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. GA0289 (City of Hogansville) ) Cost of Service Showing and ) FCC Form 1210 Filings to Support ) Basic Service Tier Rate and ) Cable Programming Services Rates ) ORDER Adopted: August 19, 1996 Released: August 19, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. On August 12, 1994, Robin Media Group, Inc. d/b/a InterMedia Partners ( InterMedia ), serving CUID Number GA0289, filed a cost of service showing with its franchising authority, the City of Hogansville, 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 March 15, 1995, the Commission granted the City's request and agreed to review InterMedia's cost of service showing for the BST rate. 2. On April 11, 1995, InterMedia also filed a cost of service submission with the Commission in response to complaints which allege that InterMedia's cable programming services tier ("CPST") rate is unreasonable. On May 31, 1996, InterMedia supplemented and amended this filing. 3. According to information provided by InterMedia in its cost of service showings, the franchise area comprised approximately 676 BST subscribers and 288 CPST subscribers at the time of the August 12, 1994 filing, and approximately 680 BST subscribers and 302 CPST subscribers at the time of the April 11, 1995 filing. InterMedia provided 12 BST channels and 7 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 analyze 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 are analyzing BST rates charged from May 15, 1994 to the present. InterMedia's cost of service filings seek to establish that its BST rate of $17.54 per month for this period is justified based on its cost of providing service on its BST. Our analysis indicates that the rate charged by InterMedia during the period under review should instead have been $13.41 per month. 5. We are also analyzing CPST rates charged beginning February 23, 1995, the date of the first valid complaint regarding the CPST rate in GA0289. InterMedia's April 11, 1995 cost of service filing, on FCC Form 1220, and subsequent FCC Form 1210 filing seek to establish that its CPST rate of $11.94 per month beginning February 23, 1995 is justified based on its cost of providing service. Our review indicates that InterMedia's CPST rate, as substantiated on its FCC Form 1220 and FCC Form 1210 filing, is justified under the Commission's rules. BACKGROUND 6. On May 3, 1993, the Commission released an Order establishing rules to implement the cable television rate regulation provisions of the 1992 Cable Act. In the Rate Order, the Commission determined that a benchmark and price cap approach should serve as the primary method for regulating BST and CPST rates. The Commission also concluded that because the benchmark methodology might not produce fully compensatory rates in all cases, it was appropriate to permit operators, as an alternative, to justify rates using cost of service showings. The cost of service approach was intended to be used only if an operator believed that the maximum rate permitted under the benchmark formula would not enable the operator to recover costs reasonably incurred in providing rate regulated cable services. Under traditional cost of service regulation, rates are set at a level to provide a company with recovery of its costs and a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on its capital investment. 7. At the time of the adoption of the Rate Order the Commission found that the record before it did not provide sufficient information on which to develop detailed cost of service rules for the cable industry. Therefore, on July 16, 1993, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which proposed requirements to govern cost of service showings submitted by cable operators seeking to justify rates higher than those determined under the benchmark approach. The Commission indicated in the Notice, as it did in the Rate Order, that general cost of service principles would apply to cost of service filings submitted prior to the adoption of specific rules. InterMedia's cost of service filing under review in this proceeding was submitted during that pre-adoption time period. In February 1994, the Commission adopted an order (the "Cost Order") setting forth specific regulatory requirements to govern cost of service filings to justify rates above levels determined under its benchmark requirements. Those rules were to apply to rates charged or to be charged after May 14, 1994. The guidance of the Cost Order became known as the "Interim Rules." 8. On December 15, 1995, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 93-215 and CS Docket 94-28 ( Final Cost Order ) setting forth its final rules to govern cost of service filings. In the Final Cost Order the Commission refined the approach it adopted in the Notice and Cost Order and reaffirmed the use of the cost of service approach for operators for which the benchmark approach might not produce fully compensatory rates. The Commission also determined that cost of service filings still pending before the Commission would be reviewed in accordance with the Final Cost Order, unless the operator notified the Commission by April 8, 1996, that it wished its filing to be reviewed under the Interim Rules of the Cost Order. DISCUSSION A. FCC Form 1220 9. InterMedia did not notify the Commission that it elected to have the Interim Rules applied to the filings pending in this proceeding. Therefore, we have analyzed InterMedia's BST and CPST cost of service submissions consistent with the Final Cost Order. 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. 10. The rate base represents the amount of used and useful investment the cable company prudently makes in its facilities to provide service to its customers. It is necessary to determine the allowable rate base both to calculate the return component of the revenue requirement and to compute the earned rate of return. In analyzing InterMedia's filing, we reviewed the components of InterMedia's rate base to determine the investment upon which InterMedia is entitled to earn a return. For purposes of this review, we have made adjustments to the rate base as discussed below. 11. Construction Work in Progress: InterMedia includes allocated amounts for construction work in progress of $14,408 and $8,405 for BST and CPST, respectively. The Final Cost Order allows costs associated with plant in the rate base if such plant is used and useful. As discussed in the Final Cost Order, used and useful plant is plant that is actually used to send signals to customers. The used and useful standard thus prohibits the inclusion of the cost of plant in the rate base unless the plant is in operation and providing direct benefits to subscribers. A review of InterMedia's submissions shows the amounts reported as construction work in progress represents projects that were not used and useful at the time of filing. Therefore, we removed the amount reported as construction work in progress from the rate base and made appropriate adjustments to the BST and CPST revenue requirement. 