Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of :               | *  | CSB-A-0132-S                 |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Community TV Corporation d/b/a   | ** | CSB-A-0135-S                 |
| The Americable Group             |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | CSB-A-0136-S                 |
| Appeals of Local Rate Order in   | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** | CSB-A-0137-S                 |
| Amherst, New Hampshire;          |    |                              |
| Litchfield, New Hampshire;       | *  |                              |
| Merrimack, New Hampshire;        | *) |                              |
| Milford, New Hampshire           | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 10, 2003 Released: March 17, 2003**

By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:

# introduction

1.  Community TV Corporation d/b/a The Americable Group ("Community")
    has filed separate appeals on behalf of certain New Hampshire
    communities of local rate orders adopted by the Towns of Amherst,
    Litchfield, Merrimack, and Milford, New Hampshire. Community is
    appealing the following rate orders: Milford, New Hampshire, issued
    January 16, 1995; Merrimack, New Hampshire, issued January 19, 1995;
    Litchfield, New Hampshire, issued January 23, 1995; and Amherst, New
    Hampshire, issued January 23, 1995.

2.  Each Town filed an opposition, to which Community filed a reply. In
    addition, Community filed an emergency stay request. Because we
    resolve the issues raised in these appeals on the merits, the
    emergency stay request is rendered moot. Several issues arise in the
    pleadings. Because these rate appeals have identical issues and
    involve similar parties, we will consolidate our consideration of
    these matters.

# background

3.  Under the Commission's rules, rate orders issued by local
    franchising authorities may be appealed to the Commission. In ruling
    on an appeal of a local rate order, the Commission will sustain the
    franchising authority's decision provided there is a reasonable
    basis for that decision, and will reverse a franchising authority's
    decision only if the franchising authority unreasonably applied the
    Commission's rules in its local rate order.[^1] If the Commission
    reverses a franchising authority's decision, it will not substitute
    its own decision but will remand the issue to the franchising
    authority with instructions to resolve the case consistent with the
    Commission decision on appeal.[^2]

4.  An operator proposing an increase in basic service tier ("BST"),
    equipment or installation rates bears the burden of demonstrating
    that the proposed increase conforms with our rules.[^3] In
    determining whether the operator's proposed increase conforms with
    our rules, a franchising authority may direct the operator to
    provide supporting information.[^4] After reviewing an operator's
    rate forms and other additional information submitted, the
    franchising authority may approve the operator's requested rate
    increase or issue a written decision explaining why the operator's
    rate is not reasonable.[^5] If the franchising authority determines
    that the operator's proposed rate exceeds the maximum permitted rate
    as determined by the Commission's rules, it may prescribe a rate
    different from the proposed rate provided that it explains why the
    operator's rate is unreasonable and the prescribed rate is
    reasonable.

5.  In the rate filings at issue in this case, Community used Form 1200,
    1205 and 1210. In Form 1200, an operator calculates its initial
    maximum permitted rates for the basic and cable services programming
    tiers. An operator may change its maximum permitted rates every
    quarter, using Form 1210, or every year, using Form 1240. In Form
    1205, an operator determines the costs of regulated cable equipment
    and installation for the basic service tier.

# discussion

## Community's Rates and Refund Liability. 

6.  When a cable operator files a benchmark rate justification,
    Commission rules provide a franchising authority 30 days in which to
    review the rate filing before the proposed rates become
    effective.[^6] A franchising authority may toll this deadline for an
    additional 90 days, by issuing a brief written order, if it needs
    more time to review the filing, which gives the franchising
    authority a total of 120 days to issue an order before the proposed
    rates go into effect.[^7] In addition, our rules provide that if a
    franchise authority does not make a decision by the end of the
    90-day period, it must issue an Accounting Order before the end of
    the tolling period to preserve its ability to order refunds.[^8]

7.  If an operator files a facially incomplete rate justification, which
    includes the failure to file necessary supporting schedules, the
    deadlines for the franchising authority to rule on the
    reasonableness of proposed rates are suspended while the franchising
    authority awaits receipt of the necessary information.[^9] Once the
    supplemental information has been served on the franchising
    authority, the time for determining the reasonableness of the rate
    by the franchising authority will recommence.[^10] If an operator
    files a complete filing, but one about which the local authority has
    questions, the deadlines may not be automatically suspended.[^11]
    Such a filing would be one that is submitted in good faith, but
    about which the regulatory authority has certain questions or
    reasonably feels requires clarifying or substantiating
    information.[^12] However, if the information sought is so
    significant as to delay the entire examination of the rest of the
    rate justification the franchising authority could be justified in
    delaying its ruling.[^13] Through these mechanisms, the franchising
    authority is given time to review a rate justification fully, while
    the cable operator is protected from having to operate in an
    uncertain regulatory environment for an indefinite period of time.

8.  Community states that on June 23, 1994, the Towns received
    Community's Forms 1200 and 1205.[^14] Community indicates that on
    July 13, 1994, Amherst sent Community a letter stating that
    Community's Form 1200 was illegible, and requested Community to
    provide a copy of the Form 1200 to Amherst as soon as possible.[^15]
    Merrimack, Milford, and Litchfield made a similar request on July
    18, 1994.[^16] Community points out that in response, it reprinted
    both its Form 1200 and Form 1205 and submitted to the Towns copies
    of these forms.[^17] In the Towns' July 13 and July 18, 1994
    letters, Community asserts that the Towns also stated that each was
    still in the process of analyzing and evaluating the Form 1200 and
    that an additional 90 days was needed to review the proposed rates,
    subject to a reservation of rights, which the Towns explained as
    being the right to extend the total review period, effective upon
    receiving a legible copy of the Form 1200.[^18] Community asserts
    that pursuant to Section 76.933(b) the Towns were only permitted to
    extend the review date for 90 days from the date 30 days after the
    date of submission.[^19] Community states that the Towns
    acknowledged that the forms were submitted on June 23, 1994 and that
    30 days thereafter would be July 23, 1994, and Community argues that
    pursuant to Section 76.933(b), Friday, October 21, 1994, was the end
    of the extended review period.[^20]

9.  Community asserts that in October, by letter, the Towns indicated
    that since a "legible" copy of Form 1200 was not received until the
    end of July, the Form 1200 review period would run until the end of
    November, which Community asserts was in direct violation of Section
    76.933(c) which required the Towns to either issue a rate
    determination by October 21, 1994 or issue an Accounting Order.[^21]
    Subsequently, Community advised the Towns that pursuant to Section
    76.933(c), its rates had become effective and the Towns were
    precluded by the Commission's rules from ordering any refunds.
    Community argues that the Towns' claim that the Forms 1200 and 1205
    were illegible does not permit it to extend the period for review
    until the end of November, 1994, and moreover the forms submitted
    were nowhere near "completely illegible" as claimed by the
    Towns.[^22] In addition, Community asserts that the Commission has
    explained the proper treatment of deficient rate justifications and
    has expressly rejected the notion that an incomplete filing may be
    rejected automatically and treated as a non-filing.[^23]

10. In their opposition, the Towns state that Community's initial Forms
    1200 and 1205 submitted on June 23, 1994, were totally illegible and
    unsigned and that on July 18, 1994, they wrote Community requesting
    legible copies of the forms.[^24] The Towns assert that each
    extended the period to review Community's basic rates and equipment
    charges for an additional 90 days, effective upon receipt of legible
    copies of the forms.[^25] The Towns acknowledge that Community
    resubmitted legible copies of its Forms 1200 and 1205 in July,
    however, each points out that neither form had been signed.[^26] The
    Towns also claim that although legible copies of Community's Forms
    1200 and 1205 were resubmitted, the copies still carried the initial
    submission date.[^27] In addition, the Towns assert that because the
    120-day review period had been extended until the end of November,
    1994, the Accounting Orders submitted were filed in a timely,
    reasonable and responsible manner.[^28] The Towns assert that
    thereafter in December 1994, each received a letter from Community
    claiming that the Accounting Orders were issued after the end of the
    120-day review period.[^29] However, the Towns note that at no time
    prior to the issuance of the Accounting Order did Community disagree
    in any way with the Towns' review period extension.[^30]

11. In reply, Community states that the Towns did not have the authority
    to extend the rate review period until the end of November and
    accordingly, since the Towns did not issue Accounting Orders within
    the time frame specified in the rules, a refund cannot be
    ordered.[^31] Community asserts that its Forms 1200 and 1205 were
    not "totally illegible" as claimed and that the filing was not so
    incomplete that the Towns should have been able to toll the review
    period.[^32] However, Community adds that even if its original rate
    filing was completely illegible, Commission rules only permit an
    extension for the time it takes to cure the alleged
    illegibility,[^33] and in that case, each Town should have issued an
    Accounting Order based on that date, which each failed to do.[^34]
    In addition, Community asserts that the Towns' allegation of
    unsigned Forms 1200 and 1205 is without merit because the cover
    letter to Community's filings was signed by an officer of Community,
    and the Towns were not prejudiced in their review and could easily
    have asked for signed copies.[^35]

12. Based on our review of the record, the Towns' argument that the
    review period was extended into November is unavailing.[^36] The
    Towns notified Community of their need for additional review time of
    Community's rate filings within the allotted time to issue such a
    tolling order.[^37] Section 76.933(a) of the Commission's rules
    provides that proposed rates will become effective after 30 days
    from the date of submission, unless a franchising authority tolls
    the deadline by issuing a brief written order explaining the need
    for additional time to review the rates.[^38] Although the Towns'
    requests for additional time were in the form of a letter, not an
    order, the letter document sent to Community served the purpose of
    explaining the decision of the Towns to extend the review period of
    Community documents until October 23, 1994. Therefore, we will treat
    the Towns' correspondence as a brief, written order which was in
    compliance with the Commission's rules.

13. Accordingly, we find that the Towns adopted a tolling order with
    respect to Community's Forms 1200 and 1205 which extended the review
    period for 90 days, in accordance with the Commission's rules from
    July 23, 1994, until October 21, 1994.[^39] We can accept the Towns'
    argument that the forms were totally illegible, thus suspending the
    review period, but even that additional time does not make the
    Towns' Accounting Orders timely. The Town of Amherst requested
    legible copies of Community's forms on July 13, 1994 and received
    them on July 29, 1994. So its review period was further extended 16
    days. The other three towns requested legible copies on July
    18, 1994. The Town of Merrimack received its copies on July 22,
    1994, gaining an additional four days. The Town of Milford received
    its copies on July 26, 1994, gaining an additional eight days. And
    the Town of Litchfield received its copies on July 29, 1994, gaining
    an additional 11 days. The Accounting Orders, however, were issued
    on November 16, 1994; November 17, 1994; and November 21, 1994,
    which were all beyond the end of the extended review period. Because
    the Towns failed to present a formal review of Community's rates in
    a timely manner, the Towns did not retain their authority to order
    Community to issue refunds. However, although we find that the Towns
    lost their authority to require subscriber refunds as part of their
    rate orders, they did not lose their authority to regulate rates and
    order prospective rate reductions.[^40]

14. We also find that the alleged absence of signatures on Community's
    forms did not produce the effect the Towns ascribe to it. The Towns
    allege that the forms were not signed by Community, warranting a
    further extension of the review period. Community argues that the
    Towns' charge is without merit because the forms were submitted
    under a cover letter signed by an officer of Community. We agree.
    The Towns cannot use the alleged absence of signatures on the forms
    themselves to extend the review period beyond the extensions
    afforded by the issuance of the tolling order and by the request for
    legible copies. The absence of signatures on the forms themselves is
    not so significant as to warrant delaying the Towns' examination of
    the forms.[^41]

## Community's Form 1210 Update Form Ended 30 Days After Submitted. 

15. On June 29, 1994, Community submitted Form 1210, the "update" form
    which reflected the addition of Court TV to the BST. Community
    states that the Towns continued their review of Community's Form
    1210 past the end of the review period.[^42] With regard to its Form
    1210 submission, Community states that the Towns never issued a
    tolling order and as a result Community's Form 1210 submission
    should be deemed approved by the Towns within the initial 30-day
    review period.[^43] Community requests that the Commission advise
    the Towns that their review period for Form 1210 has lapsed, and
    that Community's Form 1210 is deemed to have been approved.[^44]

16. As Community indicates, the Towns did not issue an order
    specifically relating to Form 1210.[^45] Nor in their discussions
    regarding needing additional time to review Community's Forms 1200
    and 1205 did the Towns reference Form 1210. Pursuant to Section
    76.933, if a franchising authority determines that a cable
    operator's current rates for the basic service tier and accompanying
    equipment are reasonable under the Commission's rate standards, the
    rates will go into effect 30 days after they are submitted.[^46] If
    the franchising authority is unable to determine whether the
    proposed rates for the basic service tier and accompanying equipment
    are reasonable, based on the material before it, the franchising
    authority may toll the effective date of the proposed rates for an
    additional period of time to make a final determination.[^47] To
    toll the effective date of the proposed rates, the franchising
    authority must issue a brief order, within the initial 30-day
    period, explaining that the franchising authority needs additional
    time to review the proposed rates.[^48] No such order was issued.
    Therefore, Community's Form 1210 and the rates therein, are deemed
    to have become effective 30 days after submission.

## Home Wiring Maintenance Charge. 

17. Regarding Community's home wiring maintenance charge, Community
    notes that the Towns ordered refunds of its monthly \$0.13 home
    wiring maintenance charge, based on the conclusion that such a
    charge violated the prohibition against negative option
    billing.[^49] Community asserts that this charge was unbundled from
    previously bundled rates, and as such is not subject to the negative
    option billing prohibition.[^50] Community argues that the
    Commission has held that restructuring of tiers and equipment,
    including any restructuring due to implementation of the Cable
    Act,[^51] will not bring the negative option billing provision into
    play if subscribers will continue to receive the same number of
    channels and the same equipment.[^52] Consequently, Community
    asserts that because subscribers continued to receive the same level
    of service before and after unbundling, such a charge did not
    violate the negative option billing prohibition and that the
    Commission should find that the Towns' rejection of its home wiring
    maintenance charge was improper.[^53]

18. The Towns assert that Community started charging this new home
    wiring maintenance charge without receiving advance authorization to
    do so from any subscribers.[^54] Although Community states that it
    has a right to charge home wiring maintenance costs, the Towns argue
    that Section 76.981 of the Commission's rules provides that
    subscribers must affirmatively request any services and/or equipment
    and that subscribers in the Towns have not affirmatively requested
    the home wiring maintenance charge nor have they been afforded a
    choice on whether or not they wanted such a wiring plan.[^55] The
    Towns point out that unlike the *Comcast Cablevision* case, which
    Community uses for support of its charge, Community never notified
    subscribers that the wiring charge was optional and that subscribers
    could cancel by telephone.[^56] The Towns submit that Community must
    refund all subscribers the \$0.13 monthly home wiring maintenance
    charge, retroactive to August 1, 1994, and prospectively until such
    time as Community complies with the rate order.[^57]

19. In its Reply, Community states that its home wiring maintenance
    charge is not a negative option, because the charge meets the
    following conditions: (i) it previously was part of Community's
    bundled charges for the BST; (ii) following restructuring, the home
    wiring maintenance charge was charged separately; and (iii)
    Community's subscribers continued to receive the same service after
    bundling as before. Community points out these conditions have all
    been met.[^58] In addition, Community states that the Towns'
    assertion that it did not define what the additional charge for
    "certain other service calls" would be is simply incorrect.[^59]
    Community asserts that its stated policy, which is clearly stated in
    footnote six of the schedule of rates Community submitted to the
    Towns, and of which the Towns should be aware, is to charge for
    wiring service calls if a subscriber tampers with the wiring or
    negligently damages the wiring.[^60]

20. Section 623(f) of the Cable Act provides that an operator may not
    charge a subscriber for "any service or equipment that the
    subscriber has not affirmatively requested by name."[^61] It further
    specifies that a "subscriber's failure to refuse a cable operator's
    proposal to provide such service or equipment shall not be deemed to
    be an affirmative request for such service or equipment." This
    prohibited billing practice is referred to as negative option
    billing. In *Comcast Cablevision,* the Commission determined that
    the operator did not violate the prohibition against negative option
    billing when it restructured and began charging subscribers
    separately for an existing wire maintenance service plan.[^62] The
    Commission held that the operator's separate itemization of this
    charge on subscriber bills simply complied with Commission rules
    requiring unbundling and did not constitute negative option
    billing.[^63] The Commission pointed out that subscribers continued
    to receive the same level of service before and after the operator
    had unbundled its equipment rates.[^64] Based on Community's
    description of the restructuring and the unbundling in connection
    with home wiring maintenance, the circumstances are similar to that
    found in *Comcast Cablevision.* In the instant case, there was no
    significant change in the service provided to its subscribers and
    the negative option billing provision is not implicated.
    Consequently, the Towns' rejection of the home wiring maintenance
    charge was not warranted.

## Permitted Charge for Remotes. 

21. Community also states that in the January rate order the Towns
    deleted all 73 hours entered by Community in its Form 1205 as Total
    Maintenance/Service Hours for remotes.[^65] It states that the Towns
    believe there is no reason why Community would spend any time
    actually repairing remote control devices and that Community was
    unable to provide verification or substantiation regarding the 73
    hours.[^66] Contrary to the Towns' assertion that Community was
    unable to provide verification or substantiation regarding the 73
    hours, Community states that it provided ample justification
    regarding the hours.[^67] It states that 73 hours were spent on
    remotes, but that no time was spent on remotes pursuant to
    installation or trouble calls from subscribers.[^68] Community
    explained that 73 hours were required not for repairing remotes but
    for programming and handling them before they are issued to
    subscribers.[^69] Community argues that the Commission should find
    that the Towns unreasonably rejected the 73 hours entered by
    Community for time spent on remotes and that the Towns
    misinterpreted the Total Maintenance/Service Hours category as being
    limited only to repairs.[^70]

22. In opposition, the Towns state that Community failed to provide
    verification or substantiation regarding the 73 hours, and they also
    state that Community admitted that it spends no time at all
    servicing or maintaining its nonaddressable converters.[^71] The
    Towns assert that deleting the 73 hours resulted in a revised figure
    for Calculating Total Equipment and Installation Costs of \$2.735
    and as a result, the Towns assert that the monthly permitted charge
    for remotes should be \$.12 per month, rather than the permitted
    charge calculated at \$.14 per month.[^72]

23. Community replies that the 73 hours listed were fully supported and
    that the Towns have nothing to challenge Community's showing other
    than to express a vague form of disbelief.[^73] Moreover, Community
    asserts that not only are the Towns not permitted to substitute zero
    hours on line B of Form 1205, Schedule C, but Community would have
    been in violation of the Commission's rules if it had not
    incorporated the hours required for maintenance of remotes on Form
    1205.[^74]

24. Community seeks to include the programming and handling of remotes
    in the actual cost calculations for the installation and maintenance
    of customer premises equipment. Under Commission rules, equipment
    basket costs are limited to the direct and indirect material and
    labor costs of providing, leasing, installing, repairing, and
    servicing customer equipment.[^75] We agree with Community that
    providing customer service for equipment does not only involve
    repairing that equipment. Servicing of customer equipment can also
    be defined to include programming and handling of subscriber remote
    controls.[^76] Making a remote control device work efficiently and
    effectively would be the objective in providing proper installation
    and maintenance. Proper programming of a remote is a necessity.
    Therefore, the programming of a remote is property classified as
    installation and maintenance and hours spent providing such service
    may be considered and calculated when compiling service hours. Since
    Community states that the programming and handling of remotes were
    not recovered in programming service rates, recovery of such costs
    through installation and maintenance calculations is appropriate. We
    remand this issue to the Towns.

## Refund Liability With Undercharges for Equipment. 

25. Community states that it has been charging and continues to charge
    \$0.07 less for converters than its maximum permitted charge and
    that its non-addressable converter monthly charge is \$0.01 less
    than the maximum permitted rate.[^77] However, Community asserts
    that nowhere in the rate order do the Towns permit Community to
    offset any refund liability by these equipment undercharges.[^78]
    Community argues that the Commission has specifically held that
    local franchising authorities must permit operators to offset refund
    liability by equipment undercharges.[^79]

26. To not allow cable operators to factor in equipment charges could
    result in an operator being required to make a rate reduction that
    is greater than the maximum reduction required under application of
    the benchmark approach.[^80] This analysis is consistent with the
    view that "the cable operator must make prospective billing
    adjustments to refund overcharges and offset any undercharges in a
    reasonable manner."[^81] Moreover, the Commission has determined
    that a franchising authority must offset or reduce any refunds it
    may order by the difference between the actual equipment rates that
    an operator charged and the maximum permitted rates that it could
    have charged during the period of review.[^82] Therefore, we remand
    this issue to the Towns.

