NOTICE ************************************************************************* NOTICE ************************************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Robin Cable Systems ) d/b/a/InterMedia Partners ) CUID No. GA0284 (City of Union City) ) Cost of Services Showing to Support ) Basic Tier Rate and ) Cable Programming Services Rate ) ORDER Adopted: August 16, 1996 Released: August 19, 1996 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. August 14, 1994, Robin Cable Systems d/b/a/ InterMedia Partners ("InterMedia") serving CUID Number GA0284 filed a cost of service showing with its local franchising authority, the City of Union City, Georgia ("City"), seeking to justify its Basic Service Tier ("BST") rate. Thereafter, on September 13, 1994, the City petitioned the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") to review the BST cost of service showing. On February 14, 1995, the Commission granted the City's request and agreed to review InterMedia's cost of service showing for the BST rate. 2. On September 28, 1994 InterMedia also filed a cost of service showing with the Commission in response to a complaint that alleges that InterMedia's cable programming services tier ("CPST") rate is unreasonable. On April 25, 1996, InterMedia supplemented and amended this filing. 3. According to information provided by InterMedia in its cost of service showings, its cable system comprised approximately 1,233 BST subscribers and 1,197 CPST subscribers at the time of the August 14, 1994 filing. InterMedia provided 12 channels on its BST and 18 channels on its CPST at the time of the filing. In this review process, pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), we analyzed InterMedia's BST and CPST cost of service showings to ensure that the rates charged were not unreasonable and to determine any associated refund liability. 4. In this review, we analyzed BST rates charged for the period from September 1, 1993 to the present. Our review of InterMedia's BST also includes an analysis of its equipment and installation rates, as presented on InterMedia's FCC Form 1205 filed September 28, 1994. InterMedia's cost of service filings seeks to establish that its rate of $9.29 per month for this period is justified based on its cost of providing service on its BST. Our analysis indicates that the BST rate that InterMedia was charging from the period beginning September 1, 1993, was justified under the Commission's rules. 5. We also analyzed CPST rates charged from September 1, 1993 to the present. InterMedia's cost of service filing, on FCC Form 1220, seeks to establish that its CPST rate of $13.61 per month for the period beginning September 8, 1993 to the present is justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. Our review of the record indicates that InterMedia's CPST rates, as established in its FCC Form 1220, are justified under the Commission's rules. ADJUSTMENTS 6. Rate base and expense items have been evaluated to determine whether InterMedia should be permitted to recover those items. Where a certain rate base or expense element was not supported, was excessive, or was unrelated to providing regulated cable service, such cost was disallowed in whole or in part. Where reported costs were disallowed, we made appropriate adjustments. Even with adjustments and disallowances, we find that InterMedia's monthly BST rate of $9.29 and CPST rate of $13.61 under review are justified. 7. Equipment and Installation Rates: Our review of InterMedia's BST rate included an analysis of its equipment and installation rates. The 1992 Act requires that cable operators base their equipment and installation rates on their actual costs. We have reviewed InterMedia's cost of service showing and related FCC Form 1205 and find that the equipment and installation rates InterMedia charged in connection with its BST for the period under review are not unreasonable. CONCLUSION 8. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filings and supplemental information, applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly BST rate of $9.29 (plus franchise fee) and equipment and installation rate for the period after September 1, 1993. 9. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filing and supplemental information, applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $13.61 (plus franchise fee) for the period after September 1, 1993. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the monthly BST rate of $9.29 and associated equipment and installation rates, as stated on its FCC Form 1205, charged by InterMedia Partners with respect to the above-referenced community, for the period under review, ARE JUSTIFIED, and that no refund liability will be imposed. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to  76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.933(d), that this ruling on the rates InterMedia was charging for its BST and associated equipment and installation are binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Union City, and the cable operator, InterMedia. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $13.61 charged by InterMedia Partners, with respect to the above-referenced community, for the period under review, IS JUSTIFIED. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaints against the monthly CPST rate charged by InterMedia Partners with respect to the above-referenced CUID number, ARE DENIED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time filed by InterMedia Partners IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau