Frontiervision Operating Partners, supra note 34, at ¶ 11. Comments at 7-8, citing 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(5). See Frontiervision Operating Partners, supra note 34, at ¶¶ 11-12. See also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4119A1.txt
  • rate disputes will continue to be resolved in the ordinary course, pursuant to FCC rules.'' Social Contract § C.1-5, Social Contract for Time Warner, 11 FCC Rcd 2788, 2858 (1995); id. at 2792 ¶ 6 (``BST cases will not be resolved by the Social Contract.''). MHCRC Consultant's Report at 4. Paragon Reply (Corrected Version) at 4-5. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2) (franchising authority not acting within 12-month window from the filing of the cable operator's Form 1240 ``may not at a later date order a refund or a prospective rate reduction with respect to the rate filing''). See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-603A1.txt
  • it had failed to adopt intervening orders. Falcon asserts that in Mickelson Media, Inc., the cable operator appealed a 1997 local rate order and refused to comply with the rate reduction required in that local order. The LFA did not contest the operator's rates for the subsequent 1999-98 or 1998-99 rate periods within the 12- month period prescribed in Section 76.933(g)(2) of the Commission's rules. After the Commission denied the operator's appeal, the LFA unilaterally adjusted the 2000 rate filing, notwithstanding its failure to timely act on the intervening 1997 and 1998 rate filings. The Commission upheld the LFA's action based on the ground that action on the intervening rate filings was not essential while the existing appeal was pending before
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-784A1.txt
  • still in the process of analyzing and evaluating the Form 1200 and that an additional 90 days was needed to review the proposed rates, subject to a reservation of rights, which the Towns explained as being the right to extend the total review period, effective upon receiving a legible copy of the Form 1200. Community asserts that pursuant to Section 76.933(b) the Towns were only permitted to extend the review date for 90 days from the date 30 days after the date of submission. Community states that the Towns acknowledged that the forms were submitted on June 23, 1994 and that 30 days thereafter would be July 23, 1994, and Community argues that pursuant to Section 76.933(b), Friday, October 21, 1994,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1496A1.txt
  • the future to recover `lost revenue' that was not even claimed in this year's filing.'' In opposition, the City asserts that the instructions for the Form 1240, Module A, Line A1, advise the operator to ``enter the maximum rate which you are currently permitted to charge for regulated programming services according to Commission regulations.'' The City argues that under section 76.933(g) of the Commission's regulations, operators must obtain prior approval for rate increases and a proposed rate may go into effect only if the franchising authority expressly approves it or fails to act within the requisite period. The City asserts that the only time that an operator can use a starting rate that varies from the one approved by the franchising
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1703A1.txt
  • this occurred briefly in Farmers Branch but was corrected promptly by Comcast of Farmers Branch. Letter from Dick Kirby, Comcast Cable Commun., Inc., to Ms. Margaret Somereve, City of Farmers Branch, dated January 7, 2004, which is Exhibit A to Comcast of Farmers Branch Letter, supra note 11. Flower Mound Appeal at 2-5; McKinney Appeal at 2-6. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2) (speaking of ``subject to a prospective rate reduction and refund if the franchising authority subsequently issues a written decision disapproving any portion of such rates''). See, e.g., 47 CFR § 76.10 (c)(2) (``unless a stay is granted by the Commission, the decision by the administrative law judge will become effective upon release and will remain in effect pending appeal.''); TCI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2070A1.txt
  • an opposition making the following points: 1) Sammons has the burden of proving that its rates comply with Commission regulations and it has not carried its burden; 2) any misinformation in the City's calculation is attributable to Sammons withholding requested information or delaying the transfer of the information; 3) Sammons has not cited any specific violation of section 76.922 or 76.933 by the City; and 4) Sammons has overcharged customers and the City's refund order should be upheld. DISCUSSION Offset Sammons argues that the City's order would cause it to issue refunds that exceed its maximum liability because the order requires Sammons to adopt rates for equipment and installation significantly below those calculated by Sammons and disregards the inverse relationship between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-395A1.txt
  • FCC Form 1200 series. Cable operators attempting to justify their rates through a cost of service showing must complete and file FCC Form 1220. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200 and FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $20.54, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.283 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $20.54 charged by Operator in the franchise areas referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 0.283 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • withdrawal. 76.920 Composition of the basic tier. 76.921 Buy-through of other tiers prohibited. 76.922 Rates for the basic service tier and cable programming services tiers. 76.923 Rates for equipment and installation used to receive the basic service tier. 76.924 Allocation to service cost categories. 76.925 Costs of franchise requirements. 76.930 Initiation of review of basic cable service and equipment rates. 76.933 Franchising authority review of basic cable rates and equipment costs. 76.934 Small systems and small cable companies. 76.935 Participation of interested parties. 76.936 Written decision. 76.937 Burden of proof. 76.938 Proprietary information. 76.939 Truthful written statements and responses to requests of franchising authority. 76.940 Prospective rate reduction. 76.941 Rate prescription. 76.942 Refunds. 76.943 Fines. 76.944 Commission review of franchising authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1766A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd at 20421 ¶ 15, application for review denied, 19 FCC Rcd at 23097-98 (2004) ¶ 6, citing TCI Cablevision of Dallas, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 7379, 7381 (2000) ¶ 8 & Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 427 (1995) ¶ 95. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g). Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd at 11-12 ¶¶ 15-18; Frontiervision Operating Partners, 18 FCC Rcd at 20421-22 ¶¶ 14-16. These were $12.80 in Farmers Branch and $13.07 in McKinney. Comcast of Farmers Branch Appeal, Attachment B (Form 1240 filed by Comcast of Farmers Branch on March 1, 2004) at 4; Comcast of McKinney Appeal, Atachment B (Form 1240
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2030A1.txt
  • C.F.R. § 76.922(f)(1)(v), (6)-(8). 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e); Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 391-92, 413-23 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(f)(6). 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(f)(7). 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(f)(8). Operators must reduce rates by decreases in programming expense plus an additional 7.5%. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g). 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2). TWC Appeal at 1 n.2. Cable Division Opposition Ex. A, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, Dep't of Telecomm & Energy, Cable Television Div., Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Rate Order (Sept. 30, 2003) (``2003 Rate Order''), at 2; 2004 Rate Order at 5; TWC Appeal at 2 n.3. The channel carries Pittsfield
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3250A1.txt
  • when . . . Charter should elect recovery from cable subscribers of costs of franchise fees on non-subscriber revenues . . .''). Burnsville Opposition at 4. See Instructions quoted supra ¶ 9. Charter, 20 FCC Rcd at 3504-05 ¶ 5; see also Arden Hills Appeal at 8-9. See note 14 supra. Arden Hills Appeal at 7-8. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(e), Arden Hills Appeal at 8. 47 U.S.C. § 542(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 76.985(a)(1). Pasadena, 18 FCC Rcd at 18201 ¶ 23. Id. at 18195 ¶ 7. Cottage Grove Opposition at 6. See, e.g., Cottage Grove Appeal, Attachment A (South Washington County Telecommun. Comm'n, Resolution No. 1.27.05, Order Regarding the Maximum Permitted Basic Programming Service Rate Set Forth in the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-678A1.txt
  • Comcast Cable Commun., Inc., at ¶¶ 2-3). See authorities cited notes 12-13 supra; see also Appeal, Attachment D, supra note 12, at 4. Appeal, Attachment D, supra note 12, at 4. Id. Id. Appeal at 2-4; Reply at 2-3. The City, in response, avows faith in the judgment of its consultant in general terms. Opposition at 4. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933 (g)(2). We also reference the equitable defense of laches, which authorizes a court, in its discretion, to bar claims where there is lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted and prejudice to the party asserting the defense. Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U.S. 673, 687 (1995); Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 282 (1961). Appeal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210293A1.txt
  • mechanism is also available to cable system operators that believe the benchmark process fails to adequately account for system costs. See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(i). FCC Form 1210, Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Service (May 1994), FCC Form 1240, Annual Updating for Maximum Permitted Rates For Regulated Cable Service (July 1996); see also 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(d), (e), 47 C.F.R. §76.933, and FCC Form 1235, Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades. 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(c)(3), (f). See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(f). Federal Communications Commission . / Ê × „ ï . / „Ð . / „Ð „˜þ @& „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „0ý „ðñ „`ú Î á \é à ' PþTÖ z:"zº±æ \é á
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-22A1.txt
  • mechanism is also available to cable system operators that believe the benchmark process fails to adequately account for system costs. See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(i). FCC Form 1210, Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Service (May 1994), FCC Form 1240, Annual Updating for Maximum Permitted Rates For Regulated Cable Service (July 1996); see also 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(d), (e), 47 C.F.R. §76.933, and FCC Form 1235, Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades. 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(c)(3), (f). See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(f). See 47 U.S.C. §543(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. §543(b)(2)(C)(ii). DTV Must Carry Notice, 13 FCC Rcd. at 15134-35. Id. at 15134-35. Armstrong notes that digital towers require a 1:1 ratio for channels to antennas, so that five digital signals carried would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-289A1.txt
  • subscribers for the entire franchise fee amount sixteen years after the operator signed the franchise agreement. Pasadena complains that this action does not comport with the Commission's rate regulation rules because only real changes in external costs may be passed on to subscribers, not a change due to a different method of accounting. Los Angeles County maintains that under Section 76.933, a franchise authority has the power to review and refund an increase in pass-through of franchise fees to subscribers upon determining that the increase exceeds the amount of franchise fees allocable to the basic tier. 18. Charter contends that the fee as specified in the franchise had been the same since the franchise was enacted, but that nevertheless, its method
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-177A1.txt
  • 76.985 (FCC Form 329 and Instructions); 76.986; 76.987; 76.1402; 76.1605; and 76.1606. Other rules continue to be applicable to BST rate making but should be updated or amended to eliminate references to CPST or to reflect the end of CPST rate regulation. These rule sections or paragraphs are: 76.922(a); 76.922(b)(5); 76.922(b)(7); 76.922(e)(2)(iii)(C); 76.922(f)(4); 76.922(f)(8); 76.922(g); 76.922(i)(1), (2); 76.922(k); 76.924(a); 76.924(e)(1)(iii); 76.933(e); 76.933(g)(5); 76.934(c)(3); 76.934(e); 76.934(f); 76.934(g)(1); 76.934(g)(2) (retaining the last sentence); 76.934(h)(2)(ii)(A); 76.934(h)(4)(i), (v); 76.934(h)(8)(ii); 76.963(a); 76.990(a); 76.990(b)(3); 76.1800. We seek comment on these proposed changes and on whether the sunset of CPST rate regulation should be reflected by changes to other rules. Other rules should be eliminated as obsolete. These rule sections or paragraphs are: 76.922(b)(6)(ii); 76.922(e)(3)(ii); 76.922(e)(4); and 76.934(h)(8)(ii)(last
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-72A1.txt
  • Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(ii); Falcon Telecable, 15 FCC Rcd 52, 54 ¶ 5 (1999); Mr. Richard D. Treich, 12 FCC Rcd 10340, 10340-41 (1997); Media General Cable of Fairfax County, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 17424, 17431-32 ¶ 22 (1997), review granted in part and denied in part, 16 FCC Rcd 15617 (2001) (review granted on procedural point); section 76.933(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g); Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 392 ¶ 9; section 76.1603(b) - (d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1603(b) - (d); section 76.933(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(3). Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-264A1.txt
  • to have given the mailed notice of the rate increase that our rules require. The Cities next claim that the Bureau Order contained prejudicial procedural error by shifting the burden of proof from Adelphia to the Cities. We disagree. The only problem with Adelphia's Forms was that they were incomplete because they did not specify an Operator Selected Rate. Section 76.933(g) of our rules provides that the Cities could have tolled their review of the Forms and asked Adelphia to complete them. Once Adelphia did so, the tolling would end and the review process would begin again. The Cities cannot now claim that Adelphia's notice of its intention to raise rates left the Cities with too little time to review Adelphia's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.wp
  • 2) must-carry complaint (47 C.F.R. § 76.7(a)(1)); 3) petition to show cause (47 C.F.R. § 76.9); 4) request for temporary authority (47 C.F.R. § 76.29); 5) franchising authority certification (47 C.F.R. § 76.910(b)); 6) petition for reconsideration of certification (47 C.F.R. § 76.911); 7) petition for recertification (47 C.F.R. § 76.916); 8) petition for review of rates (47 C.F.R. § 76.933); 9) rate complaint (47 C.F.R. § 76.950); 10) commercial leased access dispute (47 C.F.R. § 76.975); 11) program access adjudicatory proceedings (47 C.F.R. § 76.1003); 12) petition for exclusivity (47 C.F.R. § 76.1002); 13) carriage agreement adjudicatory proceeding (47 C.F.R. § 76.1302). Each type of petition or complaint has particular requirements regarding the conditions that must be satisfied before a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98153.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98153.wp
  • of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92-266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5776 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in MM Docket 92-266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119, 4202-04 (1994) ("Second Reconsideration Order"). 184FCC Form 1210, Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Service (May 1994). See also, 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(d), 76.933. 185The initial per channel adjustment methodology permitted operators to increase rates by a per channel amount when channels were added to either the basic service tier or the cable programming service tier, with the per channel amount decreasing as the number of channels on a system increased. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.922. Operators electing to use the "going forward" rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.txt
  • mechanism is also available to cable system operators that believe the benchmark process fails to adequately account for system costs. See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(i). FCC Form 1210, Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Service (May 1994), FCC Form 1240, Annual Updating for Maximum Permitted Rates For Regulated Cable Service (July 1996); see also 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(d), (e), 47 C.F.R. §76.933, and FCC Form 1235, Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades. 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(c)(3), (f). See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(f). See 47 U.S.C. §543(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. §543(b)(2)(C)(ii). DTV Must Carry Notice, 13 FCC Rcd. at 15134-35. Id. at 15134-35. Armstrong notes that digital towers require a 1:1 ratio for channels to antennas, so that five digital signals carried would
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.wp
  • 2) must-carry complaint (47 C.F.R. § 76.7(a)(1)); 3) petition to show cause (47 C.F.R. § 76.9); 4) request for temporary authority (47 C.F.R. § 76.29); 5) franchising authority certification (47 C.F.R. § 76.910(b)); 6) petition for reconsideration of certification (47 C.F.R. § 76.911); 7) petition for recertification (47 C.F.R. § 76.916); 8) petition for review of rates (47 C.F.R. § 76.933); 9) rate complaint (47 C.F.R. § 76.950); 10) commercial leased access dispute (47 C.F.R. § 76.975); 11) program access adjudicatory proceedings (47 C.F.R. § 76.1003); 12) petition for exclusivity (47 C.F.R. § 76.1002); 13) carriage agreement adjudicatory proceeding (47 C.F.R. § 76.1302). Each type of petition or complaint has particular requirements regarding the conditions that must be satisfied before a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98153.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98153.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98153.wp
  • of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92-266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5776 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in MM Docket 92-266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119, 4202-04 (1994) ("Second Reconsideration Order"). 184FCC Form 1210, Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Service (May 1994). See also, 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(d), 76.933. 185The initial per channel adjustment methodology permitted operators to increase rates by a per channel amount when channels were added to either the basic service tier or the cable programming service tier, with the per channel amount decreasing as the number of channels on a system increased. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.922. Operators electing to use the "going forward" rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992397.doc
  • Service Bureau Action, DA 96-1986, released November 27, 1996. For the 1998 Form 1240, the Current Maximum Permitted Rate would appear on Line I9 of Time Warner's properly completed 1997 Form 1240. See Instructions for Form 1240 at p.12. See, for example, Time Warner Cable (Farmington Hills), 13 FCC Rcd 7336 (CSB 1998). Id, at 7338. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g) and Instructions for Form 1240 at p. 2-3. Instructions for Form 1240 at p. 3. ``This means that with each Form 1240 filing there will be a space of time between the end of the True-Up Period and the beginning of the Projected Period on which you cannot perform a true-up.'' Id at p. 4. See Time Warner Petition, Attachment
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992527.doc
  • not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $9.25, effective September 1, 1993 through February 1, 1995, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $9.25, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective September 1, 1993 through February 1, 1995, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992528.doc
  • not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $9.25, effective September 1, 1993 through February 1, 1995, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $9.25, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective September 1, 1993 through February 1, 1995, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992529.doc
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $9.25, effective February 1, 1995, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $9.25, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective February 1, 1995, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992530.doc
  • 1, 1994, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, ARE REASONABLE. 6. 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 rates charged by Operator in the community set forth above, IS DENIED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $1.92, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective August 1, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992682.doc
  • Operator's MPR of $15.63 to be reasonable. Because Operator's actual initial BST rate of $10.76, and BST rate of $11.27, effective August 1, 1994, do not exceed its MPR, we find Operator's actual initial BST rate of $10.76, and BST rate of $11.27, effective August 1, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the initial BST rate of $10.76 and BST rate of $11.27, effective August 1, 1994, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, ARE REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992774.doc
  • periodic filing updating the system's rates initially set by the Form 1220. Furthermore, the record shows that the RCC's March 27, 1996 tolling orders with respect to both Dunes City and Florence adopted a 90 day tolling period. We have held that a franchise authority is bound by the tolling period it adopts despite the tolling periods provided in Section 76.933 of our rules. Because the RCC failed to issue its accounting orders within 90 days of its March 27, 1996 tolling orders, the RCC lost the authority to order refunds with respect to both the Dunes City and Florence systems, although it may still prescribe prospective rates. The Fourteen April 9, 1997 Rate Orders The April 9, 1997 Cannon Beach
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992794.doc
  • data by zip code, weighted to reflect the number of subscribers in each zip code served. Id. at 17. See Cox Appeal, Exh. 3. Cox Appeal at 10. Even if Cox had used an incorrect census income figure in Form 1200, the Town's failure to issue any tolling or accounting order within the time periods specified in 47 C.F.R. § 76.933 precludes ordering any refunds for Form 1200. See TCI Cablevision of California, Inc., DA 99-1015 (Cab. Serv. Bur. released May 28, 1999). See 47 U.S.C. § 543(c)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 76.950(a); see also Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 7948, 7958-60 paras. 20-22 (1997). Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2794 À Á Â Ã Ä È Ã Ä
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000053.doc
  • the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Rate Regulation, Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration, ("Thirteenth Reconsideration Order"), 11 FCC Rcd 388, 391 (1995). Thirteenth Reconsideration Order at 392. Id. Falcon Petition for Review at 8. Falcon Reply at 7. Falcon Petition for Review, Exhibits 2 and 3. City Opposition, Exhibits 4, 5 and 8. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g). Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-53 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-53 b c d <
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000123.doc
  • old data (and that data was accurate at the time), cable operators will not be required to change their rates.''); TCI Cablevision of Eastern Iowa, 13 FCC Rcd 3080, 3085-86 paras. 13-15, reconsideration denied, 13 FCC Rcd 11146 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998); Continental Cablevision, Inc. of Michigan, 10 FCC Rcd 8836, 8838 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). Cf. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(1), which limits an operator's right to amend its Form 1240 during the review period to situations where there is ``a material change in the operator's circumstances during the 90-day review period and the change affects the operator's rate change filing.'' The Staff Report at 5 acknowledges that Time Warner did not have the inflation data used by the Staff when
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000208.doc
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $20.99, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $20.99, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000209.doc
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $20.99, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $20.99, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000283.doc
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $24.95, effective January 1, 1995, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $24.95, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective January 1, 1995, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000597.doc
  • 0.321, that Operator's request for small system relief, for the system in the community referenced above, IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly BST rate of $6.31 charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS REASONABLE. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 76.933(d) and 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.933(d) and 0.321, that this decision is binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Forsyth, Georgia, and the cable operator, James Cable Partners, LP. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau See Letter dated February 14, 1995 from Jacqueline Spindler,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000598.doc
  • 0.321, that Operator's request for small system relief, for the system in the community referenced above, IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the monthly BST rate of $6.57 charged by Operator in the community referenced above IS REASONABLE. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 76.933(d) and 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.933(d) and 0.321, that this decision is binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Eatonton, Georgia, and the cable operator, James Cable Partners, L.P. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau See Letter dated February 14, 1995 from Jacqueline Spindler,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000604.doc
  • is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rates listed in the attached Appendix, effective July 14, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rates listed in the attached Appendix, charged by Operator in the franchise areas referenced above, effective July 14, 1994, ARE REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000936.doc
  • April 14, 2000 response and again in its April 20, 2000 response. The parties apparently have a substantive disagreement about what rate data is appropriate for setting the Company's rate in Farmers Branch. The Company's inclusion of a rate calculation reflecting the City's position, while not conceding its own, should facilitate the City's review. The provision in 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g) for tolling review when Form 1240 is facially incomplete is not intended as a device for halting the review process until a cable operator concedes a substantive point. The City can address the bases for the figures presented by the Company as justification for its proposed rate and determine whether there are mathematical errors in the calculations in its review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001048.doc
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $10.45, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $10.45, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001240.doc
  • to the Commission as represented. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). See Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843-44 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g). 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.932, 76.933(g)(3). 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 76.936; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Report and Order, MM Docket 92-266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5715 para. 126 (1993). Request for Emergency Stay, Attach. A. Id., Attach. B at 1, 2. Id., Attach. C. Attachment to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001403.doc
  • remains to be recovered because of this error, the analysis upon which the County relied does not establish this and must be revisited. Review of Past Rate Filings CTA also argues that the County Rate Order is inconsistent with the intent of the Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration and with achieving finality to equipment rate rulings. The Thirteenth Order added section 76.933(g)(2) to the Commission's rules when the annual rate adjustment methodology was adopted. This gives franchising authorities a limited period in which to act on a rate filing made pursuant to the annual adjustment method. If the franchising authority has not acted within 12 months from the date the operator files a rate form, it may not later order a refund
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001544.doc
  • that the City denied it due process by failing to hold a proceeding to review the 1996 Form 1205. Because we are vacating that part of the City's Third Rate Order prescribing rates for the period starting June 1, 1996 and ordering the Company to submit revised rates, this due process issue is moot. Timeliness of Local Rate Order Section 76.933(g) of the Commission's rules provides that an operator submitting proposed changes to its rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment costs using the annual filing system must do so no later than 90 days before the effective date of the new rates. If the franchising authority has taken no action within this 90-day review period, then the proposed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001635.doc
  • Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the complaint referenced herein IS DENIED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that Operator's calculated FCC Form 1235 maximum permitted rate of $1.63 for the basic service tier IS REASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 76.933(d) and 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.933(d) and 0.321, that this FCC Form 1235 decision is binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Richmond Hill, Georgia, and the cable operator, Bresnan Communications. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau See 47 C.F.R. § 76.933 (d). See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001691.doc
  • $0.20, the amount of the rate reduction required in the 1997 Rate Order. This adjustment caused the reduction to Adelphia's proposed MPR required by the January 2000 Rate Order. Adelphia challenges this action because the County had not acted on the Forms 1240 the operator filed for its 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 rate years within the 12-month period provided in section 76.933(g)(2) of the Commission's rules. Adelphia argues that the County's inaction on these rate forms precludes any change in the MPR Adelphia brought forward from Line I9 of the 1998-1999 form to Line A1 of the 1999-2000 form. The County disagrees that its forbearance pending Commission resolution of the operator's appeal of the 1997 Rate Order precludes enforcement of the 1997
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002386.doc
  • or expense element is not justified under our rules, such cost is disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs are disallowed, we make appropriate adjustments. 3. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find Operator's actual BST rate of $10.29, effective May 15, 1994, to be reasonable. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that the BST rate of $10.29, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective May 15, 1994, IS REASONABLE. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321 and § 76.933(d), that this Order is binding on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.txt
  • mechanism is also available to cable system operators that believe the benchmark process fails to adequately account for system costs. See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(i). FCC Form 1210, Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Service (May 1994), FCC Form 1240, Annual Updating for Maximum Permitted Rates For Regulated Cable Service (July 1996); see also 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(d), (e), 47 C.F.R. §76.933, and FCC Form 1235, Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades. 47 C.F.R. §§76.922(c)(3), (f). See 47 C.F.R. §76.922(f). See 47 U.S.C. §543(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. §543(b)(2)(C)(ii). DTV Must Carry Notice, 13 FCC Rcd. at 15134-35. Id. at 15134-35. Armstrong notes that digital towers require a 1:1 ratio for channels to antennas, so that five digital signals carried would
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd991117.html
  • ACCEPTTED FOR FILING. Internet URL: [11]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/pnwl9292.pd f ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS CORP. Anaheim, California, Appeal of the local rate order granted and remanded to the City. Action by Associate Chief. Adopted: November 16, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2539). CSB Internet URL: [12]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992539.doc JAMES CABLE PARTNERS. Review of basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d) and complaint against cable programming services tier rates. Found rates to be reasonable in Saratoga, WY. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division. Adopted: November 15, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2530). CSB Internet URL: [13]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992530.doc TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATE, L.P. Review of basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d), found September 1, 1993 through February
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd991203.html
  • FL because the complaint concerned a basic service tier rate that is outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division. Adopted: December 1, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2693). CSB Internet URL: [15]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992693.doc BENCHMARK ACQUISITION FUND I, LP D/B/A CABLEVISION OF LOUDOUN. Review of basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d), found initial rate and August 1, 1994 rate to be reasonable in Leesburg, VA. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division. Adopted: December 1, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2682). CSB Internet URL: [16]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992682.doc ADDENDA: The following items, released December 2, 1999, did not appear in Digest No. 230: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NEWS RELEASES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- JARED CARLSON NAMED
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000204.html
  • (DA No. 00-214). CCB Internet URL: [17]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000214.pdf MEDIA GENERAL CABLE OF FREDERICKSBURG. Approved refund plan for the communities of Fredericksburg and Stafford, VA. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division. Adopted: February 3, 2000. by Order. (DA No. DA- 00-204). CSB Internet URL: [18]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000204.doc POST CABLEVISION OF TEXAS, LP. Reviewed basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 76.933(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Joshua, Texas. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: February 3, 2000. by Order. (DA No. DA- 00-208). CSB Internet URL: [19]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000208.doc POST CABLEVISION OF TEXAS, LP. Reviewed basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 76.933(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Burleson, Texas. Action
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000215.html
  • for reconsideration of Lorilei Communictions. D/b/a The Firm v. Heritage Cablevision of Califorina, Inc., d/b/a TCI of California, 14 FCC Rcd 12073 (CSB 1999). Action by Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: February 14, 2000. by MO&O. (DA No. 00-286). CSB Internet URL: [7]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000286.doc BOULDER RIDGE CABLE TV. Review of basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F. R. Section 76.933(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Rocklin, California. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: February 11, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-283). CSB Internet URL: [8]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000283.doc INTERMEDIA CABLE PARTNERS. Denied complaints filed against Operator's January 1, 1995 rate increase for its cable programming service tier in Geenbrier and Ridgetop, TN. Action by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000320.html
  • Office of the Secretary: Barbara Lowe at (202) 418-0310. Internet URL: [13]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/200 0/ex000320.doc ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- SPEECHES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PRESS STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI. Re: Mass Media Bureau Approval of Radio License Transfers in Youngstown-Warren, Ohio and Lafayette, Louisiana. Internet URL: [14]http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2000/stgt015.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FALCON CABLE TV. Reviewed basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Grifton, Snow Hill, Hookerton, Walstonburg, Greene and Pitt, North Carolina. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: March 16, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-604). CSB Internet URL: [15]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000604.doc TCI CABLEVISION OF EASTERN SHORE, INC. Granted the Motion to Withdraw Appeal of Local Rate Order filed by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000511.html
  • 00-1041). CSB Internet URL: [14]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001041.doc JONES INTERCABLE. Reviewed basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.9333(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Hazel Crest, IL. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliane Division. by Order. (DA No. 00-1048). CSB Internet URL: [15]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001048.doc JAMES CABLE PARTNERS, LP. Reviewed basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Madison, GA. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division. Adopted: May 9, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-1047). CSB Internet URL: [16]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001047.doc MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.P. Granted complaints filed against the CPST rate increase for the cable programming services tier in Halton, TX. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd001023.html
  • complaint filed against Operator's cable programming services tier rates and approved Operator's 1995 refund plan for Umatilla, FL. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: October 18, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-2371). CSB Internet URL: [19]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002371.doc C-TEC CABLE SYSTEMS OF MICHIGAN, INC. Review of basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d) found rates to be reasonable in West Branch, Michigan. Action by Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: October 19, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-2386). CSB Internet URL: [20]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002386.doc TRI-STAR MARKETING, INC. Issued a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $47,000 against Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2002/dd020215.html
  • [115]DA-02-363A1.txt BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY. Disapproved refund plan filed in respone to Order DA 98-1877, and ordered refund payment in Midland, Michigan. Action by: Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: 02/13/2002 by ORDER. (DA No. 02-339). CSB [116]DA-02-339A1.doc [117]DA-02-339A1.pdf [118]DA-02-339A1.txt CABLE TV OF GEORGIA, L.P.. Review of basic service tier rates pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 76.933(d) and found rates to be reasonable in Dahlonega, Georgia. Action by: Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: 02/13/2002 by ORDER. (DA No. 02-362). CSB [119]DA-02-362A1.doc [120]DA-02-362A1.pdf [121]DA-02-362A1.txt BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY. Approved refund plan as modified, filed in response to Order DA 95-1380, and ordered in Bay City, Essexville, Hampton and Midland, Michigan. Action by: Acting
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • withdrawal. [98]76.920 Composition of the basic tier. [99]76.921 Buy-through of other tiers prohibited. [100]76.922 Rates for the basic service tier and cable programming service tiers. [101]76.923 Rates for equipment and installation used to receive the basic service tier. [102]76.924 Allocation to service cost categories. [103]76.925 Costs of franchise requirements. [104]76.930 Initiation of review of basic cable service and equipment rates. [105]76.933 Franchising authority review of basic cable rates and equipment costs. [106]76.934 Small systems and small cable companies. [107]76.935 Participation of interested parties. [108]76.936 Written decision. [109]76.937 Burden of proof. [110]76.938 Proprietary information. [111]76.939 Truthful written statements and responses to requests of franchising authority. [112]76.940 Prospective rate reduction. [113]76.941 Rate prescription. [114]76.942 Refunds. [115]76.943 Fines. [116]76.944 Commission review of franchising authority
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • § 76.921 Buy-through of other tiers prohibited. § 76.922 Rates for the basic service tier and cable programming services tiers. § 76.923 Rates for equipment and installation used to receive the basic service tier. § 76.924 Allocation to service cost categories. § 76.925 Costs of franchise requirements. § 76.930 Initiation of review of basic cable service and equipment rates. § 76.933 Franchising authority review of basic cable rates and equipment costs. § 76.934 Small systems and small cable companies. § 76.935 Participation of interested parties. § 76.936 Written decision. § 76.937 Burden of proof. § 76.938 Proprietary information. Page 3of 243 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 5/6/2011 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a0b1c7045abd9e3f08f6d3233a640e58&rg... § 76.939 Truthful written statements and responses to requests of franchising authority. §
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-60804.pdf
  • Commission's regulations and policies permit a cable television operator to pass through to subscribers all franchise fees which are attributable to both regulated and unregulated services." (footnote omitted)). We therefore conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that the Pasadena Order is contrary to FCC policy. TCCFUI and NATOA also argue that the Pasadena Order contravenes 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.922 and 76.933. Section 76.933(g)(5) provides that, "when the franchising authority is regulating basic service tier rates, a cable operator may increase its rates for basic service to reflect the imposition of, or increase in, franchise fees." Petitioners contend that, because the LFAs have not increased franchise fees, an operator wishing to increase the amount passed through to subscribers must wait until the