*Pages 1--7 from  Microsoft Word - 51730*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of 
 Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.  Tolling  Order  Regarding  Form  1240 
 Farmers  Branch  TX  (TX0624) 
 Comcast  of  California/  Colorado/  Illinois/  Indiana/  Texas,  Inc. 
 Tolling  Order  McKinney  TX  (TX0641) 

 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 

 File  No.  CSB-  A-  0711 
 File  No.  CSB-  A-  0712 

 ORDER 
 Adopted:  September  20,  2005  Released:  September  21,  2005 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Policy  Division,  Media  Bureau: 

 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  April  8,  2004,  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.  (  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch),  filed  an  appeal  of  a  rate  order  adopted  by  the  City  of  Farmers  Branch,  Texas  (the  City  of  Farmers 

 Branch).  1  The  City  of  Farmers  Branch  filed  an  opposition  on  April  27,  2004,  2  to  which  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  filed  no  reply.  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branchs  appeal  concerns  the  grounds  on  which  the 
 City  tolled  the  Form  1240  that  the  company  had  filed  in  March  2004  to  set  rates  for  the  Basic  Service  Tier  (  BST)  of  its  cable  service  there. 

 2.  On  April  26,  2004,  Comcast  of  California/  Colorado/  Illinois/  Indiana/  Texas,  Inc.  (  Comcast  of  McKinney),  3  filed  an  appeal  of  a  rate  order  adopted  by  the  City  of  McKinney,  Texas  (the 

 1  Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order  (  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  Appeal),  filed  April  8,  2004.  The  rate  order  is  a  letter 
 from  Matthew  C.  G.  Boyle,  Esq.,  Boyle  &  Lowry,  L.  L.  P.,  counsel  for  the  City  of  Farmers  Branch,  to  Mr.  Craig  A.  Schmid,  Senior  Director  of  Regulatory  Affairs  for  the  Atlantic  Division,  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc., 

 dated  March  9,  2004  (  Farmers  Branch  Tolling  Letter).  The  Farmers  Branch  Tolling  Letter  is  Attachment  A  to  the  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  Appeal. 
 2  City  of  Farmers  Branchs  Response  to  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.  s  Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order,  filed 
 April  27,  2004.  3 
 Both  Comcast  of  Flower  Mound  and  Comcast  of  McKinney  may  be  referred  to  as  the  Comcast  Companies. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 2 
 City  of  McKinney).  4  The  City  of  McKinney  filed  an  opposition  dated  May  10,  2004,  5  to  which  Comcast  of  McKinney  filed  a  reply  on  May  20.  6  Comcast  of  McKinneys  appeal  concerns  the  same 
 asserted  grounds  for  tolling  a  Form  1240  as  the  appeal  of  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch.  The  McKinney  appeal  also  concerns  the  Form  1205  that  Comcast  of  McKinney  filed  in  March  2004  to  set  rates  for 
 regulated  equipment  and  installation  related  to  the  BST,  and  the  effective  date  of  the  rates  covered  by  that  Form  1205. 

 3.  In  both  appeals,  the  material  facts  about  the  Form  1240s  are  virtually  identical  and  the  legal  issues  are  identical.  Accordingly,  in  the  interests  of  administrative  efficiency,  we  are  deciding  both 
 appeals  in  this  one  Order.  7  In  brief,  on  the  merits  we  conclude  that  each  City  acted  rationally  and  with  a  reasonable  basis  in  tolling  its  consideration  of  the  Form  1240s,  and  that  the  City  of  McKinney  did  so  in  its 
 consideration  of  Comcast  of  McKinneys  Form  1205.  We  grant  Comcast  of  McKinneys  appeal,  however,  from  the  City  of  McKinneys  statement  of  the  effective  date  for  the  rates  stated  in  the 
 companys  Form  1205. 

 II.  BACKGROUND 
 4.  The  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  8  provides  that,  where  effective  competition  is  absent,  rates  for  the  BST  and  associated  equipment  are  subject  to  regulation  by  franchising 

 authorities.  9  Rates  for  the  BST  and  equipment  should  not  exceed  rates  that  would  be  charged  by  systems  facing  effective  competition,  as  determined  in  accordance  with  Commission  regulations  for  setting  rates.  10 
 If  the  cable  operator  fails  to  meet  its  burden  of  proof,  has  improperly  calculated  its  rates,  or  is  unresponsive  to  requests  for  relevant  information,  the  franchising  authority  may  use  the  best  information 
 available  to  review  the  operators  proposed  rates  and,  if  appropriate,  adjust  them  and  order  refunds.  11 

 4  Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order  (  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal),  filed  April  26,  2004.  The  Rate  Order  is  a  letter 
 from  Mr.  Larry  Robinson,  City  Manager  of  McKinney,  Texas,  to  Mr.  Craig  A.  Schmid,  Senior  Director  of  Regulatory  Affairs  for  the  Atlantic  Division,  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  dated  March  25,  2004 

 (  McKinney  Tolling  Letter).  The  McKinney  Tolling  Letter  is  Attachment  A  to  the  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal. 
 The  City  of  Farmers  Branch  and  the  City  of  McKinney  may  be  referred  to  as  the  Cities.  5 
 City  of  McKinneys  Response  to  Comcast  of  California/  Colorado/  Illinois/  Indiana/  Texas,  Inc.  s  Appeal  of  Tolling  Order  (  City  of  McKinney  Response),  dated  May  10,  2004. 

 6  Reply  to  Opposition  to  Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order  (  Comcast  of  McKinney  Reply),  filed  May  20,  2004. 
 7  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  19  FCC  Rcd  10628,  10630    2,  on  reconsideration,  19  FCC  Rcd  22687 
 (2004);  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  18  FCC  Rcd  20416,  20417  (2003)    3,  application  for  review  denied,  19  FCC  Rcd  23096  (2004),  appeal  pending  on  other  grounds  sub  nom.  City  of  Winchester  et  al.  v.  FCC,  Case  No.  05- 

 3083  (6th  Cir.,  filed  Jan.  13,  2005).  8 
 47  U.  S.  C.    151  et  seq.  9 
 47  U.  S.  C.    543(  a)(  2).  10 
 47  U.  S.  C.    543(  b)(  1);  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  922.  11 
 47  C.  F.  R.    76.  937(  d);  Falcon  Classic  Cable,  15  FCC  Rcd  5717,  5720  (2000)    10;  Western  Reserve  Cablevision,  Inc.,  14  FCC  Rcd  13391,  13398  (1999)    12. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 3 
 5.  Rate  orders  issued  by  franchising  authorities  may  be  appealed  to  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Commission  rules.  12  In  ruling  on  appeals  of  local  rate  orders,  the  Commission  will  not 
 conduct  a  de  novo  review,  but  instead  will  sustain  the  franchising  authority's  decision  as  long  as  a  rational  basis  for  that  decision  exists.  13  The  Commission  will  reverse  a  franchising  authority's  rate  decision  only  if 
 it  determines  that  the  franchising  authority  acted  unreasonably  in  applying  the  Commission's  rules.  If  the  Commission  reverses  a  franchising  authority's  decision,  it  will  not  substitute  its  own  decision  but  instead 
 will  remand  the  issue  to  the  franchising  authority  with  instructions  to  resolve  the  case  consistent  with  the  Commission's  decision  on  appeal. 

 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Form  1240 
 6.  Form  1240  is  a  form  on  which  a  cable  operator  submits  data  to  its  franchising  authority.  Based  on  that  Form,  the  franchising  authority  sets  the  rates  for  the  cable  operators  BST.  Line  I9  on  Form 

 1240  calls  for  the  cable  operator  to  fill  in  a  box  marked  Maximum  Permitted  Rate  [MPR]  for  Projected  Period.  14  Line  I10  calls  for  the  cable  operator  to  fill  in  a  box  marked  Operator  Selected  Rate  [OSR]  for 
 Projected  Period.  15  Two  previous  cable  rate  appeals  have  concerned  how  cable  operators  fill  in  their  Form  1240s.  16  The  cable  operators  in  both  those  cases  filled  in  Line  I9,  specifying  an  MPR,  but  left  Line 
 I10  blank,  not  specifying  an  OSR.  Each  cable  operator,  later,  wanted  to  raise  its  pre-  existing  rate.  In  our  decisions,  we  ruled  that  each  franchising  authority  could  have  found  the  Form  1240  facially  incomplete 
 because  it  lacked  all  the  information  required  on  it  and  could  have  demanded  that  the  cable  operator  fill  in  Line  I10  and  specify  an  OSR.  17  Under  our  rules,  incomplete  rate  forms  toll  the  review  process  if  the 
 franchising  authority  is  unable  to  proceed  with  its  review.  18  In  neither  case,  however,  did  the  franchising  authority  do  so.  Instead,  each  franchising  authority  took  actions  that,  we  decided,  did  not  toll  the  review 
 process  and  did  not  prohibit  the  cable  operator  from  later  raising  its  BST.  19 
 7.  Each  Comcast  Company  in  the  present  appeals,  on  the  Form  1240  that  it  submitted  to  its  City  in  March  2004,  filled  in  Line  I9,  stating  a  specific  sum  of  money  as  its  MPR,  and  filled  in  Line  I10, 

 12  47  U.  S.  C.    543(  b)(  5)(  B);  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  944. 
 13  Harron  Commun.  Corp.,  15  FCC  Rcd  7901  (2000)    2;  Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television 
 Consumer  Protection  &  Competition  Act,  8  FCC  Rcd  5631  (1993),  9  FCC  Rcd  4316,  4346  (1994)    81.  14 
 See,  e.  g.,  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal,  Attachment  B  (Form  1240  filed  by  Comcast  of  McKinney  on  March  1,  2004)  at  4. 

 15  Id. 
 16  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  19  FCC  Rcd  6  (2004);  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  18  FCC  Rcd 
 20416  (2003),  application  for  review  denied,  19  FCC  Rcd  23096  (2004).  17 
 Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  19  FCC  Rcd  at  10-  12    14-  18;  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  18  FCC  Rcd  at  20421    15,  application  for  review  denied,  19  FCC  Rcd  at  23097-  98  (2004)    6,  citing  TCI  Cablevision 

 of  Dallas,  Inc.,  15  FCC  Rcd  7379,  7381  (2000)    8  &  Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  &  Competition  Act  of  1992:  Rate  Regulation,  11  FCC  Rcd  388,  427  (1995)    95. 
 18  47  C.  F.  R.    76.933(  g). 
 19  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  19  FCC  Rcd  at  11-  12    15-  18;  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  18 
 FCC  Rcd  at  20421-  22    14-  16. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 4 
 stating  the  same  specific  sum  as  its  OSR.  20  In  correspondence  accompanying  each  Form  1240,  however,  Comcast  disavowed  any  intention  of  actually  charging  the  sum  it  filled  in  and  specified  as  its  OSR. 
 Specifically,  the  letter  covering  each  Form  1240  stated  [  e]  ven  though  we  have  not  yet  determined  the  rate  we  intend  to  charge  for  the  Basic  Service  Tier  effective  with  our  next  scheduled  rate  adjustment,  we 
 have  entered  the  maximum  permitted  rate  from  Line  I9  on  Line  I10.  Please  be  advised  that  it  is  not  our  intention  at  this  time  to  charge  the  maximum  permitted  rate.  21 

 8.  The  Cities  issued  Tolling  Letters,  finding  the  Comcast  Companies  Form  1240s  to  be  facially  incomplete  for  failing  to  include  OSRs  and  tolling  further  consideration  of  them.  The  Tolling 
 Letters  faulted  each  company  for  subterfuge  and  suggested  that  the  Companies  amend  them  by  including  OSRs.  22  The  Comcast  Companies  then  filed  the  present  appeals. 

 9.  Line  I10  of  Form  1240  plainly  calls  for  the  cable  operator  to  state  an  OSR.  Each  Comcast  Company  filled  in  a  sum  of  money  on  that  Line,  but  its  own  simultaneous  statements  declared 
 clearly  that  the  sum  was  not,  in  truth,  the  rate  it  had  selected  to  charge.  In  any  realistic  sense,  the  Comcast  Companies  Form  1240s  did  not  specify  an  OSR  and  were  facially  incomplete.  The  Cities 
 Tolling  Letters  followed  the  advice  of  our  two  recent  decisions.  They  acted  rationally  and  with  a  reasonable  basis. 

 10.  The  Comcast  Companies  complain  that  Form  1240  was  adopted  by  the  Commission  approximately  nine  years  ago  and  that  the  original  purpose  of  an  OSR  is  far  from  clear.  23  That 
 complaint,  however,  is  better  advanced  in  a  rulemaking  or  other  forum  for  revising  Form  1240.  The  Comcast  Companies  rely  on  our  decision  in  TCI  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  but  that  decision  is  inapposite.  In 
 TCI  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  a  franchising  authority  ruled  that  a  Form  1240  was  facially  incomplete  and  tolled  consideration  of  it.  The  franchising  authority  did  so  not  because  the  Form  1240  was  missing  rates 
 or  other  required  data,  but  because  the  authority  and  the  cable  operator  disagreed  about  the  specific  name  of  the  entity  that  should  be  filing  the  Form.  In  staying  the  franchising  authoritys  ruling,  we  cautioned 
 that  tolling  review  when  Form  1240  is  facially  incomplete  is  not  intended  as  a  device  for  halting  the  review  process  until  a  cable  operator  concedes  a  substantive  point.  24  The  Cities  treatment  of  the 
 Comcast  Companies  Form  1240s  in  the  present  case,  however,  does  not  exceed  the  proper  reach  of  our  tolling  procedure.  The  Cities  tolled  their  review  simply  to  evoke  the  honest,  accurate,  and  complete  rate 

 20  These  were  $12.80  in  Farmers  Branch  and  $13.07  in  McKinney.  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  Appeal,  Attachment 
 B  (Form  1240  filed  by  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  on  March  1,  2004)  at  4;  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal,  Atachment  B  (Form  1240  filed  by  Comcast  of  McKinney  on  March  1,  2004)  at  4. 

 21  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  Appeal,  Attachment  B  (Letter  from  Mr.  Craig  A.  Schmid  to  Ms.  Margaret  Somereve, 
 Assistant  to  the  City  Manager,  City  of  Farmers  Branch,  Texas,  dated  March  1,  2004);  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal,  Attachment  B  (Letter  from  Mr.  Craig  A.  Schmid  to  Mr.  Larry  Robinson,  City  Manager,  City  of  McKinney, 

 Texas,  dated  March  1,  2004).  Each  letter  goes  on  to  state  that  The  enclosed  FCC  forms  are  not  intended  to  serve  as  notice  for  any  price  adjustments  of  the  basic  service  tier,  .  .  .  Appropriate  notice  will  be  sent  to  you  prior  to  any 
 adjustments  in  the  basic  service  tier  .  .  .  22 
 Farmers  Branch  Tolling  Letter,  supra  note  1,  at  1  (  a  clear  attempt  at  subterfuge);  McKinney  Tolling  Letter,  supra  note  4,  at  1  (  what  appears  to  be  an  attempt  at  subterfuge). 

 23  See,  e.  g.,  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal  at  2-  3. 
 24  TCI  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  7381-  82    8;  Comcast  of  Farmers  Branch  Appeal  at  6  &  n.  6; 
 Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal  at  6-  7  &  n.  9. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 5 
 data  that  the  Form  requires.  25  We  cannot  conclude  that  the  Cities  decisions  to  toll  the  Comcast  Companies  Form  1240s  lack  a  rational  basis.  Accordingly,  we  dismiss  the  appeals  of  the  Comcast 
 Companies  on  this  issue. 

 B.  Form  1205 
 11.  Form  1205  is  a  form  on  which  a  cable  operator  submits  data  about  its  equipment  and  labor  costs  to  its  franchising  authority.  Based  on  Form  1205,  the  cable  operators  equipment  and 

 installation  rates  are  set  for  a  one-  year  period.  Form  1205  requires  the  cable  operator  to  state  permitted  rates,  a  concept  like  the  MPRs  required  by  Form  1240.  26  Form  1205  also  requires  the  cable  operator  to 
 state  its  actual  rates.  27 
 12.  Form  1205  was  created  to  deal  with  both  the  unbundling  of  initial  equipment  and  installation  rates  as  well  as  the  subsequent  revision  of  those  rates.  At  the  initial  stage  of  cable  rate 

 regulation,  Form  1205  directed  cable  operators  to  separate,  or  unbundle,  the  costs  of  equipment  and  installations  in  the  calculations  of  initial  rates  for  regulated  cable  services.  Once  initial  rates  were 
 established,  however,  the  principal  purpose  of  Form  1205  became  one  of  calculating  the  operators  proposed  rates  for  the  one-  year  period  covered  by  the  Form.  28  At  this  later  stage  of  rate  regulation,  the 
 rates  that  are  material  in  the  franchising  authoritys  review  of  an  operators  rates  are  the  rates  that  the  operator  actually  proposes  to  charge  during  that  period.  The  existing  rates  that  have  been  in  effect  are  not 
 material  to  that  review. 
 13.  Comcast  of  McKinney,  in  responding  to  the  requirement  in  the  Summary  Schedule  in  Form  1205  that  the  operator  insert  its  actual  rates,  along  with  its  maximum  permitted  rates,  simply 

 referred  the  City  to  a  recent  rate  card,  a  copy  of  which  it  attached  to  its  Form  1205.  29  In  correspondence  accompanying  the  Form  1205,  however,  Comcast  of  McKinney  indicated  some  uncertainty  about  what  its 
 actual  rates  would  be  for  equipment  and  installations  during  the  period  under  review.  It  stated  that  [  w]  e  will  implement  specific  equipment  and  installation  prices  that  are  lower  than  the  maximum  permitted 
 rates  calculated  on  FCC  Form  1205.  30 

 25  See  also  Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  &  Competition  Act  of  1992: 
 Rate  Regulation  (  Thirteenth  Order  on  Reconsideration),  11  FCC  Rcd  388,  427  (1995)    95  (adopting  annual  filing  procedures  and  describing  facially  incomplete  filings  as  "those  filings  which  do  not  have  all  the  information  required 

 by  the  form.).  26 
 Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal,  Attachment  C  (Form  1205  filed  by  Comcast  of  McKinney  on  March  1,  2004)  at  7,  10. 

 27  Id.  at  7,  10. 
 28  See,  e.  g.,  Cablevision  of  Boston,  Inc.,  15  FCC  Rcd  10334,  10337  (2000)    11  (  FCC  Form  1205  is  used  to 
 establish  the  amount  of  equipment  costs  to  be  unbundled  in  setting  initial  regulated  BST  rates  and  periodically  thereafter  to  revise  equipment  rates  based  on  the  operator's  costs.);  Thirteenth  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC 

 Rcd  at  403-  04    35  (  Cable  operators  must  complete  and  file  with  the  franchising  authority  an  FCC  Form  1205  for  several  different  purposes.  First,  they  must  file  Form  1205  with  the  franchising  authority  for  the  purpose  of  setting 
 initial  rates  .  .  .  .  Second,  all  operators  must  file  Form  1205  with  their  franchising  authorities  once  every  year  within  60  days  of  the  end  their  fiscal  year.)  (footnote  omitted). 
 29  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal,  Attachment  C,  supra  note  26,  at  7,  10. 
 30  Id.,  Attachment  B,  supra  note  21,  at  1. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 6 
 14.  The  City  of  McKinney  found  Comcast  of  McKinneys  Form  1205  to  be  facially  incomplete  for  failing  to  include  the  rates  that  the  company  would  actually  charge  for  installation  and 
 equipment  in  the  period  covered  by  the  Form.  The  City  tolled  its  consideration  of  the  Form  1205  and  suggested  that  the  Company  amend  it  to  include  such  rates.  31  Comcast  of  McKinney  appeals  from  that 
 finding. 
 15.  We  find  a  rational  basis  to  support  the  Citys  conclusion  that  Comcast  of  McKinneys  Form  1205  was  facially  incomplete.  Comcast  of  McKinney  interpreted  the  Form  1205  to  permit  insertion 

 of  its  current  rates,  not  the  actual  rates  the  operator  proposed  to  charge  during  the  one-  year  period.  If  Comcast  of  McKinney  planned  to  charge  different  rates  in  the  period  covered  by  the  Form  1205,  the  rates 
 published  in  a  recent  rate  card  were  immaterial.  The  rates  that  were  material  were  those  that  Comcast  of  McKinney  actually  proposed  to  charge  for  equipment  and  installation  during  the  review  period.  32  As  with 
 the  Comcast  Companies  Form  1240s,  the  City  of  McKinney  tolled  its  review  of  Comcast  of  McKinneys  Form  1205  simply  to  evoke  honest,  accurate,  and  complete  rate  data  relevant  to  the  review  period.  The 
 City  of  McKinney  acted  reasonably  in  requiring  such  data.  Accordingly,  we  deny  the  appeal  of  the  Comcast  of  McKinney  on  this  issue. 

 C.  Effective  Date  of  Comcast  of  McKinneys  Form  1205 
 16.  Comcast  of  McKinneys  previous  Form  1205  was  intended  to  take  effect  on  June  1,  2003.  33  After  reviewing  it,  the  City  of  McKinney  released  a  rate  order  on  December  16,  2003.  34  The  rate 

 order  stated  that  [  t]  he  effective  date  for  the  rates  for  the  2003-  2004  period  is  December  1,  2003.  35  Comcast  of  McKinney  appealed  parts  of  that  rate  order,  but  not  its  effective  date.  36 

 17.  Comcast  of  McKinney  filed  its  next  Form  1205    the  one  involved  in  the  present  appeal    with  the  City  of  McKinney  on  March  1,  2004.  Comcast  of  McKinney  stated  that  its  adjusted  rates  would 
 become  effective  on  June  1,  2004.  37  In  the  decision  here  under  review,  the  City  of  McKinney  ruled  that  the  adjusted  rates  could  not  go  into  effect  until  December  1,  2004,  at  the  earliest,  because  [  t]  he  City 

 31  McKinney  Tolling  Letter,  supra  note  4,  at  1-  2. 
 32  The  record  discloses  that  Comcast  of  McKinneys  previous  owner  had  inserted  its  proposed  rates  on  its  previous 
 Form  1205.  City  of  McKinney  Response  at  3,  6.  33 
 Comcast  of  California/  Colorado/  Illinois/  Indiana/  Texas,  Inc.,  CSB-  A-  0700,  Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order,  Attachment  E  (Letter  from  Ms.  Robbin  Pepper,  Manager  of  Rates,  Mountain  Division,  Comcast  Cable 

 Communications  Inc.,  to  Ms.  Debra  Wallace,  Assistant  Finance  Director,  City  of  McKinney,  dated  Dec.  18,  2003)  at  3);  cf.  Attachment  F  (Letter  from  C2  Consulting  Services,  Inc.,  to  Ms.  Wallace  &  Ms.  Shelli  Seimer,  Assistant  to  the 
 City  Manager,  City  of  Allen  TX,  dated  May  5,  2003)  at  1.  34 
 Appeals  from  this  rate  order  and  several  others  were  resolved  by  us  in  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  supra  note  7. 

 35  City  of  McKinney  Response,  Attachment  F  (City  of  McKinney,  Texas,  Ordinance  No.  2003-  12-  116),    2.3  at  2. 
 36  See  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  19  FCC  Rcd  10628,  on  reconsideration,  19  FCC  Rcd  22687  (2004). 
 37  Comcast  of  McKinney  Appeal,  Attachment  B,  supra  note  21,  at  1. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  1766 
 7 
 cannot  sanction  rate  amendments  more  often  than  once  per  each  twelve-  month  period.  38  Comcast  of  McKinney  appeals  from  this  ruling. 
 18.  The  City  of  McKinney  misapplies  our  rule,  which  generally  bars  cable  operators,  by  their  own  actions,  from  changing  rates  more  than  once  a  year.  39  Our  rule  does  not  authorize  a  franchising 
 authority  to  delay  an  operators  rate  change  by  the  operation  of  its  review.  40  In  this  case,  Comcast  of  McKinney  filed  its  Form  1205  with  an  intended  effective  date  of  June  1,  2004.  Regardless  of  the  length 
 of  the  Citys  review  of  that  filing,  that  date  continues  to  serve  as  the  one-  year  anniversary  date  for  Comcast  of  McKinneys  rate  changes  unless  it  proposes  a  new  date  beyond  the  12-  month  anniversary. 
 Accordingly,  we  grant  the  appeal  of  Comcast  of  McKinney  on  this  issue. 

 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 19.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Appeal  filed  by  Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  in  CSB-  A-  0711  IS  DENIED  and  that  the  Appeal  filed  by  Comcast  of  California/  Colorado/ 

 Illinois/  Indiana/  Texas,  Inc.,  in  CSB-  A-  0712  IS  GRANTED  IN  PART  and  DENIED  IN  PART  and  IS  REMANDED  for  further  consideration  consistent  with  this  Order. 

 20.  This  action  is  taken  pursuant  to  authority  delegated  by  Section  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 

 38  McKinney  Tolling  Letter,  supra  note  4,  at  2. 
 39  See,  e.  g.,  47  CFR    76.  922  (e)(  i)  (with  certain  exceptions,  one  of  which  is  new  equipment,  operators  that  elect 
 the  annual  rate  adjustment  method  may  not  adjust  their  rates  more  than  annually  to  reflect  [various  factors].  .  .  .  .  An  operator  may  change  its  filing  date  from  year-  to-  year,  but  except  as  described  [elsewhere],  at  least  twelve 

 months  must  pass  before  the  operator  can  implement  its  next  annual  adjustment.).  40 
 Comcast  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  19  FCC  Rcd  at  10642    32  (  The  Cities  had  no  authority  to  prolong  the  effectiveness  of  any  Comcast  rate  for  more  than  one  year.  .  .  .  To  the  extent  that  the  Cities[]  .  .  .  rate  orders 

 purported  to  prolong  any  Comcast  rate  in  effect  for  more  than  one  year  .  .  .  the  Cities  exceeded  their  authority.). 
7