AG 2001 10 22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2142 3. An operator that wants to increase its BST rate has the burden of demonstrating that the increase is in conformance with the Commission's rules2 In determining whether the operator's rates conform with our rules, a franchising authority may direct the operator to provide supporting information.6 After reviewing an operator's rate forms and any other additional information submitted, the franchising authority may approve the operator's rate increases or issue a written decision explaining why the operator's rates are not reasonable.7 If the franchising authority determines that the operator's proposed rates exceed the maximum permitted rate ("MPR") as determined by the Commission's rules, it may prescribe a rate different from the proposed rate or order refunds, provided that it explains why the operator's rate or rates are unreasonable and the prescribed rate is reasonable.8 II. DISCUSSION 4. TWC contends that the Commission should reverse the local rate decision because the County has failed to provide a proper written explanation or documentation of its decision disapproving the proposed rate increase, and because the Commission has repeatedly overruled local franchising authorities that reject legitimate rate increases for improper reasons.~ 5. In a one-page letter, dated March 1, 2001, the Deputy County Manager notified TWC that the County Board of Commissioners, at its February 19th meeting, did not approve Time Wamer's proposed rate increases for 2001.~° The County declined to accept its consultant's recommendation to approve the rate increase, and instead, voted 3-2 against granting the rate increase. The letter sent by the County to TWC fails to demonstrate that the County's denial of TWC's rate increase is based on the Commission's rules governing rates. 6. The County must follow the Commission's rate regulations when reviewing an operator's rate filing.~ As we stated in Falcon Cable Media, if a local franchising authority does not dispute the bases for the figures presented in a cable operator's rate forms and has not discovered any mathematical errors in the forms, the LFA should approve the operator's rate as derived from those forms,n If an LFA rejects an operator's proposed rates, it must issue a written decision affirmatively demonstrating why the rates are unreasonable.~3 5 47 C.F.R. § 76.937(a). 6 Rate Order' at 5718. 7 47 C.F.R. § 76.936; see Ultracorn of Marple Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 6640, 6641-42 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). ~ See Century Cable of Southern California, 11 FCC Rcd 501 (Cab Serv. Bur. 1995); TCI oflowa, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 12020, 12022 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998). 9 TWC Appeal at 1-3. ~°TWC Appeal, Exhibit A. ~ See TC1 of Southeast Mississippi, 10 FCC Rcd 8728 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995), reconsideration denied on other grounds, 13 FCC Rcd 11080 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998); Century Cable of Southern California, supra. ~2 13 FCC Rcd 11996, 11998 para. 6 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998). ~3 47 C.F.R. § 76.936; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5715-5716.