******************************************************** 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 ) ) InterMedia Partners on behalf of) CUID No. CA0379 (Santa Clara) Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a) South Bay CableVision ) ) Complaints Regarding ) Cable Programming Services Tier ) Rate Increases ) ORDER Adopted: February 26, 1997 Released: March 3, 1997 By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider complaints concerning the rate increases of the above captioned operator ("Operator") for its cable programming sevices tier ("CPST") in Santa Clara, California, CUID No. CA0379. Operator increased its CPST rates on September 1, 1993 and on December 1, 1994. Operator has chosen to attempt to justify its September 1, 1993 CPST rate increase through a cost of service submission on FCC Form 1220. To justify its December 1, 1994 CPST rate increase, Operator filed FCC Form 1210 for the period April 1, 1994 to September 30, 1994. We conclude that the CPST rate increases implemented by Operator are not unreasonable. 2. Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") is authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, ("1992 Cable Act"), the Commission must review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST rates. If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability. 3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994. Cable operators with valid CPST complaints filed prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPST rates complied with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994. Their rates must also comply with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. Cable operators attempting to justify their rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a cost of service showing must complete and file FCC Form 1220. Cable operators may file a FCC Form 1210 to justify rate increases based on the addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs, and inflation. The Operator must file FCC Form 1210, at least 30 days before new rates are scheduled to go into effect, where the Commission has found the cable programming service rate to be unreasonable less than one year prior to the filing, or where there is a pending complaint against the CPST rate. 4. Operator's FCC Form 1220 cost of service filing of August 15, 1994 and its subsequent FCC Form 1210 filing seek to establish that its CPST rate increases are justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. According to information provided by Operator in its cost of service showing, the franchise area comprised approximately 19,908 CPST subscribers. In this review process, we analyzed Operator's rate justifications to ensure that the rate increases were not unreasonable. 5. Rate base and expense items have been evaluated to determine whether Operator 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 Operator's monthly CPST rates have been justified. 6. Based on our review of Operator's FCC Form 1220 and FCC Form 1210 filings and applying the Commission's most current rules, we find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $10.31 that it began charging on September 1, 1993 and its CPST rate of $10.71 effective December 1, 1994. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the CPST rates of $10.31 and $10.71 implemented by Operator on September 1, 1993 and December 1, 1994, respectively, in the community referenced above ARE NOT UNREASONABLE. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaints against the monthly CPST rates of $10.31 and $10.71 implemented by Operator on September 1, 1993 and December 1, 1994, respectively, in the community referenced above ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Elizabeth W. Beaty Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau