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 ) ) InterMedia Partners ) CUID No. GA0661 (Gwinnett County) ) Cost of Service Showing to Support ) Basic Service 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. On January 12, 1994, 1st Cablevision d/b/a Gainesville Cablevision, also known as InterMedia Partners ("InterMedia") serving CUID Number GA0661, filed a cost of service showing with its local franchising authority, the County of Gwinnett, Georgia ("County"), seeking to justify its Basic Service Tier ("BST") rate. Thereafter, on September 8, 1994, the County petitioned the Commission to review the BST cost of service showing. On May 10, 1995, the Commission granted the County'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 submission with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") in response to a complaint that alleges that InterMedia's cable programming services tier ("CPST") rate in the above-referenced franchise is unreasonable. 3. According to information provided by InterMedia in its cost of service showings, the franchise area comprised approximately 3ll BST subscribers and 308 CPST subscribers at the time of both filings. InterMedia provided 1l BST channels and 16 CPST channels at the time of both filings. 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 present. Our review of InterMedia's BST also included an analysis of its equipment and installation rates, as presented on InterMedia's FCC Form 1205 filed with the City on January 12, 1994. InterMedia's cost of service filing seeks to establish that its rate of $8.72 per month for this period is justified based on its cost of providing service on its BST. Our analysis indicated 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 after February 25, 1994. InterMedia's cost of service filing, on FCC Form 1220, seeks to establish that its CPST rate of $12.48 per month for the period February 25, 1994, to January 31, 1995, is justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. InterMedia has subsequently submitted FCC Form 1210 filings to justify its CPST rate increases to its cost of service rate to reflect changes in channels, external costs and inflation, the most recent filing being for the period ending the third quarter of 1995. Our review of the record indicates that InterMedia's CPST rates, as established in its FCC Form 1220 and its subsequent FCC Form 1210 filings, 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 have made appropriate adjustments. Even with our adjustments and disallowances, however, we find that InterMedia's monthly BST and CPST rates for the periods under review have been 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 (Equipment Form) and find that the equipment and installation rates InterMedia charged in connection with its BST for the period under review are not unreasonable. 8. FCC Form 1210 Filings: InterMedia submitted FCC Form 1210 filings to justify subsequent increases to its cost of service rates to reflect changes in channels, external costs and inflation. InterMedia's FCC Form 1210 filings cover the periods ending the fourth quarter of 1994 and the third quarter of 1995. Prior to reviewing InterMedia's FCC Form 1210 filings, we carried over the maximum permitted rate as adjusted by staff on the InterMedia FCC Form 1220 filing. After making the appropriate adjustments, we find that the rate InterMedia charged pursuant to its FCC Form 1210 filings is not unreasonable. Thus, based on our review, we find that the subsequent rates of $13.84 and $14.45 are justified. CONCLUSION 9. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filing and supplemental information and applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly BST rate of $8.72 (plus franchise fee) and equipment and installation rates for the period after September 1, 1993. 10. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filing and supplemental information and applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $12.48 (plus franchise fee) for the February 25, 1994 through January 31, 1995, period. 11. Based on our review of InterMedia's subsequent FCC Form 1210 filings, we find that the CPST rates of $13.84 and $14.45 (plus franchise fees) that InterMedia charged for the periods covered by its FCC Form 1210 filings, are not unreasonable. 12. 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 $8.72 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. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.933(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 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 County of Gwinnett, Georgia, and the cable operator, InterMedia. 14. 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 $12.48 charged for the period from February 25, 1994, to January 31, 1995, the monthly CPST rate of $13.84 charged for the period from February 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995 and the monthly CPST rate of $14.45 charged after January 1, 1996 by InterMedia Partners with respect to the above-referenced community, ARE JUSTIFIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaint against the monthly CPST rate charged by InterMedia with respect to CUID No. GA0661, County of Gwinnett, Georgia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau