FCC Web Documents citing 76.942

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
  • of promotional offerings was an exception to the general treatment of refund offsets for operators setting initial regulated rates. The Commission's rules provided that refund liability should be based on the difference between an operator's aggregated old basic service tier and equipment and installation rates and its aggregated new rates set pursuant to the Commission's rate rules. 47 C.F.R. � 76.942(a). This approach took into account the variety of billing practices before unbundled rates were required by 47 C.F.R. � 76.923(a)(2). Once permitted regulated rates have been established and operators have gained experience with the Commission's rules, refund offsets are no longer appropriate for subsequent rate adjustments. See Media General Cable of Fairfax County, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 17424, 17432 para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1598A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. � 76.937(d), (e); 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, 5718-19 (1993) (``Rate Order''); Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4344 � 77, 4348 �� 89-90 (1994) (``Third Order on Reconsideration''). 47 C.F.R. � 76.942(a); Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5723-24 � 139 & n.367. Id. � 139; Falcon Community Ventures I, 13 FCC Rcd 12503, 12505 � 5 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998). City Petition at 10-11. Comcast Opposition at 5-6. City Reply at 5. Bureau Order at � 6. See Appeal of Comcast Cablevision of Detroit, Inc. From a Rate Order of the
• 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
  • 1205 for the wire maintenance plan or provided justification for the rate in response to the Cities' request for a justification. Thus, they argue, they can work backwards to September 15, 1998 as provided in the rate orders or, in a worst case scenario, to the twelve-month period concluding with the adoption of their rate orders as provided in section 76.942(b) of the Commission's rules. Charter argues in reply that the refund period should not exceed the period provided for in section 76.933(g)(2), because the Cities were made aware of the plan at least as far back as Charter's 1999 Form 1205 and took no action on the 1999 rate form. The record shows that the Cities were aware of Charter's
• 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
  • orders on November 26, 1995. On August 5, 1996, the Cities approved Resolutions Nos. 15-96 and 96-6, which approved King's rates and equipment charges but ordered a refund to subscribers for the period July 14, 1994 to August 14, 1995. 5. King filed its local appeal on September 4, 1996. King argues that the Cities' orders are inconsistent with sections 76.942(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. King asserts that section 76.942(b) limits refunds back one year from implementation of a refund order. King also asserts that a local franchising authority must provide 60 days after the date of a local refund order for an operator to comply with a refund order.'' King argues that since the refund order was not
• 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
  • but doing so does not reduce the maximum rate it is permitted to charge. The Third Reconsideration Order provides that an operator's aggregated actual BST rates and equipment and installation rates at the time its rates became subject to regulation should be compared to the system's aggregate new permitted rates in order to determine whether refunds are owed. Under section 76.942, the operator has refund liability for rates previously paid by subscribers only to the extent that those rates exceed the aggregate maximum permitted rates for equipment and BST and are not otherwise justified by a cost of service showing. Stated differently, an operator has no refund liability if its excessive equipment charges are offset by its less-than-permitted BST rate. After
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1147A1.txt
  • 1958) and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 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). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.942 (d) (2), allowing refunds to be paid to the class of current subscribers. See FCC Form 1205 at 4. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1147 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1147 � � � ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9 'H ��9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1270A1.txt
  • Rate Report at 6. Falcon Petition at 6. City Opposition at 17-19. Falcon Petition at 6-7. City Opposition at 19-20. Falcon Reply at 7. FCC Form 1205 Instructions at 15 (May 1994); FCC Form 1205 Instructions at 16 (June 1996). Falcon Community Ventures I, DA 05-193 � 18; Falcon First Communications, 14 FCC Rcd at 7287. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.942; A-R Cable Services-ME, Inc. v. Town of Lisbon, 10 FCC Rcd 1783, � 7 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). This computation should be done based on published rates for the period under review, without regard to promotional discounts. The costs of any promotions should not be recovered by reducing an operator's refund liability. See Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5820
• 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
  • 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 decisions on rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment. 76.945 Procedures for Commission review of basic service rates. 76.946 Advertising of rates. 76.950 Complaints regarding cable programming service rates. 76.951 Standard complaint form; other filing requirements. 76.952 Information to be provided by cable operator on monthly subscriber bills. 76.953
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-193A1.txt
  • form under review could use relevant information from a rate form submitted for a different time period but should have adjusted those labor rates based on intervening changes in the price index). We are not aware of comparable publicly-available information relevant to estimating the number of installations that Falcon performed in 1996 as compared to 1992. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.942; A-R Cable Services-ME, Inc. v. Town of Lisbon, 10 FCC Rcd 1783, � 7 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). See TCI of Southeast Mississippi, 10 FCC Rcd 8728, 8730 �� 13, 15 (1995). City Resolution at 2 Ordering Clause 1. Falcon Petition at 5-6. See City Opposition at 10-11. Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5723-24. Falcon Telecable, 13 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-237A1.txt
  • would be caused by a third round of staff review or a second round of Commission review. The Bureau Order also affirmed the County's local rate order regarding the treatment of income tax adjustments for interest expenses in computing equipment rates. Since MGC has not sought further review of that action, we need not address that matter here. See Section 76.942 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 76.942. (...continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-237 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-237 - 1 2 B S ` � � � - B - B @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� ��� � � � � [
• 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
  • fixed in the rules and rate form calculation or tied to some kind of indicator? If the latter, what should the indicator be? If the rate of interest in section 76.922(e)(3)(i) is revised, should that revised rate of interest be used for the interest on franchise fee refunds owed by the franchising authority to the cable operator pursuant to section 76.942(f)? The interest rate currently specified in section 76.942(f) is 11.25%. Section 76.942(e) currently provides that refunds for subscriber rate overcharges shall be ``computed at applicable rates published by the Internal Revenue Service for tax refunds and additional tax payments.'' Should the rule specify which rate should be used or whether the higher (or lower) of the two rates is to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-137A1.txt
  • for telephone service providers in small and rural communities); Telephone Number Portability, Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC 98-82, 13 FCC Rcd 11701 at � 143 (May 12, 1998) (rate of return on capital outlays for number portability); 47 C.F.R. � 76.922(e)(3)(i) (cable rate adjustments to compensate for earlier underestimates entitled to 11.25% interest); 47 C.F.R. � 76.942(f) (refund of fees from cable local franchise authority includes 11.25% interest rate). We note that although recoverable costs may include those corporate overhead costs directly attributable to the provision of TRS, we are concerned about the extent to which some salaries of corporate officers and executives have been included in submitted costs. We therefore will instruct the TRS fund administrator
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000039.doc
  • 5120-5121 (CSB, 1998) and Marcus Cable Partners, L.L.C., (DA 99-1399 (CSB rel. July 19, 1999) We are remanding TCI-EI's appeals to Fort Madison in order to permit it to comply with our rules governing written decisions by a local franchising authority. See n. 34, supra. Any refund liability determined by this review shall be determined pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 76.942. 47 C.F.R. � 76.944. Appeal Supplement at 1 and n.1. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.910(b)(2) See 47 C.F.R. � 76.936(b). In its supplement, TCI-EI argued that the City's allegedly unjustified action in the 1996 Order supports the need for the requested relief. In its petition, TCI-EI also expressed concern that the City might take action against the operator for implementing
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000440.doc
  • the reduction in BST revenues through an increase in its cable programming service tier rates. Id. at 2792. Id. at 2855 para. III.A.2. Social Contract Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2811-12 n.66. Id. at 2855 para. III.A.2. Time Warner Petition at 4. Time Warner also challenges the refund order for violating the one-year limit on refunds in 47 C.F.R. � 76.942(b). In light of our conclusion that the local rate is invalid, we need not reach that issue. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-440 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-440 � � 0 0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000697.doc
  • Reconsideration''). Third Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 4348 para. 89; 47 C.F.R. � 76.937 (d), (e). See Century Southwest Cable Television Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 2423, 2424 (CSB 1994). 47 C.F.R. � 76.938; Third Reconsideration at 4344 paras. 77-78. 47 C.F.R. S 76.937(a). Third Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4347 para. 84, 4348 para. 90; 47 C.F.R. �� 76.940, 76.941, 76.942. Third Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4347 para. 84; Falcon First Communications, L.P. (Whitfield County, GA), 14 FCC Rcd 7277, 7282 para. 12 (CSB 1999) (if operator has had opportunity to participate meaningfully in rate review process and has failed to meet its burden, franchising authority may prescribe a rate based on the best information available). See 47 C.F.R. �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001240.doc
  • para. 84, 4348 para. 90. Multimedia Cablevision, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 4112, 4115 para. 6 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1997). We will not require the operator to track the identities of all Dallas subscribers as of May 24, 2000, who are charged the increased rates and make any refunds to such subscribers to the extent the City prevails. 47 C.F.R. � 76.942(d) gives the operator the discretion to make refunds either by returning overcharges to those subscribers who actually paid the overcharges, or by means of a prospective percentage reduction in the rates for the basic service tier or associated equipment to the class of subscribers that currently subscribe to the cable system at the time of the refund. (...continued from previous
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001544.doc
  • of promotional offerings was an exception to the general treatment of refund offsets for operators setting initial regulated rates. The Commission's rules provided that refund liability should be based on the difference between an operator's aggregated old basic service tier and equipment and installation rates and its aggregated new rates set pursuant to the Commission's rate rules. 47 C.F.R. � 76.942(a). This approach took into account the variety of billing practices before unbundled rates were required by 47 C.F.R. � 76.923(a)(2). Once permitted regulated rates have been established and operators have gained experience with the Commission's rules, refund offsets are no longer appropriate for subsequent rate adjustments. See Media General Cable of Fairfax County, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 17424, 17432 para.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • 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 decisions on rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment. [117]76.945 Procedures for Commission review of basic service rates. [118]76.946 Advertising of rates. [119]76.950 Complaints regarding cable programming service rates. [120]76.951 Standard complaint form; other filing requirements. [121]76.952 Information to be provided by cable operator on monthly subscriber bills. [122]76.953
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • 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. � 76.940 Prospective rate reduction. � 76.941 Rate prescription. � 76.942 Refunds. � 76.943 Fines. � 76.944 Commission review of franchising authority decisions on rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment. � 76.945 Procedures for Commission review of basic service rates. � 76.946 Advertising of rates. � 76.950 Complaints regarding cable programming service rates. � 76.951 Standard complaint form; other filing requirements. � 76.952 Information to be provided by