12. Asset Valuation: InterMedia's cost of service filing includes both tangible and intangible assets in its rate base. InterMedia used an estimated original cost valuation to establish the value of the assets in its rate base. InterMedia also provided a rate base valuation using its book cost based on the acquisition price it paid for the above referenced franchise. InterMedia asserts that the intangible assets that it includes in its rate base play an important role in the operation of its cable system. InterMedia further states that a policy of excluding intangibles from rate base fails to recognize the substantial investment cable system operators must make in developing and/or acquiring the many intangible assets that are prerequisites either to operating a cable system or to its efficient operation. According to InterMedia, by excluding intangibles the Commission is unfairly penalizing those operators who have acquired an existing cable system. 13. As the Commission reiterated in the Final Cost Order, original cost is a reliable and fair measure of the value of tangible assets. However, as discussed in the Final Cost Order it is often difficult, if not impossible, for cable operators to determine the original cost of a tangible asset. Thus, to accommodate this reality for cable systems constructed before May 15, 1994, the Final Cost Order allows operators to use the book value that was recorded as of May 15, 1994, regardless of whether the system was built or acquired by the current operator. Therefore, we will allow InterMedia to use the book value of its tangible assets to determine the reasonableness of its rates in this proceeding. 14. In the Final Cost Order, the Commission adopted a methodology to exclude that portion of the acquisition price of cable system assets that represents amounts paid for the system in expectation of monopoly profits. Under the methodology, a 34% adjustment would be made to the purchase price a cable operator paid for cable assets (including both tangible and intangible assets) with the result that some portion of the assets would be excluded from rate base. Applying the methodology approved in the Final Cost Order to InterMedia's cost of service in this proceeding results in a gross disallowance of $530,879. Of that amount, $265,440 has been allocated to the BST and $154,840 has been allocated to the CPST. 15. Use of Equivalent Billing Units: On July 27, 1994, the Commission announced that a cable operator, in the absence of an actual subscriber count, may use a subscriber count based on equivalent billing units ("EBUs") for purposes of filing the Commission's benchmark and quarterly increase forms (FCC Forms 1200 and 1210, respectively). The Public Notice on the use of EBUs in these forms, however, was silent regarding the propriety of using EBU counts on FCC Form 1220, the cost of service form. 16. When calculating its maximum permitted rate InterMedia reported subscriber counts based upon EBUs. InterMedia has persuaded us that EBU counts are appropriate for use on FCC Form 1220. EBU counts more accurately account for the unique revenue and cost characteristics of special customer classes. EBU counts correctly recognize the reduced costs of providing services on a per subscriber basis to special customer classes, and ensure that related revenues are properly assigned. Therefore, we conclude that InterMedia has used acceptable allocation methodologies, both in allocating costs from higher organizational levels to lower organizational levels and for inter-tier allocations. Therefore, we did not revise its cost allocations. 17. Upon review of InterMedia's cost of service filings, and having incorporated the adjustments discussed above, we conclude that InterMedia has failed to justify the BST rate of $17.54 charged from May 15, 1994 to January 23, 1995. Rather, InterMedia s cost of service filings justify a maximum permitted BST rate of $13.41 per month (plus franchise fee). B. FCC Form 1210 Filings 18. In addition to its April 11, 1995 FCC Form 1220 filing, which is based on a test year ending December 31, 1994, InterMedia submitted an FCC Form 1210 on November 30, 1995 to reflect changes in channels, external costs, and inflation for the period January 1, 1995 to September 30, 1995. We have reviewed the FCC Form 1210 and, while we found no apparent errors in the methodology that InterMedia applied, we adjusted Module A of FCC Form 1210 to reflect adjustments we made to InterMedia s April 11, 1995 Form 1220 filing as described previously. After making the appropriate adjustments, we conclude that InterMedia has justified the CPST rate of $11.94 that it was charging pursuant to its FCC Form 1210 filing. CONCLUSION 19. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filings and supplemental information and applying the Commission's current rules, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has not justified the monthly BST rate of $17.54 (plus franchise fee) for the period after May 15, 1994. 20. Based on our review of InterMedia's cost of service filings and supplemental information and applying the Commission's current rules, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $11.94 (plus franchise fee) for the period beginning February 23, 1995. 21. Based on our review of InterMedia's FCC Form 1210s filings, we find that, as discussed above, InterMedia has justified the monthly CPST rate of $11.94 (plus franchise fee) that InterMedia charged for the period covered by its Form 1210 filing, is not unreasonable. 22. 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 charged by InterMedia with respect to the above-referenced community, for the period, since May 15, 1994 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.942 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.942, that InterMedia Partners shall refund to BST subscribers in the franchise area referenced in the caption that portion of the amount paid for basic service during the period from May 15, 1994 to the date of payment which exceeded the maximum permitted rate of $13.41. 24. 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 monthly rate InterMedia was charging for its BST is binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Hogansville, and the cable operator, InterMedia. The maximum permitted BST rate of $13.41 shall take effect upon implementation of such ruling by the City of Hogansville, the local franchising authority, and refund liability shall be governed thereon. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission s rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0321, that the monthly CPST rates charged by InterMedia Partners with respect to the above-referenced community, for the period covered by its cost of service filing and FCC Form 1210 filing, ARE JUSTIFIED, and that no refund liability will be imposed. 26. 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 rates charged by InterMedia with respect to the above-referenced CUID number, IS DENIED. 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time filed by InterMedia Partners IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John E. Logan Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau