[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63492-63497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29807]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 95-174; FCC 95-472]
Cable Television Act of 1992
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on proposed
methods for cable operators' setting of uniform rates for uniform
services offered in multiple franchising areas. The Commission is
exploring this issue to solicit comment on possibly permitting
operators to establish uniform rates. The item will help the Commission
create a record on this issue, which will assist the Commission in
designing new or amending current regulations to allow operators to
establish uniform rates.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 12, 1996 and reply
comments are due on or before February 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Walke, (202) 416-0847.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554,
and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20037.
[CS Docket No. 95-174]
In the matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992--Rate
Regulation Uniform Rate-Setting Methodology.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Adopted: November 28, 1995.
Released: November 29, 1995.
By the Commission:
Comment Date: January 12, 1996.
Reply Comment Date: February 12, 1996.
I. Introduction
1. Under the Commission's cable service rate regulations, a cable
operator serving multiple franchise areas must establish maximum
permitted service rates in each franchise area. These rates often vary
from franchise area to franchise area, even if each area receives the
identical package of program services. This outcome may cause needless
confusion for subscribers, as well as unnecessary administrative
burdens for cable companies. In addition, a cable operator's ability to
market its product on a regional basis may be hindered. Therefore, in
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we explore the design
and implementation of an optional rate-setting methodology under which
a cable operator could establish uniform rates for uniform cable
service tiers offered in multiple franchise area.
II. Background
2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992 (the ``1992 Cable Act''), the rates charged by a cable
system are
[[Page 63493]]
subject to regulation unless the system faces effective competition. In
particular, the 1992 Cable Act directed the Commission to establish
regulations designed to protect subscribers from unreasonable rates for
certain types of cable services offered by such systems. Rate-regulated
services consist of the basic service tier (``BST'') and the cable
programming services tier (``CPST'').
3. Every cable operator subject to rate regulation must offer a BST
that includes all local broadcast stations that the operator carries on
its system, plus all public, educational, and governmental (``PEG'')
access channels required by the operator's franchise agreement with its
local franchising authority. If it so chooses, a cable operator may
offer additional programming on its BST beyond these minimum
requirements. Subscribers to a rate-regulated cable system must
purchase the BST in order to have access to any other tier of service.
CPSTs include all non-BST programming offered over the cable system,
other than programming offered to subscribers on a per channel or per
program basis. There is no general requirement that an operator offer a
CPST, and some operators offer no CPST. Per channel and per program
offerings are generally exempt from rate regulation.
4. Congress identified several specific factors that the Commission
must consider in establishing regulations governing BST and CPST rates.
The Commission may take other factors into account as well. In
addition, the 1992 Cable Act required that the Commission ``seek to
reduce administrative burdens on subscribers, cable operators,
franchising authorities and the Commission'' in establishing its
regulations.
5. Under the primary method of rate regulation adopted by the
Commission, a regulated cable system determines the maximum permitted
initial rates for cable services pursuant to a benchmark formula. In
selecting a primary regulatory model, the Commission employed a
benchmark formula instead of the cost-of-service methodology that is
traditionally applied to public utilities because of the often
significant administrative costs and burdens on regulators and
regulated companies associated with cost-of-service regulation.
However, operators subject to regulation do have the option of setting
rates in accordance with a cost-of-service methodology that the
Commission has developed.
6. To set or justify its initial rates in accordance with the
benchmark formula, a cable operator first must use FCC Form 1200. This
form generates a maximum permitted rate as of May 15, 1994 for a
particular franchise area, based upon various characteristics specific
to the cable system within that franchise area. These variables include
channels per tier, number of regulated non-broadcast channels per tier,
number of subscribers in the local franchise area, number of tier
changes, the census income level for the franchise area, number of
additional outlets and remote control units in the franchise area,
system-wide subscribership, whether the system is part of a multiple
system operation (``MSO''), and the number of systems in the MSO. A
benchmark operator may, and sometimes must, adjust the rates permitted
by Form 1200 to take account of changes in inflation and other costs
since May 15, 1994. Currently, the operator must use FCC Form 1210 to
calculate these adjustments. As of the effective date of the Form 1240
promulgated pursuant to the recently adopted Thirteenth Order on
Reconsideration, 60 FR 52106 (October 6, 1995), operators may make rate
adjustments as provided by FCC Form 1240 in lieu of Form 1210. Whereas
an operator can file Form 1210 as often as once per calendar quarter to
adjust rates to take account of costs already incurred by the operator,
Form 1240 will be filed no more than annually but will permit the
operator to adjust rates based on costs to be incurred within the
coming year. In addition, operators may increase rates to reflect the
addition of new programming services to regulated tiers. Our rules
provide two methods for adjusting rates for the addition of programming
services. First, an operator can add channels to CPSTs using our
original ``going-forward'' rules, which allow the operator to charge
subscribers the cost of the additional programming plus up to an
additional 7.5% markup on that cost. Second, an operator may add
programming services under the Commission's more recently adopted
going-forward option, which allows an operator to charge subscribers up
to $0.20 per channel for additional channels and up to a further $0.30
in associated licensing fees. The latter going-forward rules similarly
require specific decreases in subscriber rates when an operator deletes
channels from its lineup, depending on when the channel in question was
added.
7. Enforcement of the Commission rate regulations is divided
between qualified local franchising authorities and the Commission. A
local franchising authority may enforce regulation of the cable
operator's BST once the Commission has received and approved the local
franchising authority's certification that it has the legal and
practical ability to do so. Upon receiving notification that the
franchising authority has been certified by the Commission to regulate
rates, a cable operator opting for benchmark regulation must justify
its existing BST rates pursuant to the benchmark formula. Once
regulated, the operator also must seek local approval for future BST
rate increases. The operator seeks such approvals by filing the forms
described above. The operator also must justify its rates for equipment
and installations associated with the BST. The franchising authority
must then review the forms, may request additional information if
reasonably necessary to complete its review, and ultimately issue an
order approving or disapproving the rates proposed by the operator.
8. The participation by local franchising authorities in the
regulation of cable service is critical. Generally, the Commission
establishes federal standards and procedures concerning various aspects
of cable service which local franchising authorities implement. These
rules include but are not limited to subscriber rates, cable service
technical standards, and customer service. Local franchising
authorities are the first line of enforcement of these numerous
regulations. While the Commission may be on hand, either by statute or
informally, to help resolve any disputes that may arise between a cable
provider and a local franchising authority, the responsibility to
oversee cable service regulations falls primarily on the franchise
authorities. Generally, the Commission gives significant deference to
decisions by local franchising authorities. For example, where a cable
operator appeals a franchising authority's rate decision, the
Commission will not conduct de novo review of the decision; rather, the
Commission will defer to the local authority's decision provided there
is a rational basis for the decision. This process is just one example
of the Commission's significant reliance upon local franchising
authorities in the regulation of basic cable service. Moreover, in all
but the most rare situations, local authorities administer cable
service regulation without federal assistance.
9. An operator's CPST is subject to regulation directly by the
Commission. Commission enforcement of CPST rate regulation is triggered
by the filing of a complaint by a subscriber or franchising authority
or other relevant state or local regulatory authority. Upon the filing
of
[[Page 63494]]
such a complaint, the operator must file the necessary forms with the
Commission, which then follows a review process analogous to that used
by local franchising authorities regulating BST rates.
10. The benchmark approach described above requires operators to
establish a separate rate structure in each franchise area served,
since many of the variable used to generate the maximum rate are
franchise specific. For example, while the data on whether the system
is part of an MSO will be identical throughout all of the franchise
areas served, the census income and subscribership variables are
measured on a franchise area basis and necessarily will vary among
franchise areas. Similarly, costs associated with PEG channels and
other franchise-related costs may vary among franchise areas. A
disparity in rates among franchise areas will occur even if the
operator provides service to multiple franchise areas through a single,
integrated cable system, since even in that case rates are set
separately for each franchise area on the basis of variables specific
to the franchise area.
11. Relatedly, we note that the acquisition and clustering of
neighboring cable systems by MSOs has become fairly common. An operator
seeking to establish uniform rates and services for clustered systems
likely will need to add channels to the programming lineups of certain
system and delete channels from the lineups of other systems. While the
Commission's ``going-forward'' rate regulations typically provide
operators with the flexibility to establish a uniform package of
programming services, the operator's efforts to equalize prices will be
severely constrained because the rules quite specifically dictate
permitted changes in rates that must accompany changes in level of
service and do not permit regional averaging of the data used to
complete rates.
III. Discussion
12. We tentatively conclude that permitting operators serving
multiple franchise areas to establish uniform services at uniform rates
in all such areas would be beneficial for subscribers, franchising
authorities, and operators. For example, facilitating an operator's
ability to advertise a single rate for cable service over a broad
geographic region may lower marketing costs and enhance the operator's
efficiency in responding to competition from alternative service
providers that typically may establish and market uniform services and
rates without regard to franchise area boundaries. The increased
ability of operators to compete resulting from this approach may
increase penetration in a particular franchise area. Such an approach
could reduce consumer confusion because a subscriber moving from one
part of the operator's service area to another would not experience any
difference in price or service offerings. We explore below two
alternatives for permitting an operator to establish uniform rates for
uniform services across multiple franchise areas, while fully
protecting subscribers from unreasonable rates, and solicit comment on
these and any other possible approaches. Before discussing these two
methodologies, we will identify several issues that will arise
regardless of which methodology we ultimately adopt.
13. Cable operators currently serve multiple franchise areas using
a variety of system structure; some operators serve multiple areas with
a single, integrated cable system while others use multiple, distinct
systems. An operator's rates are not dependent on whether single or
multiple systems are used to deliver service. We propose that under a
uniform rate0-setting option, a cable operator be allowed to establish
uniform rates for uniform service offerings in multiple franchise areas
regardless of whether the operator serves the multiple franchise areas
with on integrated cable system (i.e., one ``headend'') or with
multiple separate cable systems, and seek comment on this proposal.
14. We believe that cable operators primarily will seek to
establish uniform rates for systems serving multiple franchise areas
that are located within some measure of proximity to each other,
perhaps for purposes of regional adverting. Moreover, it is likely that
the service costs and characteristics, such as the number of channels,
density of subscribers, and median income level, associated with
various franchise areas typically will vary as the geographic distances
increase between the multiple franchise areas. This circumstance can
increase the complexity of uniform rate-setting across multiple
franchise areas. We note that a cable operator's obligation under the
``must-carry'' rules to carry local over-the-air broadcast stations, as
well as the operator's copyright fee responsibilities, are determined
based on the Area of Dominant Influence (``ADI'') in which the system
is located. Section 4 of the 1992 Cable Act specifies that a commercial
broadcasting station's market shall be determined in the manner
provided in Sec. 73.3555(d)(3)(i) of the Commission's Rules, as in
effect on May 1, 1991. This section of the rules, now redesignated
Sec. 73.3555(e)(3)(i), refers to Arbitron's ADI for purposes of the
broadcast multiple ownership rules. Section 76.55(e) of the
Commission's Rules provides that the ADIs to be used for purposes of
the initial implementation of the mandatory carriage rules are those
published in Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television Market Guide. This
Arbitron Guide is available at the Federal Communications Commission,
2033 M Street, N.W., Room 200, Washington, D.C. We note that Arbitron,
the company that establishes the boundaries for ADIs, has ceased
updating its ADI market list. Commission staff is currently exploring
the designation of a replacement measure. Accordingly, we seek comment
on whether the ADI, or some other region, would be appropriate for the
setting of uniform rates. We seek comment on additional benefits of
limiting uniform rate-setting to franchise areas located within the
same ADI or similar region, as well as any difficulties resulting from
this limitation. We further seek comment on the benefits or detriments
of limiting rates to franchise areas located within the same county or
state. Finally, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of permitting
cable operators to select the region in which to set uniform rates
under a uniform rate-setting method.
15. Below we describe two possible approaches for permitting cable
operators to establish uniform rates for uniform packages of services
offered to multiple franchise areas. We invite comment from interested
parties as to these approaches and we seek suggestions as to any other
alternatives that would further the goals discussed above.
16. The first approach would work generally as follows. A cable
operator first would determine or identify BST and CPST rates
established in each local franchise area pursuant to our existing rate
regulations, as adjusted to reflect permitted or required rate changes
resulting from the addition or deletion of channels necessary to
structure uniform tiers throughout the franchise areas served. We seek
comment on whether an operator would similarly follow our existing
regulations concerning rates for equipment. BST rates then would be
equalized by reducing all BST rates charged in the relevant region to
the lowest regulated BST rate charged in any one franchise area located
in the region. The new uniform BST rate would now constitute the
operator's maximum permitted rate for basic cable service in all the
relevant franchise areas. The operator then would add the total amount
of ``lost'' revenue resulting from the various BST rate reductions to
the total CPST
[[Page 63495]]
revenues to which the operator is otherwise entitled, under our
existing rules, for all franchise areas in the relevant region. The
operator then would determine a uniform CPST rate by dividing the total
of the displaced BST revenues and existing CPST revenues by all CPST
subscribers in the region. Thereafter, the operator would apply our
going-forward policies and annual rate adjustment regulations on a
regional basis. A numerical example of this option can be found below.
17. In some instances, cable systems may be regulated in certain
franchise areas within the region and unregulated in others. We
proposed that operators be free to establish uniform rates under the
uniform rate-setting approach in unregulated as well as regulated
franchise areas for purposes of uniformity. We believe that in such
situations, an operator may elect to base uniform rates in part on data
from unregulated areas only if such uniform rates also are charged in
the unregulated areas. We believe that this optional approach further
enhances operators' flexibility in establishing uniform rates.
Moreover, uniform rates calculated pursuant to the method ultimately
adopted in this proceeding, and charged in unregulated areas, should
increase an operator's regulatory certainty with respect to whether the
subscriber rates charged in the unregulated areas are reasonable under
our rules should the operator later become subject to rate regulation
in one of those areas. An operator later becoming subject to regulation
would follow our existing procedures for establishing regulated rates,
including determining an initial rate pursuant to our benchmark formula
or cost-of-service rules, and seeking the approval of rates from the
local franchising authority. We seek comment on this approach. We also
seek comment on how an operator's regulated rates for equipment may
affect the setting of uniform rates.
18. An operator's rates would remain subject to the dual
jurisdictions of the affected local franchising authorities and the
Commission. Upon the initial application of this approach, BST rates
would be unchanged in at least one franchise area and would be reduced
in each franchise area with higher rates. Thus, this proposal may
benefit many subscribers who receive only basic cable service, and
should be cost-neutral to the remaining basic-only subscribers in the
franchise area(s) with the lowest current BST rates. Certified local
franchising authorities would retain jurisdiction to ensure that the
operator's BST rates are in compliance with our rules. The operator
would recoup the costs of reduced BST rates through the averaged CPST
rates over which the Commission would retain jurisdiction. We seek
comment on this proposed approach, including comment on: (1) the costs
and benefits of requiring operators to reduce BST rates to the lowest
common rate under this option, (2) the impact of an operator's
redistribution of BST rate reductions among CPST rates charged in
neighboring franchise areas, and (3) the application of our going-
forward policies and annual rate adjustment on a regional basis. We
note that our rules allow franchising authorities to review and approve
operators' proposed BST rates and increases to those rates. Under this
option, however, pre-approval of uniform BST rates by franchising
authorities generally will be unnecessary given that subscriber rates
typically will decrease or remain unchanged. We seek comment on the
benefits and costs of this approach for local franchising authorities,
and whether this approach will protect subscribers from unreasonable
rates.
19. Under the second possible approach for establishing uniform
rates for uniform services, a cable operator would determine or
identify BST and CPST rates charged in each of the relevant franchise
areas pursuant to our existing rate regulations, as adjusted for rate
changes resulting from the addition or deletion of channels necessary
to structure uniform service tiers. We seek comment on whether an
operator similarly would follow our existing regulations concerning
rates for equipment. After aggregating the BST rates and revenues for
all the franchise areas in the region, and then the CPST rates and
revenues for all franchise areas, the operator would determine a single
``blended'' rate for BSTs, and a single blended rate for CPSTs, to be
charged in all franchise areas in the region pursuant to a formula
designed by the Commission. The blended rates for BSTs and CPSTs would
be determined by averaging the operator's total BST and CPST rates,
respectively, on a per subscriber basis for all subscribers in the
region, in order to ensure that the establishment of uniform rates is
revenue-neutral to the cable operator. A numerical example of this
option can be found below. The operator would be required to justify
its blended rates to each local franchising authority certified to
regulate rates. The operator would be free, of course, to establish
this rate in uncertified areas, for purposes of uniformity across a
wide region. As noted for the other proposed approach, we propose that
an operator may elect a base uniform rates in part on data from
unregulated areas only if such uniform rates also are charged in the
unregulated areas, and believe that similar benefits for operators and
subscribers will result from this requirement under both possible
approaches. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, as well as
comment on other benefits and detriments of the cable operator basing
the blended rate in part on data from such unregulated areas. We also
seek comment on how an operator's establishment of uniform rates in
uncertified areas may impact on the operator's ability to later
implement required refunds or prospective rate reductions in certified
areas.
