******************************************************** 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 of Carolina ) CUID No. SC0024 (City of Greenwood) d/b/a Greenwood Cablevision ) ) Cost of Service Showing to Support) Basic Tier Rate and ) Cable Programming Services Tier Rate) ORDER Adopted: September 2, 1997 Released: September 5, 1997 By the Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order we consider complaints concerning the rates of the above-captioned operator ("Operator") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the community referenced above. Operator has chosen to justify its CPST rates in effect on September 1, 1993 through a cost of service showing on FCC Form 1220. Operator has filed FCC Forms 1210 and 1240 to justify its rates from May 15, 1994 forward. We find that the CPST rates implemented by Operator beginning September 1, 1993 are not unreasonable. 2. On August 15, 1994, above referenced Operator ("Operator"), filed a cost of service showing with its local franchising authority ("LFA"), the City of Greenwood, South Carolina ("City"), seeking to justify its Basic Service Tier ("BST") rate. Thereafter, on September 12, 1994, the City petitioned the Commission to review the BST cost of service showing. On April 28, 1995, the Commission granted the City's request and agreed to review Operator's cost of service showing for the BST rate. 3. According to information provided by Operator in its cost of service showings, its cable system serves approximately 6,121 basic service tier subscribers and 5,982 CPST subscribers in its City of Greenwood franchise. Operator provides 10 channels on its BST and 24 channels on its CPST. Operator's cost of service filings seek to establish that its BST rate of $6.64 per month and its CPST rate of $14.31 per month for the period September 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994, is justified based on its cost of providing regulated cable service. Our review of the record indicates that Operator's BST rate of $6.64 per month and its CPST rate of $14.31 per month, as established in its FCC Form 1220 in effect for the referenced time period are cost justified under the Commission's most current rules. 4. 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 BST and CPST rates for the periods under review have been justified. 5. Operator also filed FCC Form 1210s and 1240s to justify its CPST rate, effective February 1, 1994. Upon review of Operator's FCC Forms 1220, 1210 and 1240, we have made adjustments. Despite our adjustments, we find that Operator has justified its CPST rates from September 1, 1993 to January 31, 1996. We also find that Operator has justified its CPST rate of $17.86, effective February 1, 1996. 6. Our review of Operator'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 Operator's cost of service showing and related FCC Form 1205 (Equipment Form) and find that the equipment and installation rates Operator charged in connection with its BST for the period under review are not unreasonable. 7. 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 $6.64 and associated equipment and installation rates, as stated on its FCC Form 1205, charged by Operator with respect to the above- referenced community, effective September 1, 1993, IS NOT UNREASONABLE. 8. 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 Operator was charging for its BST and associated equipment and installation are binding on the local franchising authority, the City of Greenwood, and Operator. 9. 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 rates charged for the period September 1, 1993 to January 31, 1996, by Operator with respect to the above-referenced community, ARE NOT UNREASONABLE. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the monthly CPST rate of $17.86 charged by Operator in the community referenced above, effective February 1, 1996 IS NOT UNREASONABLE. 11. 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 Operator with respect to the above-referenced community, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret M. Egler Acting Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau