********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of:               )
                                )
TELERAMA, INC.                  )
                                )
Appeal of Local Rate Order      )
of the City of Euclid, Ohio     )


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

        Adopted:  December 10, 1996  Released:  December 13, 1996  

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

   I.INTRODUCTION

      1.On May 5, 1994, Telerama, Inc. ("Telerama"), filed an Appeal of the Local Cable
Rate Order adopted on April 4, 1994 by its local franchising authority, the City of Euclid, Ohio ("the
City").  The City opposes Telerama's appeal.  The rate order established a new regulated rate
schedule for Telerama's basic service tier rates and associated equipment based on Telerama's Form
393.  Specifically, the City's rate order requires Telerama to implement certain rate reductions and
to issue refunds to subscribers for overcharges levied for the time period from September 1, 1993
to May 14, 1994.

      2.Telerama raises eight issues in its appeal:  (1) that the City failed to permit Telerama
to offset equipment overcharges with basic programming service tier undercharges; (2) that the City
miscalculated Telerama's Hourly Service Charge by improperly including certain installation and
service hours in its calculations and/or by failing to include the costs associated with those hours;
(3) that the City improperly prohibited Telerama from passing through franchise fees to subscribers;
(4) that the City improperly prohibited Telerama from itemizing its franchise fees on subscribers'
bills; (5) that the City improperly ordered Telerama to reinstate a senior citizen discount which was
eliminated during the City's review of its rates; (6) that the City improperly prohibited Telerama
from bundling remote control units with an unregulated premium service; (7) that the City violated
the Commission's due process rules in enacting the local rate order; and (8) that the City improperly
ordered Telerama to issue refunds in the first billing cycle after adoption of the local rate order. 
Telerama claims that each of these actions resulted in a misapplication of the Commission's rate
regulations and violated the 1992 Cable Act.  We address each issue in turn.  

  II.DISCUSSION

      3.Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be appealed
to the Commission.  In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will not conduct a
de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising authority's decision as long as there is a
reasonable basis for that decision.  Therefore, the Commission will reverse a franchising authority's
decision only if it determines that the franchising authority acted unreasonably in applying the
Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.  If the Commission reverses a franchising
authority's decision, it will not substitute 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.

      A.  Refund Offsets

      4.Telerama argues that the City's rate order ignored the Commission's instructions for
the calculation of refunds, which it asserts required that its overcharges for equipment and
installation be offset by its undercharges for basic programming service tier rates.  In response, the
City states that it appears that Telerama is basing its offset argument "on the Commission's recently
revised version of Section 76.942(a)."  The City asserts that the revised rule did not become
effective until May 15, 1994, and thus did not apply to the City's rate order since it was issued before
that date.  According to the City, nothing in the original version of Section 76.942(a) suggested that
Telerama was entitled to offset its overcharges for equipment and installation with its undercharges
for the basic programming service tier rates.   

      5.FCC Form 393 is the official form used by regulators to determine whether an
operator's regulated rates for programming, equipment and installations were reasonable during the
time period from September 1, 1993 until May 14, 1994.  Form 393 is divided into three separate
but interrelated parts.  In Part II, the operator calculates its maximum permitted programming rates,
while in Part III, the operator calculates its equipment and installation costs and maximum permitted
equipment and installation rates.  Part I is a cover sheet that lists the various programming,
equipment and installation rates that have been calculated in Parts II and III and compares them to
the rates the operator has actually charged during the period of review. 

      6.The operator's maximum permitted rates are derived by completing Parts II and III
of the Form 393, pursuant to which the operator calculates the actual aggregate revenues collected
by the operator for regulated programming, equipment and installation, as of the initial date of
regulation ("current rate") or as of September 30, 1992.  After calculating actual aggregate
revenues, the operator converts those revenues to a per-channel rate, and then compares the per-
channel figures to the applicable benchmark rate.  If an operator's current per-channel rate level is
below the applicable benchmark rate, then the operator's rate level is deemed reasonable, but it must
remain at its current level.  If its current per-channel rate level exceeds the benchmark rate, the
operator must then compare its September 30, 1992 per-channel rate level to the applicable
benchmark rate.  If its September 30, 1992 per-channel rate level is above the benchmark rate, it
must reduce this rate level to the benchmark rate or by 10%, whichever reduction is less.  After
computing the permitted rate level in this manner (whether based on current rates or September,
1992 rates), monthly equipment and installation costs are removed to derive the maximum permitted
programming rates.  Maximum permitted rates for equipment and installation are based on actual
cost and are separately calculated in Part III of the Form 393.

