WPC 2MB%RK<3|aTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN1(72$93$;4l=Document 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 2C5l>6$?7l$A8$ATechnical 3Technical 35 Technical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2dL9$C: F;(H<FJTechnical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2fS=L>N?P@vRtoc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ 2\ASBUCWDYtoc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2_EB\Fv`^Gl^HrB_toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH 2aI_J}e`K`Ljahead1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  2dM/bNbOvcP*da4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  2lQeKeK1hK}ja8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdr"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\~2+vKlKGoKqKs"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7~"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\E"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;Xg<|(|21.mai S- X   ) S-  #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 981021 ă  yxdddy )ՊP3 #&a\  P6G;&P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of R) TCI TKR of Houston, Inc.R) R) Appeals of Local Rate Orders of Cities of:R) R)  S-Alvin, TexasR)hCUID TX0750; File No. CSBA0320  Sp-El Lago, TexasR)hCUID TX0511; File No. CSBA0314  SH -Friendswood, TexasR)hCUID TX0751; File No. CSBA0325  S -La Marque, TexasR)hCUID TX0514; File No. CSBA0333  S -League City, TexasR)hCUID TX0509; File No. CSBA0337  S -Nassau Bay, TexasR)hCUID TX0756; File No. CSBA0332  S -Seabrook, TexasR)hCUID TX0515; File No. CSBA0341  S -Taylor Lake Village, TexasR)hCUID TX0838; File No. CSBA0315  SX-Texas City, TexasR)hCUID TX0424; File No. CSBA0316  S0-Webster, TexasR)hCUID TX0854; File No. CSBA0323  S-M CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION  xTPX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Bureau's adherence to such a practice could inadvertently leave the operator exposed to a sizable and  xundeserving refund liability. The Bureau therefore should revise its order, TCI maintains, and instruct the Cities to place TCI's reasonable approach into effect.  S- ` x5.` ` TCI further contends that the Bureau erred in its disposition of the Texas corporate  xfranchise tax. TCI stresses that the Bureau should allow the operator to capitalize, rather than expense,  xthe item on its Form 1205. TCI states that the tax is the functional equivalent to a state income tax and  xthus should be recorded along with the other related costs on Schedules A and C. The Bureau order had"z,`(`(88"  xdenied TCI such treatment but did not preclude the tax entry from being recovered as an expense under Schedule B.  S- ` ox6.` ` Finally, TCI maintains that the Bureau was mistaken in ruling that operators may offer  xyinside wiring maintenance plans for subscriberowned wiring only on a regulated basis. TCI believes that  xthe Bureau's rational is inconsistent with the principles and goals underlying cable rate regulation. TCI  x=complains that inside wiring plans should not be regulated under circumstances where an operator offers  xanother regulated option, such as the asneeded hourly service charge ("HSC"), or other competitive alternatives are readily available to the subscriber.  Sp-  IV. UNFUNDED DEFERRED TAXES ĐTP  S - ` x7.` ` In computing its rates for converters on Schedule C of FCC Form 1205, TCI included in  S - xLine J, "Depreciation Expense," an amount representing the amortization of "unfunded deferred taxes."~ ] yO` -ԍForm 1205 does not include any provision for the inclusion of unfunded deferred taxes.~  xThe Cities rejected this entry on the grounds that the Commission's rules do not permit operators to claim  xMsuch an expense. TCI asserts that the Cities' actions were unreasonable because the Commission has  xLrecognized that operators are entitled to recover unfunded deferred taxes. Moreover, TCI maintains that  xit is merely attempting to recoup unfunded deferred taxes that the operator had not taken into ratemaking  xMconsideration at the time of the advent of rate regulation. TCI contends, therefore, that it is trying to  x.correct this deficiency by amortizing the deferred tax balance in existence on the date of initial regulation  xas an expense over the remaining useful lives of the related assets. With the allowance of such an expense  xentry, TCI believes that its subscribers should fund the deferred tax account for which the Form 1205  xxalready credits them and that this "regulatory symmetry" should be retroactively approved. For the reasons  xexplained below, we reaffirm that the Cities interpreted the Commission's rules correctly and acted reasonably in rejecting TCI's unfunded deferred tax expense claim.  S- ` x8.` ` Deferred income taxes represent the tax benefit enjoyed by regulated entities that  xdepreciate rate base assets on an accelerated basis for tax purposes, but that establish rates based on the  x?regulatory presumption that rate base assets are depreciated on a straightline basis. Straightline  xdepreciation results in a longer depreciation schedule than does an accelerated depreciation method.  xInitially, when rates are calculated using straightline depreciation, the presumed tax liability for regulatory  xpurposes exceeds the actual tax liability that results from the operator's use of accelerated depreciation  S- xfor tax purposes. X] yO- xԍAccelerated depreciation, as compared to the straightline method, produces a higher expense amount to offset against revenues, which reduces the operator's tax liability. Eventually, the operator's use of a shorter depreciation schedule for tax purposes than  xfor regulatory purposes will have the reverse effect. The initial "savings" that results from the use of a  xshorter depreciation schedule for tax purposes than for regulatory purposes is referred to as deferred taxes  S- xbecause the tax liability is deferred to a later date.x \] {O#- xԍSee Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  xRate Regulation, Second Report And Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed  {Oj%-Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd. 2220, 2248, P 62 (1996) ("COS Order").x Cable rates are calculated as if the operator were" ,`(`(88"  S- xsubject to the tax liability that would result from the use of a straightline depreciation schedule.1 ] {Oh-ԍId.1 As a  xresult, the operator using straightline asset depreciation for regulatory purposes and accelerated  x.depreciation for tax purposes receives revenues from subscribers today for an income tax liability that it  xwill not incur until a later date. In the early years, this difference in depreciation methodologies will result  xin an overcollection of revenues the operator needs to pay its current tax liability. These excess revenues  xjare viewed as subscriberprovided funds, which are available to the operator at no cost to fund the future  S- xpayment of its deferred taxes. Z] yO - x,ԍThe operator does not pay interest to subscribers to obtain and use the funds. In later years, when the deferred  xtax effect has been reversed and actual tax liability exceeds regulatory tax liability, rates calculated using the  xregulatory depreciation schedule will not be sufficient to fund the tax liability that results from a shorter depreciation schedule for tax purposes.  The Form 1205 addresses the overrecovery of revenues by requiring  S- xoperators to deduct deferred tax balances from the equipment rate base.P B] {O -ԍSee COS Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2248.P Consequently, rates are reduced  x/by an amount equal to the deferred taxes multiplied by the rate of return on the rate base. We earlier explained this aspect of the Form 1205:  ` XxX` ` The requirement to reduce the rate base by [the deferred tax balance] is  ` premised on the assumption that the operator has included the tax expense  ` in its rates even though the amount was not payable to taxing authorities.  ` In these instances, since the operator has use of these "no cost funds"  ` 7provided by the ratepayer, an adjustment is made to the rate base for an  S -appropriate reduction to the revenue requirement.  ] {O- xԍBureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20932. See TCI Cablevision of St. Louis, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 15287, 15295 (Cab.  {O-Serv. Bur. 1997), petition for recon. pending ("TCI of St. Louis"). x`  S0- `  x9.` ` TCI claims that its existing deferred tax balance is "unfunded" because prior to the  xzeffective date of rate regulation it did not calculate its rates to recover any excess revenues to fund the  xfuture payment of deferred taxes; rather, it collected from subscribers only the amount it needed to pay  xthencurrent actual tax liability. TCI's socalled unfunded deferred tax balance represents the difference  xbetween TCI's actual tax liability prior to regulation, which it recovered from subscribers, and TCI's  x[hypothetical regulatory tax liability during the same period, which purportedly it did not seek to recover  xfrom subscribers. According to TCI, the Commission assumed when it designed Form 393, which  xoperators used to establish initial regulated programming and equipment rates, that all operators had  xzalready included deferred taxes in rates before they became subject to rate regulation. TCI argues that  xbecause it did not include deferred taxes in calculating rates prior to regulation, it was penalized by the  xForm 393 requirement that it deduct deferred taxes from its rate base. TCI states that the Commission  xlater determined that this aspect of the Form 393 was incorrect and attempted to remedy its error.  xAsserting that the Commission's remedy was inadequate, TCI now seeks to redress the alleged discrepancy  xby amortizing its socalled unfunded deferred tax balance over a period of years by treating a portion of the balance as an expense on its Form 1205. "0 ,`(`(88="Ԍ S- ` x 10.` ` TCI is correct that the Commission modified its initial approach to deferred taxes.  xInitially, the Commission required operators to reduce the regulated rate base by the total deferred taxes  xyassociated with the rate base investment. Subsequently, we modified that rule to require the reduction of  S- xthe rate base by deferred taxes accrued only since the date the operator became subject to rate regulation.S] {O-ԍSee COS Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 224748.S  xStating that the deduction we first required was "premised on the regulatory presumption that rates reflect  x.the operator's use of straightline depreciation," we concluded that the presumption was not valid in the  S- xabsence of rate regulation.:Z] {O -ԍId. at 2248.: Accordingly, we modified our approach to require operators to deduct  x[deferred taxes from rate base only to the extent the deferred taxes were accrued and became payable after  S- xthe operator became subject to rate regulation.1] {OL -ԍId.1 Under the modified approach, we have permitted  xoperators to deduct their preregulation deferred tax balance from their current deferred tax balance before  Sp- xthey deduct deferred taxes from rate base.p~] {O- x;ԍSee TCI of St. Louis, 12 FCC Rcd at 1529596. We took the same approach in the Bureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20932. This results in a smaller deduction to rate base and,  xcorrespondingly, a larger overall return amount. "Because [the operator] may earn a return on those  xrevenues until it actually incurs the tax liability [the Commission] require[s] that this amount, the deferred  S -tax liability, be deducted from the ratebase so as to preclude a double recovery."O ] {Op-ԍCOS Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 2248. O  S - `  x 11.` ` The Cities applied our rules correctly and ruled reasonably when they rejected TCI's  xkattempt to recover deferred taxes as an amortized expense. Our rules do not provide the remedy TCI  xseeks, and the local rate appeal process is not the proper vehicle for TCI to seek modification of our rules.  xMoreover, TCI offers no factual support for its claim that prior to regulation it collected from subscribers  xonly the amount needed to pay its thencurrent tax liability. In addition, TCI's depreciation practices and  xrate design methods prior to regulation were matters entirely within TCI's control and discretion. The  xCommission's prescribed deferred tax treatment addresses TCI's concern that the Form 393 required it  x.to subtract its deferred tax balance from the rate base: TCI and other operators are no longer required to  x.deduct taxes accrued before the operator became subject to rate regulation. Consequently, the treatment  xTCI seeks for the alleged unfunded deferred tax liability would allow it to recover for future tax liability  xwithout the corresponding adjustment to its rate base. Subscribers should not be required to pay a penalty  x[or subsidize TCI's future tax liability simply because TCI used accounting and rate design methods prior  xto regulation that TCI now wishes to revise. On this record, we find that TCI has neither sustained its  S- xburden of demonstrating the reasonableness of its ratesOj ] yO"-ԍ47 C. F. R. 76.937(a). O nor demonstrated that the Cities acted  Sx- xinconsistently with the Commission's rules.Kx ] {O%-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.944(a).K TCI's request for reconsideration on this issue is, therefore, denied. "( ,`(`(88"Ԍ S-  V . TEXAS CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ĐTP  S- ` x 12.` ` TCI continues to insist that the Texas corporate franchise tax is essentially, if not  x/functionally, the equivalent of a state income tax. TCI therefore claims that it should be permitted to  xinclude the tax in its grossup calculations reported on Schedule A of its Form 1205. Schedule A is  xutilized to calculate the annual cost of equipment and permits an operator to garner a return on investment  S- xthat is "grossed up" or adjusted to account for the operator's payment of federal and state income taxes.l] {Ox-ԍSee FCC Form 1205 Instructions at 8 (instructions for Line G).l  xLSchedule B collects the operator's annual expenses for the installation and maintenance of cable facilities, including "other taxes."  Sp- ` x 13.` ` On TCI's initial appeal, we determined that, although the franchise tax was measured by  xthe higher of a corporation's capital or income calculation, the tax was not exclusively based on income,  xand consequently could not be approved as a state income tax liability under Commission regulations.  x Upon further consideration of TCI's argument, we still disagree with its analysis that the Texas levy constitutes, on its face, a state income tax subject to recovery under Schedule A.  S - ` Bx 14.` ` In this connection, the Supreme Court of Texas recently addressed a somewhat similar  xcontention, advanced as a challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas corporate franchise tax statute,  xon the basis that the State had utilized the franchise tax mechanism to impose retroactively a "new  S- xcorporate income tax."Z] {O-ԍGeneral Dynamics Corp. v. Sharp, 919 S.W.2d 861(Tex. 1996), rehearing denied. In rejecting the challenge, the Court specially noted the critical difference  xbetween a direct tax on property, such as income, and the Texas corporate franchise tax. The Court explained that:  ` XxX` ` A direct tax on property is paid simply because the taxpayer owns [or  ` tearns] the property at a given time. The franchise tax, however, is an  ` excise tax levied as payment for the privilege of doing business during  S-the year in which the tax is levied.U] {O|-ԍId. at 866. (bracketed material added).U x`  xzWith this authoritative guidance, we can hardly fault the Cities in their interpretation of the corporate  x.franchise tax at issue as construed under Texas law or find that the Cities rejection of TCI's treatment of  xjthat tax on its Form 1205 was unreasonable. Under Commission regulations, rate orders entered by local  S(- xfranchising authorities are not accorded de novo review and ordinarily will be sustained provided a  S-reasonable basis exists for the Cities' action.$~] yO "- xԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.944; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and  xCompetition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed  {O#- xRulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731 (1993)("Rate Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket 92266,  {Oz$-9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4345(1994)("Third Reconsideration Order").   S- ` x15.` ` We find that it was not unreasonable for the Cities to disallow TCI's treatment of the  x/Texas corporate franchise tax as an includible grossup item on Schedule A of its Form 1205. As we"j ,`(`(88"  xpointed out earlier in this proceeding, however, TCI should not be precluded from the recovery of the  xcorporate franchise tax actually paid and may be entitled to include the Texas corporate franchise tax as  xa permissible entry in its equipment computations calculated on Schedule B of its Form 1205. We clarify  xthat the Cities should allow TCI to show that it is entitled to recover these taxes on Schedule B. Accordingly, we remand this matter for resolution consistent with the terms of this order.  S-u  VI. OPTIONAL INSIDE WIRING MAINTENANCE PLAN ĐTP  S- ` x16.` ` The Bureau Order concluded that the regulatory treatment of inside wiring and costs  xassociated with its maintenance depends on who owns the wiring. Where subscribers own their inside  xwiring, as in these cases, TCI may offer a separate wire maintenance service, but the rates would be  xsubject to review by the City and must be determined in accordance with the Commission's regulations  S" - xfor pricing equipment service contracts and hourly rates for asneeded service. The Bureau Order  x>concluded that the Cities had correctly applied Commission rules to TCI's inside wiring maintenance  S -plans.S ] {O<-ԍBureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2093738.S  S - ` x17.` ` TCI argues against regulation of its inside wiring maintenance plan for subscriberowned  xwiring. TCI contends that the pricing rule for equipment service contracts set forth in Section 76.923(i)  S4- xof the Commission's rules is inapplicable because TCI offers a regulated alternative, i.e., the asneeded,  xHSCbased option, and because subscribers also can obtain inside wiring maintenance services from third xparty contractors or perform the maintenance work themselves. According to TCI, unregulated treatment  x[of its inside wiring maintenance plan would be consistent with the Commission's determinations in other  xmatters. In support of its argument, TCI relies first on the Commission's determination that equipment  xsales are not subject to price regulation under Section 76.923(i) when the same equipment is offered under  SF- xka regulated lease rate.;FZ] yO@- x ԍPetition at 10 (citing Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition  xAct of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, First Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order,  {O- x-and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1164, 1192 ("First Order on Reconsideration"). Section  x76.923(i) of the Commission's rules states that the price of customer premises equipment sold by an operator to a  xsubscriber "shall recover the operator's cost of the equipment, including costs associated with storing and preparing the equipment for sale up to the time it is sold to the customer, plus a reasonable profit." 47 C.F.R.  76.923(i).; TCI next asserts that the Commission's rationale for permitting marketbased  S- xpricing of new product tiers ("NPTs") also justifies a finding that its inside wiring maintenance plan should  S- xnot be regulated.K] yOj- x ԍPetition at 10 (citing Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition  xAct of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, MM Docket Nos. 92266, 93215, Sixth Order on  x<Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 1226, 1235  {O!- xY(1994) ("Sixth Order on Reconsideration"), aff'd, Adelphia Communications Corp. v. FCC, 88 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).K Finally, TCI finds support for its position in the Bureau's decision not to regulate A/B  S-switches in SBC Media Ventures, Inc. ("SBC"). ] {O$-ԍSBC Media Ventures, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 7175, 7180 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994); see Petition at 10. ",`(`(88"Ԍ S- ` x18.` ` As explained in TCI of Southeast Mississippi,k] yOh-ԍDA 98861 at  1521 (Cab. Serv. Bur. released May 8, 1998).k the 1992 Act required the Commission to  S- x]establish standards to ensure that equipment would be available on the basis of actual cost.AX] yO-ԍ47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3).A The  xylegislative history concerning the home wiring provisions in the 1992 Act indicates that Congress wanted  xzthe Commission to "adopt policies that will protect consumers against the imposition of unnecessary  Sb- xcharges, for example, for home wiring maintenance." b] yO- xԍS. Rep. No. 92, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1991) ("Senate Report"). The Senate Report encourages the  x;Commission to adopt regulations to promote subscriber ownership of inside wiring but cautions, in the abovequoted  xlanguage, that the Commission should also protect subscribers from unnecessary inside wiring maintenance charges.  {OB - xSee id. The statutory provision contained in the Senate Report is identical in all material respects to the language  xCongress adopted in Section 16 of the 1992 Act, 47 U.S.C.  544(i) (directing the Commission to enact rules regarding the disposition of inside wiring upon a subscriber's termination of service). In establishing initial rate regulations pursuant to  xLthe 1992 Act, the Commission implemented the law by establishing standards governing operators' rates  S- x.for equipment service plans when operators sell equipment to subscribers.V!b ] {O-ԍSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5818.V The statutory directive to  xensure that equipment rates reflect actual costs and the specific reference to "home wiring maintenance"  xin the legislative history of the 1992 Act give premise to the Commission's responsibility to ensure that  xthe rates for inside wiring maintenance plans reflect the law's standard. This includes circumstances in  x[which another form of service, such as an HSCbased charge, is available. Inside wiring maintenance fees  xin excess of actual cost are the type of "unnecessary charges" Congress sought to prevent. The  xCommission's costbased pricing formula for equipment service contracts is directed to fulfilling the law's mandate.  S - ` x19.` ` We do not agree that the exemption from price regulation for certain equipment sales  x?justifies a similar exemption for inside wiring maintenance plans. The Commission determined in  xadopting its rate regulations that the sale of equipment to subscribers will be exempt from price regulation  S2- xunder Section 76.923(i) if the same equipment is available from the operator on a leased, i.e., regulated,  S - xbasis.d"  ] {O-ԍSee First Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 1192.d In such cases, the subscriber would have a comparable regulated alternative to the unregulated  S- xequipment sale.1# ] {O -ԍId.1 A service contract for the maintenance and repair of equipment is not comparable to  x{an asneeded maintenance fee based on a regulated HSC. A maintenance agreement is similar to an  xinsurance contract. It is designed to protect subscribers from incurring essentially unquantifiable costs for  Sl- xservice provided on an asneeded basis..$"l] yO$#- xԍAlthough the future maintenance and repair costs for an individual subscriber may be unquantifiable, cable  xoperators can use historical data to quantify the aggregate maintenance and repair costs likely to be incurred on  xybehalf of all subscribers. Operators are required to quantify these historical costs in deriving the lease rate for  {O|%-customer equipment. See, e.g., Form 1205, General Instructions and Instructions for Schedule C.. Subscriber purchase of equipment, in contrast, is a close  xsubstitute for a lease rate. By multiplying the lease rate by the number of months the subscriber plans  x.to use the equipment in question and comparing the result to the sales price and the estimated life of the"$,`(`(88b"  xequipment, the subscriber can readily ascertain the relative costs and benefits of leasing versus purchasing  xthe equipment. Comparing the relative costs and benefits of purchasing an inside wiring maintenance plan  xkversus relying on the HSC is a difficult, if not amorphous, task. The analysis requires a subscriber to  x=make assumptions about future events that even the cable operator may be unable to predict reliably for  xa particular subscriber, such as the capability of the wire to withstand a number of elements. The two  xforms of maintenance service are not comparable. It cannot be said that a regulated, HSCbased charge parallels the unregulated inside wiring maintenance plan.  S- ` x20.` ` TCI's reliance on the regulatory treatment of NPTs in support of its argument that inside  xwiring maintenance plans should not be regulated is misplaced. NPTs are cable programming service tiers  Sp- x("CPSTs") subject to the statutory requirement that rates not be unreasonable.%p] yO - xKԍ47 U.S.C.  543(c)(1). NPTs composed of video programming provided over cable systems are not part of the BST and are offered in a package, rather than exclusively on a perchannel or perprogram basis. Because NPTs compete  x.for subscribers against the BST and other CPSTs, the Commission determined that, if certain conditions  xare met, market forces would operate to ensure that NPT rates would be consistent with the statutory  S - x[standard.t& ] {O-ԍSee Sixth Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd at 1235, 123839.t The conditions are specified in the Commission's rules.H' ] {OJ-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.987.H In contrast, equipment rates are to  S - xbe costbased.A( D] yO-ԍ47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3).A TCI has not shown that its maintenance plan is, or is intended to be, based on the actual  S - xcost of the service.)| ] {O- xiԍSee TCI of Southeast Mississippi, DA 98861 at  18, reflecting TCI's acknowledgement in that case that its  {O- xoptional inside wiring maintenance plan was not costbased. See also West Virginia Cable Television Advisory Bd.  x,Motion for Declaratory Ruling on Whether Optional Inside Wiring Maintenance Charge is Regulated, "Response of  xTCI of West Virginia to Petition for Declaratory Ruling" at 5 (Dec. 14, 1994) indicating that TCI's West Virginia  xaffiliate was charging a 49cent monthly inside wiring maintenance fee. The actual cost of that service, however,  xwas only seven cents per month in one community. "Supplemental Response of TeleCommunications, Inc. to Petition for Declaratory Ruling" at 8 (Mar. 10, 1997). TCI has not shown how competitive pressures from the service alternatives it  xreferences will ensure that an inside wiring maintenance plan will be offered in compliance with the statutory standard.  S- ` x21.` ` TCI argues that the existence of competitive alternatives to its inside wiring maintenance  xLplan justifies an exemption from the Commission's rule governing service contract rates. TCI essentially  xproposes that we apply an effective competition test to the market for inside wiring maintenance services.  S- x=Citing SBC, TCI states that an effective competition rationale supported the finding that the sale of A/B switches should not be subject to price regulation.  S- ` x22.` ` SBC does not support TCI's argument. The decision in SBC turned on an analysis of the  xnature of the equipment and the statutory definition at issue. We concluded that the sale of A/B switches  xis not subject to price regulation because A/B switches are not equipment "that is used to receive the basic  S- xservice tier."h*] {O\'-ԍSBC, 9 FCC Rcd at 7180 (quoting 47 C.F.R.  76.923(a)).h Rather, they are equipment used to turn off the basic service tier and instead receive over" *,`(`(88"ԫ S- xytheair broadcasts.1+] {Oh-ԍId.1 They do not fall within the scope of Section 76.923 of the Commission's rules, and,  xmore broadly, Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, which impose price regulation only on  S- xequipment that is used to receive the basic service tier.`,Z] {O-ԍId.; 47 U.S.C.  543; 47 C.F.R.  76.923(a).` While we observed in SBC that alternative  S- xsources of A/B switches existed,E-] {O-ԍSBC, 9 FCC Rcd at 7180.E the conclusion that A/B switches are not subject to price regulation was  xpremised on the finding that A/B switches are not within the scope of Section 76.923 of the Commission's  S:-rules.;.:~] {OX -ԍSee id.;  S- ` ox23.` ` Our costbased formula for equipment rates, which includes a reasonable profit, results  S- xin rates that are "comparable to those that would exist in a competitive environment."/] {Or- xzԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 1188; see id. at 119192 (same); id. at 1192 n.80 ("A competitive rate is generally one that reflects actual cost including a reasonable profit."). Costbased pricing  xof equipment service contracts is appropriate regardless of whether an operator also offers to perform  xmaintenance and repair work on an asneeded basis at an hourly rate equal to the HSC. Even if  x.competitive alternatives to TCI's inside wiring maintenance plan were to be considered, there is no basis  xon the record to deregulate the rates for TCI's service offering. TCI has not provided persuasive evidence  x=that its proffered alternativesthe rateregulated, asneeded HSC option; the thirdparty option; and the  xselfrepair optionwill provide competitive pressures affecting the price of TCI's inside wiring  xmaintenance plan and ensuring that the price will be consistent with the statutory requirement that  x\equipment rates be based on actual cost. We affirm that rates for inside wiring maintenance plans for  x=subscriberowned wiring must be determined in accordance with Commission regulations and are subject to local franchising authority review and approval.  S- TVII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- ` x24.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of TCI TKR of  Sj-Houston, Inc. regarding the abovelisted Cities IS DENIED .  S- ` Bx25.` ` This action is taken by the Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority  S-delegated by Sections 0.321 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules.N0j ] yO -ԍ47 C.F.R.  0.321, 1.106(a)(1).N  x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhJohn E. Logan x` `  hhActing Chief, Cable Services Bureau