## Increase in Rates Without Prior Town Review and Approval. 

27. Community states that the Towns ordered Community not to increase
    the BST rates or related equipment and installation rates without
    prior approval of the Towns.[^83] Community requests that the
    Commission instruct the Towns that Commission regulations permit
    certain increases, namely increases in franchise fees and FCC
    regulatory fees to be passed along to subscribers without prior
    local franchising authority approval.[^84]

28. Increases in basic rates attributable to increases in franchise fees
    and FCC regulatory fees are not subject to the prior approval
    requirements for proposed rate increases set forth in Section
    76.933(a)-(c) of the Commission's rules.[^85] Commission rules
    permit operators to pass through such fees as external costs on 30
    days' notice.[^86] Franchise fees, in particular, are set by the
    franchising authority, which should be aware of and sensitive to the
    fees' impact on subscribers rates. Prior regulatory review of
    franchise fees is less necessary from a consumer protection
    standpoint than it is for other categories of external costs.[^87]
    Community may adjust its rates to reflect increases in such fees on
    30 days notice.

# ordering clauses

29. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that the Appeals of Community TV
    Corporation d/b/a The Americable Group from Rate Orders by the Local
    Franchising Authorities for the Towns of Amherst, Litchfield,
    Merrimack, and Milford, New Hampshire **ARE GRANTED** as provided
    herein and the Rate Orders **ARE REMANDED** for further
    consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

30. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by § 0.283 of
    the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

John B. Norton

Deputy Chief, Policy Division

Media Bureau

[^1]: *See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
    Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate Regulation,* 8 FCC Rcd
    5631, 5731 (1993) ("*Rate Order"*); *See also Implementation of
    Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
    Act of 1992, Rate Regulation, Third Order on Reconsideration,* 9 FCC
    Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Order on Reconsideration").

[^2]: *Rate Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 5732.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.944.

[^4]: *See Rate Order,* 8 FCC Rcd at 5718-19.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.936; *see* *Ultracom of Marple Inc.,* 10 FCC Rcd
    6640, 6641-42 (CSB 1995).

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(a).

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(b). In the case of a cost-of-service
    filing, the local franchising authority may extend the review period
    by 150 days. *Id.* This would give the local franchising authority a
    total of 180 days (the original 30 days plus the additional 150
    days) to review the cost-of-service filing before the proposed rates
    would go into effect.

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(c).

[^9]: *See Third Reconsideration Order,* 9 FCC Rcd at 4348.

[^10]: *Id.*

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: Appeal Petition at 3-4.

[^15]: *Id.* at 4.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *Id.* Community submitted copies of these forms to the Town of
    Merrimack on July 22, 1994; to the Town of Milford on July 26, 1994;
    and the Towns of Amherst and Litchfield on July 29, 1994.

[^18]: *Id.* at 5.

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: *Id*.

[^21]: *Id.* at 5-6. The letter from the Towns of Amherst and Litchfield
    to Community was dated October 17, 1994; the letter from the Town of
    Milford to Community was dated October 18, 1994; and the letter from
    the Town of Merrimack to Community was dated October 21, 1994. The
    Towns of Amherst and Litchfield indicated that the Form 1200 review
    period would run from July 29, 1994 to November 29, 1994; the Towns
    of Milford and Merrimack indicated that the Form 1200 review period
    would run from July 26, 1994 to November 26, 1994 (Community notes
    that the review period for the Town of Merrimack should run from
    July 22, 1994 and not July 26, 1994).

[^22]: *Id.* at 8-9. Community states that even if the forms were
    completely illegible, the maximum permitted extension would have
    been the time between when the Towns notified Community of the
    problem and the date Community filed reprinted forms.

[^23]: *Id.* at 9. *See Third Order on Reconsideration,* 9 FCC Rcd 4316
    (1994).

[^24]: Opposition at 3. The Town of Amherst sent its letter on July 13,
    1994.

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.* The Towns of Amherst, Litchfield, and Milford note that at
    a rate hearing held November 7, 1994 each informed Community that
    neither Form 1200 nor Form 1205 had been signed. The Town of
    Merrimack held its rate hearing on November 14, 1994, and informed
    Community of the unsigned forms at that time.

[^27]: We note that Community's resubmission of legible copies of its
    already filed forms would not warrant adopting a new submission
    date.

[^28]: *Id.* at 4.

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: *Id.*

[^31]: Reply at 3.

[^32]: *Id.* at 4. *See Third Order on Reconsideration,* 9 FCC Rcd at
    4348.

[^33]: *Id.*

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: *Id.* at 4. Moreover, Community states that contrary to what the
    Towns allege, Community never acknowledged that it failed to sign
    its Form 1200s.

[^36]: We note that the Towns' letter dated July 18, 1994, only
    indicated that additional time was needed to analyze and evaluate
    Community's Form 1200. No reference is made to reviewing Form 1205.
    In the pleadings filed, however, both Community and the Towns
    include Community's Form 1205 and Form 1200 in the argument
    discussing issues related to the Towns' extension of time request.
    Therefore, the extension of the review period that applies to
    Community's Form 1200 also applies to its Form 1205.

[^37]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(a).

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§76.933(a) and 76.933(b).

[^39]: Community asserts that the applicable date should be October 21,
    1994, and we note that in the July 18, 1994, letter, the Towns
    requested until October 23, 1994, to extend the period of time to
    review Community's rates. Although Community appears to have
    indicated no opposition to that date before the filing of this
    appeal, the 90-day period ended on October 21, 1994.

[^40]: *See TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, Inc.,*11 FCC Rcd 2542,
    2544 (CSB 1996).

[^41]: *See Third Order on Reconsideration,* 9 FCC Rcd at 4348.

[^42]: Appeal Petition at 21*.*

[^43]: *Id. See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.933.

[^44]: *Id.* at 22.

[^45]: *See* Exhibit B. Letter from Town of Litchfield to Harmon S.
    White, President, The Americable Group, dated July 18, 1994.

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.933.

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: *Id.*

[^49]: Appeal Petition at 15.

[^50]: *Id.*

[^51]: Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub. L.
    No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992) ("*Cable Act")*.

[^52]: *Id.* at 16. *See Rate Order,* 8 FCC Rcd at 5907.

[^53]: *Id.* at 16.

[^54]: Opposition at 5.

[^55]: *Id.*

[^56]: *Id.* at 6. *See Comcast Cablevision,* 10 FCC Rcd 2106 (1995).

[^57]: *Id.*

[^58]: Reply at 5. *See Comcast Cablevision,* 10 FCC Rcd at 2109.

[^59]: *Id.*

[^60]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^61]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(f).

[^62]: *Comcast Cablevision,* 10 FCC Rcd 2106 (1995).

[^63]: *Id.*

[^64]: *Id.*

[^65]: Appeal Petition at 17.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: *Id.* at 18.

[^68]: *Id.*

[^69]: *Id.* at 19.

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: Opposition at 7.

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: Reply at 6.

[^74]: *Id.*

[^75]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(c). *See also TCI Cablevision of St.
    Louis, Inc,* 12 FCC Rcd 15287 (CSB 1997). We note that Form 1205 may
    be used to update permitted regulated equipment and installation
    charges based on equipment basket costs.

[^76]: *Id.*

[^77]: Appeal Petition at 19*.*

[^78]: *Id.*

[^79]: *Id.* at 20.

[^80]: *See Third Order on Reconsideration,* 9 FCC Rcd at 4353.

[^81]: *Id.*

[^82]: *See Community TV Corporation,* 10 FCC Rcd 2327 (CSB 1995).

[^83]: Appeal Petition at 23.

[^84]: *Id.* at 24.

[^85]: *Fourth Order on Reconsideration,* 9 FCC Rcd 5795 (1994).

[^86]: *See Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd at 432.

[^87]: *Id.*