20. After setting initial uniform rates, the operator would apply
our going-forward policies and the recently adopted annual adjustment
method on a regional basis to adjust future rates. Again, the dual
jurisdictional boundaries of franchising authorities and the Commission
would remain intact. We seek comment on this approach generally,
including comment on: (1) any associated burdens for regulated cable
companies and regulators, (2) whether this approach would protect cable
subscribers from unreasonable rates in accordance with the 1992 Cable
Act, (3) the proposed calculation of the blended rate, and (4) the
application of our going-forward policies and annual adjustment method
on a regional basis. We note that under this approach subscribers' BST
rates may increase in certain jurisdictions (and decrease in others) as
BST rates are adjusted to establish uniformity. We seek comment on the
benefits and costs of adopting this formula given that certain BST
subscribers may experience rate increases.
21. Both proposed uniform rate setting methodologies will result in
increases in CPST rates for some subscribers. In light of the cost
savings to cable operators likely to be created by implementation of
uniform rates, we seek comment on whether it is appropriate to either
limit the amount of increase a CPST subscriber must pay in a given year
as a result of this institution of uniform rates or to phase-in
significant increases over a two-year period. Comments should also
address what administrative burdens such a limitation or phased-in
increase would create for operators.
22. Several potential timing circumstances may affect the
implementation of a uniform rate-setting approach. For example, where
an operator has submitted justifications, the operator may be subject
to multiple
[[Page 63496]]
local tolling orders of varying durations which can complicate
implementation of uniform BST rates. After the initial 30 day notice
period that must precede any rate adjustment, franchising authorities
can toll the effective date of a proposed rate for an additional 90
days in benchmark cases or 150 days in cost of service cases. We seek
suggestions of procedures that would permit a cable operator in this
situation to establish uniform rates as expeditiously as possible. We
solicit comment on allowing proposed uniform rates to take effect
automatically after some period of time, subject to ultimate resolution
in a later ``truing-up'' process, in which rate discrepancies could be
reflected in rates for the following year.
23. In proposing to give cable operators flexibility to charge
uniform rates for uniform services, we in no way seek to circumscribe
the authority of local franchising authorities to negotiate franchise-
specific terms in their agreements with cable operators. For example,
we note that local franchising authorities typically establish
requirements in a franchise agreement with respect to the designation
or use of the franchised cable operator's channel capacity of PEG
services. This could result in a cable system having a non-uniform
channel line-up within franchise areas where it seeks to establish
uniform rates. We seek comment on whether our uniform rate proposals
require any modification or adjustment to accommodate such non-uniform
offerings.
24. A further problem may arise because PEG requirements and other
franchise obligations will vary between franchise areas, such that the
operator's ``franchise related costs,'' one of the variables used to
establish and adjust rates, also will vary among franchise areas. We
seek to provide cable operators with uniform rate alternatives while
allowing franchising authorities flexibility to negotiate franchise
terms and conditions that respond to particular community needs. We
also seek to ensure that the uniform rate proposal does not allow
franchise-specific costs to be shifted from one community to another.
One alternative for resolving this issue would be to permit the cable
operator simply to itemize and charge for franchise-related costs
outside the uniform rate-setting formula. We seek comment on this
approach. We also seek suggestions of other methods that could
compensate operators for legitimately incurred expenses while
protecting subscribers from unreasonable rates. Finally, we seek
comment on additional potential obstacles to the establishment of
uniform rates and service offerings, and possible resolutions to such
obstacles.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
25. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies
and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause a copy
of the NPRM, including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to
be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (1981).
26. Reason for Action. The Commission has perceived that our cable
service rate regulations may impede a cable operator's ability to
establish uniform rates for uniform services offered in multiple
clustered franchise areas. We believe that allowing operators to set
such uniform rates may facilitate operators' regional marketing of
services, reduce administrative burdens on both regulators and cable
companies, and reduce consumer confusion resulting from disparate
rates. The NPRM proposes two possible alternatives for setting uniform
rates, and solicits comments on further approaches.
27. Objectives. To explore a method under which a cable operator
could establish uniform rates for uniform services offered in multiple
franchise areas.
28. Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is
contained in Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 543.
29. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Affected. The proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small entities.
30. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.
None.
31. Federal Rules which Overlap, duplicate or Conflict with these
Rules. None.
32. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
33. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due to the
same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days
from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments
should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
VI. Procedural Provisions
34. Ex parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-
restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period,
provided that they are disclosed as provided in Commission's rules. See
generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
35. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original
plus four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting
comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of
your comments and reply comments, you must file an original plus nine
copies. Comments are due by January 12, 1996, and reply comments are
due by February 12, 1996. You should send comments and reply comments
to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street NW., Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919
M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554.
36. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be
submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal
[[Page 63497]]
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,
OMB Desk Officer, 10236, NEBO, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.
37. For additional information concerning the information
collections contained in this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-
0217, or via the Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.
VII. Ordering Clauses
38. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 623 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 543 notice is hereby
given of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with the
proposals, discussions, and statement of issues in this NPRM, and that
COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such proposals, discussion, and statement
of issues.
39. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of
this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq. (1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
[Cable television.]
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Examples of Proposed Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current rates Franchise A Franchise B Franchise C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BST............................................................. $10 $11 $11
CPST............................................................ 21 21 20
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 31 32 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Each franchise area has 11,000 BST subscribers and 10,000 CPST subscribers.
First Proposed Method:
Step 1: BST rates reduced to lowest in region: BST rates in
franchise areas ``B'' and ``C'' reduced to $10.
Step 2: ``Lost'' BST revenues is totaled; $1/subscriber in
franchise areas ``B'' and ``C''=($1 x 11,000)+($1 x 11,000)=$22,000.
Step 3: Current CPST revenue is totaled:
($21 x 10,000)+($21 x 10,000)+($20 x 10,000)=$620,000.
Step 4: Current CPST revenue is added to Lost BST revenue to create
new CPST revenue requirement: $620,000+$22,000=$642,000.
Step 5: New CPST revenue requirement is divided evenly by all CPST
subcribers in the region to calculate new uniform CPST rate: $642,000/
30,000=$21.40.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current rates Franchise A Franchise B Franchise C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BST............................................................. $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
CPST............................................................ 21.40 21.40 21.40
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 31.40 31.40 31.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise A: no change in BST rates; increase in CPST and overall
rates.
Franchise B: decrease in BST rates; increase in CPST rates;
decrease in overall rates.
Franchise C: decrease in BST rates; increase in overall rates.
Second Proposed Method:
Step 1: Average current BST rates on a per BST subscriber basis to
calculate average, uniform BST rate:
$10(11,000)+$11(11,000)+$11(11,000)=$10.67/BST subscriber.
Step 2: Average current CPST rates on a per CPST subscriber basis
to calculate average, uniform CPST rate:
$21(10,000)+$21(10,000)+$20(10,000)=$20.67/CPST subscriber.
Total: $31.34/subscriber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New rates Franchise A Franchise B Franchise C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BST............................................................. $10.67 $10.67 $10.67
CPST............................................................ 20.67 20.67 20.67
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 31.34 31.34 31.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise A: increase in BST rates; decrease in CPST; increase in
overall rates.
Franchise B: decrease in BST rates; decrease in CPST rates;
decrease in overall rates.
Franchise C: decrease in BST rates; increase in CPST rates;
increase in overall rates.
The results under each proposed method will vary widely depending
on the current rates and the numbers of subscribers in each franchise
area. In addition, these examples do not account for the impact of
channel changes that may be necessary to achieve uniform packages of
services.
[FR Doc. 95-29807 Filed 12-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