      7. Pursuant to Commission rules for the basic service tier, if a franchising authority
does not dispute the basis for the figures presented in the cable operator's filings or has not
discovered any mathematical errors in the forms, the franchising authority should approve the
operator's maximum permitted rates as derived by the forms.  After setting the various regulated
rates that an operator is permitted to charge on a prospective basis, a franchising authority should
then determine if the operator is liable for any subscriber refunds.   Although maximum permitted
rates are always determined on an unbundled basis, i.e., separately for program service and
equipment, refund liability may stem from unbundled rates.  Refund liability should be calculated
based on the difference between old unbundled rates and the sum of the new unbundled program
service charges.  The intent of the refund mechanism is to place subscribers in the same position they
would be had they been subject to reasonable rates.  In calculating an operator's refund liability for
purposes of the Forms 393 and 1200, offsets between program overcharges and program
undercharges may be allowed.  One of the primary purposes in allowing offsets is to avoid
penalizing operators unfamiliar with regulation, who in anticipation of regulation, made a good faith
effort to lower their rates accurately.  This concern applies to both the Form 393 and Form 1200
because both Forms required the use of data from approximately the same time periods.  Any errors
an operator made in setting rates in anticipation of rate regulation would be carried over to the Form
393 and in turn the Form 1200 as well.  In addition, offsets are allowed in the context of Form 393
and Form 1200 because the formulas for these two forms establish a direct relationship between
equipment rates and programming rates. Higher equipment basket costs and correspondingly higher
equipment rates result in lower programming costs and correspondingly lower programming rates. 
Similarly, lower equipment basket costs and correspondingly lower equipment rates result in higher
programming costs and correspondingly higher programming rates.  In this proceeding, any refunds
to be paid by Telerama should be calculated based on this method.  We disagree with the City's
assertion that Telerama is not entitled to offsets because the revisions to 47 C.F.R. 76.942(a) did not
become effective until after the City's rate order was issued.  The revisions were made to 47 C.F.R.
76.942(a) to clarify existing Commission rules regarding the calculation of refunds, i.e., that in
calculating refund liability, operators are permitted to offset overcharges in rates with any
undercharges in rates. 

      8.While the Commission will sustain the decisions of franchising authorities if there
is a reasonable basis for doing so, we expect franchising authorities to adhere to the principles
underlying the benchmark methodology, particularly when calculating an operator's refund
liability.  For instance, in this case, the City must offset or reduce any refunds it may order by the
difference between the actual basic programming service tier rates that Telerama charged and the
maximum permitted rates that it could have charged during the applicable period of review. 
According to Telerama, the City has directed Telerama to issue refunds without regard to the fact
that some rates are below maximum permitted levels.  We are remanding this case to the City so that
it can reconsider its ruling in a manner consistent with our findings.

      B.  Telerama's Hourly Service Charge

      9.Telerama contends that the City improperly lowered its Hourly Service Charge
(HSC), in Part III of its FCC Form 393, by increasing the total number of labor hours for
maintenance and installation of customer equipment.  The HSC is designed to recover the costs of
service installation and maintenance of customer equipment.  In recalculating Telerama's HSC, the
City included, as hours related to service of regulated equipment and installation activities on Line
4, Step A of Form 393, work performed on its distribution plant and other nonsubscriber-specific
work, such as "balancing" and "sweeping" the system.  The City did not, however, enter on Line 3,
Step A, the costs associated with the labor hours that the City added.  Telerama further contends that
the City improperly included labor hour data for additional outlet installations, outlet relocations and
programming service upgrades in calculating its HSC.  Again, the City did not include the associated
costs for the hours it added.  This resulted in a lower HSC because the total costs entered on Line
3 were divided by a larger number of hours.  At a minimum, Telerama argues, the costs associated
with the labor hours the City added should also be included in the HSC calculations.  Finally,
Telerama contends that the City improperly used data from a single week in calculating Telerama's
installation hours, extrapolating to arrive at annual figures, rather than using the actual figures
provided by Telerama.    

      10.The City answers by claiming that Telerama did not submit evidence to support any
of the arguments on this issue that it made before the City.  Specifically, the City claims that
Telerama was given numerous opportunities to submit additional information to substantiate its
claims related to the HSC after the City completed its initial report and  analysis of Telerama's Form
393.  The City further claims that it used the cost figure provided by Telerama in recalculating its
HSC.  Moreover, the City continues, after Telerama informed it that costs related to the labor hours
should be included in the City's recalculation, the City again gave Telerama the opportunity to
submit additional information to support its claim.  The City claims Telerama failed to take
advantage of that opportunity.  Finally, the City claims that it asked Telerama to provide support for
the number of average installation hours on Schedule D of its Form 393.  In response to that request,
the City continues, Telerama provided the results of a time study covering a week in September,
1993.  The City claims Telerama used this same time study to determine its average installation
hours when it completed Schedule D of its Form 393.      

      11.In this instance, the City received an initial filing, purporting to be Telerama's Form
393, from the operator on November 16, 1993.  Telerama submitted a new Form 393 on December
10, 1993.  Due to the deficiencies in the November 16, 1993 filing, the City treated the December
10, 1993 filing as triggering the 30-day period for review.  On December 15, 1993, the City
notified Telerama by letter that it was extending the review period by 90 days until April 11, 1994. 
Upon review, the City determined that Telerama's December 10, 1993 submission was also deficient
and therefore, on January 24, 1994, the City sent Telerama a "Request for Supplemental Rate
Information," which sought additional information, including a request that Telerama base its Form
393 on franchise specific data, rather than the system-wide data on which its second submission was
based.  On March 2, 1994, Telerama submitted a new Form 393 based on franchise-specific data. 
The City determined that this new filing was also deficient and, on March 7, 1994, sent Telerama
a Second Request for Supplemental Rate Information.  Telerama responded to this second request
on March 18, 1994, just over two weeks before the City council was scheduled to meet to consider
a rate determination.  On March 29, 1994, the City provided Telerama with a copy of its report on
Telerama's Form 393 and a draft HSC analysis.  A City council committee met on March 28, 1994
and again on March 30, 1994 to discuss the rate regulation issue.  Telerama was invited to send
representatives to both meetings.  On March 30, 1994, Telerama provided written comments on the
draft report and HSC analysis.  After contacting Telerama by phone to request additional
information, the City sent it a revised version of the HSC analysis.  Telerama told the City that it
would submit the additional information, supporting the above contentions, before the City council
met on April 4, 1994 to adopt a rate order.  On April 4, 1994, however, Telerama informed the City
that it would not provide any additional information before the council meeting.  On the evening of
April 4, 1994, the City council met and adopted the rate order, which included a provision requiring
Telerama to submit a written plan within 10 days for the payment of refunds.  On April 14, 1994,
Telerama sent a letter to the City disputing portions of the rate order and stating that it would provide
refunds "once the rates are set, pursuant to a final FCC or judicial determination."  

      12.Under Commission rules, cable operators have the burden of proof in demonstrating
that the existing or proposed rates for their basic service tier and associated equipment are
reasonable.  Moreover, operators also have the obligation to file timely their rate justifications with
their franchising authorities.  Although we have stated that an operator should have an opportunity
to cure any deficiencies in its original filing or respond to requests for additional information if its
franchising authority has issued an order to toll the effective date of the proposed rates, we have
not required franchising authorities to accept, without supporting documentation, figures used by
an operator in justifying its rates.  Furthermore, we can find no basis to impose such an obligation
under the facts in this proceeding.  Telerama was given numerous opportunities to submit additional
information for the City to consider to support its arguments regarding calculation of its HSC, but
declined.  Having failed to provide the necessary information to the City before the issuance of its
rate order, when the record was open and the City could have considered its arguments, Telerama
is not entitled to have the Bureau consider them on appeal.  Moreover, Telerama has offered no
reason why it could not have provided the City with the information earlier, nor did it ask the City
to reconsider its rate order and provide the information to allow it to do so.  To allow Telerama to
now present this information on appeal, would prevent rate orders from being issued in a timely
fashion, because an operator could indefinitely postpone final resolution of the rate justification
process by not cooperating with its franchising authority.  Based upon the best available information
at the time, the City acted reasonably in issuing its rate order.  Telerama's appeal regarding all the
above HSC related issues, except additional outlet installations and outlet relocations, is therefore
denied.  

      13.With regard to additional outlet installations and outlet relocations, however, the rate
order is remanded because the City did not follow our rules in regard to these items.  Our rules state
that rates for additional outlet installations should be based on actual costs.  Though our actual cost
rules do not specifically include outlet relocations, outlet relocations are sufficiently similar to
additional outlet installations to be accorded such treatment.  Since charges for these items are based
on actual cost, their rates must be calculated separately.  No data for additional outlet installations
and outlet relocations should be included in HSC calculations.  The City must therefore reconsider
these items on remand.  Upon remand we note that in reviewing Telerama's additional outlet
installations and outlet relocations, the primary concern should be to ensure that its Equipment
Basket costs are fully recovered, not how the operator counted its labor hours.  In order to ensure full
recovery, an operator must be permitted to use the same method of counting person hours in
calculating the HSC as it does in calculating the specific charges for its various installations and
equipment. As long as a franchising authority uses the same method for counting both the total
number of labor hours in calculating the HSC and the labor hours for the various installation and
equipment charges in reviewing an operator's Form 393, then its equipment and installation charges
review will result in proper cost recovery. 

      C.  Franchise Fee Pass Through

      14.Telerama next contends that the City's rate order improperly prevents it from "passing
through" its franchise fee obligation to subscribers.  The City contends, however, that this portion
of the rate order reflects a settlement between Telerama and the City regarding past franchise fees
that Telerama allegedly failed to pay.  Specifically, the City claims that because of the franchise fee
underpayment dispute, the parties entered a settlement agreement under which Telerama made a cash
payment to the City and increased its franchise fee payment to the City from its previous level of 3%
of gross receipts to 5% of those receipts on a going-forward basis.  Moreover, the City contends that
Telerama agreed not to pass through the 2% franchise fee increase to subscribers until the current
franchise expires.  In response, Telerama argues that the 1992 Cable Act preempted the franchise
fee settlement agreement and it was therefore relieved of any obligation to the City on the effective
date of the Act, September 1, 1993.  Telerama contends it fully complied with the agreement from
the date of its adoption, December 21, 1992, including the franchise fee pass-through limitation, until
the effective date of the 1992 Cable Act, September 1, 1993, on which it began passing through to
subscribers the full amount of the 5% franchise fee.      

      15.We disagree with Telerama's preemption argument.  Telerama cites 47 U.S.C  543(a)
for authority in making its preemption argument and contends that this section authorizes local
regulation of cable rates only pursuant to the Act and the Commission's rules.  We do not discern
how this section of the U. S. Code has any effect on the parties' dispute.  Based on the record before
us, there appears to be no basis for preemption.  Accordingly, we deny Telerama's appeal with
respect to this issue.   

      D.  Franchise Fee Itemization/Calculation

      16.Telerama next contends that the City improperly invalidated the method by which
it itemizes its franchise fees.  The City claims it does not dispute Telerama's right to itemize
franchise fees.  Instead, the City contends Telerama is attempting to underpay franchise fees owed
to the City through improper itemization.  The City argues that Telerama's method of itemization
has resulted in the City receiving less than five percent of the amount that Telerama collects from
subscribers.  According to the City, the franchise fee must equal 5 percent of a subscriber's total bill,
not a 5 percent charge on top of what the subscriber would otherwise pay.  The City argues that
Telerama's practice of charging subscribers a franchise fee in addition to charges related to cable
service and equipment violates the requirement that the franchise fee be calculated as a percentage
of the cable operator's total gross revenue.  In short, the City concludes, because the franchise fee
amount is added to other charges and does not represent five percent of the total bill, Telerama is
underpaying its franchise fee obligation.        

      17.In its recent decision in United Artists Cable of Baltimore, the Commission noted that
it would ". . . exercise jurisdiction over franchise fee disputes that impinge on a 'national policy
concerning cable communications.'"  The Commission indicated that it intended to exercise
jurisdiction over disputes arising directly under the provisions of the Communications Act, as
opposed to specific fact patterns concerning various local issues.  The Commission gave as an
example the fact that  622(b) states that franchise fees are to be calculated based on "gross revenues
. . . derived from the operation of the cable system."  The Commission reasoned that the issue of
precisely what constitutes "gross revenues . . . derived from the operation of a cable system" does
not arise from individual franchise agreements, but from a specific provision of the statute itself. 
When Congress enacted this provision, it established a uniform federal standard governing the
calculation of franchise fees, and the issue of franchise fee calculation necessarily impinges upon
a national policy on cable franchise fees, according to the Commission.  The Commission
concluded its decision in United Artists Cable of Baltimore by exercising jurisdiction to resolve the
franchise fee dispute and providing an interpretation of the statutory term to serve as precedent in
future cases.

      18.In United Artists Cable of Baltimore, the Commission also upheld the Bureau's
conclusion that the franchise fee a cable operator collects from subscribers should not be included
in calculating an operator's "gross revenues," because franchise fees are a charge levied by the
franchising authority, rather than revenues derived from the operation of the cable system. 
Moreover, given the statutory franchise fee cap of 5%, a cable operator could be obligated to pay
more than the maximum franchise fee permitted under the Cable Act, were the franchise fee itself
subject to a franchise fee.  We hold, therefore, that Telerama is correct in its contention that the
franchise fee it collects from its subscribers for the City does not constitute gross revenues from the
operation of the cable system, and that the City is not entitled to charge a 5% franchise fee on the
total amount that Telerama collects from its subscribers, including the franchise fee.

      E.  Senior Citizen Discount

      19.Telerama next contends that the City improperly ordered it to retain a 10% senior
citizen discount on basic service tier rates and make appropriate refunds, including interest, to senior
citizens, pending City approval of the discount's elimination.  The City counters that Telerama's
unilateral elimination of its 10% basic service discount for senior citizens constituted a "rate
increase," thereby requiring prior City approval.  

      20.In a similar context, we held that elimination of a senior citizen discount did not result
in a fundamental change in service, although it resulted in a price change for affected subscribers. 
We further held that cable operators may eliminate a senior citizen discount without implicating the
Commission's negative option billing prohibition because senior subscribers continued to receive
the same level of service they previously requested.  That same reasoning is applicable here. 
Commission customer service rules require operators to give subscribers 30 days' notice of any
changes in rates, thereby giving senior subscribers the opportunity to cancel service before the rate
change caused by elimination of the discount would take effect.  Furthermore, since an operator may
charge up to its maximum permitted rates, as determined by Form 393, as long as elimination of
the discount does not result in a rate exceeding the maximum permitted one, an operator may
eliminate a senior citizen discount without prior approval from its franchising authority. 
Elimination of a senior citizen discount, resulting in a new rate that does not exceed the applicable
maximum permitted one, is not a "rate increase" under our rules.  This issue is therefore remanded
to the City for further proceedings consistent with our findings here.  

      F.  Remote Controls with Premium Service

      21.Telerama next contends that the City's rate order improperly prohibits it from offering
remote control units as part of a premium package.  In effect, Telerama continues, the City is
imposing two requirements.  First, the City is requiring Telerama to offer remotes to all subscribers,
and not solely to premium subscribers, as is Telerama's current practice.  Second, the City is
requiring Telerama to offer the remotes at the rate approved by the City.  The City contends that it
is not requiring Telerama to offer remotes.  Instead, the City continues, its rate order simply states
that if Telerama offers equipment which can be "used by subscribers to receive basic tier service,"
it may not bundle such equipment with an unregulated premium service.  This practice, the City
concludes, violates the Commission's unbundling policy.

      22.We agree with the City's conclusion.  Congress defined equipment subject to rate
regulation broadly as "equipment used by subscribers to receive basic tier service."  In the Rate
Order, we "agree[d] with commenters who argue[d] that we should require complete unbundling of
the charges for equipment and installation."  The Rate Order also stated the Commission's belief
that Congress intended all equipment used to receive the basic service tier, even if also used to
receive other cable services, to be subject to rate regulation, on the basis of actual cost.  Here, the
remotes offered by Telerama as part of a premium package were also used to receive the basic
service tier.  The City's action, requiring that such remotes be offered at their maximum permitted
rate and ordering refunds for remotes offered above that rate, was reasonable.  Telerama's appeal of
this issue is therefore denied.

      G.  Due Process

      23.Telerama next contends that the City violated the Commission's due process rules in
adopting the local rate order.  Specifically, Telerama states that our rules were violated by the City's
action in failing to provide Telerama adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed rate order
before it was adopted.  The City responds by stating that Telerama was given ample opportunity to
participate in the rate-making process and that the Commission's due process rules were followed
in all other respects.  The City states that it had numerous phone conversations with representatives
from Telerama during the rate making process, exchanged several letters with Telerama related to
its Form 393, conducted several informal meetings on Telerama's Form 393, to which
representatives from Telerama were invited, and passed its local rate order at a public meeting of the
City Council.      

      24.Our rules require that a franchising authority must provide a reasonable opportunity
for consideration of the views of interested parties.  Our rules also require the franchising authority
to issue a written report if it disallows the operator's proposed rates.  The written report must
affirmatively demonstrate why the operator's proposed rates are unreasonable and why the prescribed
rates are reasonable.  We do not require evidentiary hearings, although such hearings are permitted. 
We deem it sufficient for the local authority to consider the written views of interested persons on
issues raised about the operator's proposed rates.  Here, the City met with Telerama representatives
on numerous occasions, exchanged written correspondence on issues raised by Telerama and had
two informal meetings, at both of which Telerama's Form 393 was the exclusive item considered. 
The rate order also sets forth and affirmatively demonstrates the City's findings with regard to the
issues that had been discussed previously.  It is clear from the record below that the City conducted
its review of Telerama's Form 393 in compliance with the procedural safeguards established by the
Commission.  We conclude that, in considering Telerama's Form 393 and in adopting its local rate
order reflecting that consideration, the City acted reasonably and met our procedural requirements. 
Accordingly, we deny Telemedia's appeal with respect to this issue.

      H.  Refund Timetable
       
      25.Telerama next contends that the City's requirement that Telerama issue refunds for
overcharges no later than the next bill sent to subscribers after the date the local rate order was
adopted violates Commission procedural rules.  Specifically, Telerama relies on language in our
rules which, in the context of cable programming service rate orders, requires operators to issue rate
reductions or refunds within 60 days from the date an order is released which declares rates
unreasonable and mandates a remedy.  The City counters that neither the 1992 Cable Act nor
Commission rules address the time period in which a cable operator may be required to implement
a refund for the basic service tier.  

      26.The 60-day requirement, on which Telerama relies, applies to cable programming
service rate reductions or refunds ordered by the Commission.  We have stated, however, that
franchising authorities should follow the procedures we adopted for cable programming services in
ordering refunds for basic service rates.  We have also stated that cable operators should be given
the opportunity to provide 30 days' notice of any rate changes or refunds to its subscribers.  In
providing operators such an opportunity, we further stated that the franchising authority should
consider the amount of time required to prepare and send notices and bills reflecting the rate change
with particular attention paid to the impact of cycle billing, if applicable.  The City's timetable for
issuing refunds does not give Telerama the opportunity to provide its subscribers notice, nor does
it appear from the record below that the City gave proper consideration to other issues, such as
whether Telerama uses cycle billing.  This issue is therefore remanded to the City for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
            
III. ORDERING CLAUSES

      27.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Telerama's appeal of the City of Euclid's local
rate order, with regard to the issues of refund offsets, additional outlet installations and outlet
relocations rates, franchise fee pass through and itemization/calculation, senior citizen discount and
refund timetable, IS REMANDED to the local franchising authority for resolution in accordance
with the terms of this Order.

      28.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Telerama's appeal of the City of Euclid's local
rate order, with regard to the issues of Hourly Service Charge calculation, remote controls with
premium service and due process, IS DENIED.

      29.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Telerama's Petition for Stay Pending Review of
the Appeal and Emergency Petition for Stay Pending Review of Stay Petition  ARE DISMISSED
as moot.

      29.This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority
delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules.  47 C.F.R.  0.321 (1993).
 
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




     Meredith J. Jones
     Chief, Cable Services Bureau