********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of:               )
                                      )
Century New Mexico Cable Corporation)
                                )
 Appeal of Local Rate Orders     )
of the Town of  Silver City, New Mexico)
                                )
and                             )
                                )
Motion for Forfeiture           )


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

        Adopted:  December 10, 1996  Released:  December 13, 1996  

By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

   I.INTRODUCTION   

      1.By this Order, we consolidate three proceedings into one and rule on the merits in
each.   In deciding this matter, the Bureau has reviewed all the pleadings filed in each of the separate
proceedings.  We have determined that the three proceedings are sufficiently similar and related to
one another to justify the joint resolution of all the issues raised by each of the concerned parties in
one consolidated proceeding.
     
      2.On August 16, 1995, Century filed an appeal of the Town's local rate order ("August
16, 1995 appeal") adopted on July 17, 1995 ("July 17, 1995 Rate Order"). The Town filed an
opposition to Century's August 16, 1995 appeal on August 31, 1995, and Century filed a reply on
September 11, 1995.  In addition to its appeal, on August 16, 1995, Century filed a petition for stay
of enforcement pending resolution of the appeal.  In the July 19, 1995 rate order, the Town denied
in part a basic service tier rate increase proposed by Century in its Form 1210 submission, and
required Century to refund overcharges to subscribers.  In its August 16, 1995 appeal, Century
challenges the Town's decision to reduce the operator's proposed rates.  

      3.On March 29, 1996, Century filed an appeal of the Town's local rate order ("March
29, 1996 appeal") adopted on March 18, 1996 ("March 18, 1996 rate order").  The Town filed an
opposition to Century's March 29, 1996 appeal on April 16, 1996, and Century filed a reply on April
25, 1996.  In addition to its appeal, on March 29, 1996, Century filed a petition for stay of
enforcement pending resolution of the appeal.  In the local rate order, the Town rejected Century's
Form 1205 equipment rates in their entirety, thereby effectively setting Century's equipment and
installation rates at zero.
     
  II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

      4.Under the Commission's rules, appeals of franchising authorities' local rate orders are
reviewed by the Commission.  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 there
is a reasonable basis for that decision.  The Commission will reverse a franchising authority's
decision only if it determines that the franchising authority acted unreasonably in applying the
Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.  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.AUGUST 16, 1995 APPEAL.
     
        1.Reduction of Programming Costs.

      a. Positions of the Parties.
    .
      5.In its appeal, Century challenges the Town's decision to reduce its proposed rate
increase for programming costs by $0.09, from $0.41 to $0.32.  In the local rate order, the Town
generally found that Century's proposed programming cost increases were supported by the evidence
presented.  However, the Town noted that two of the operator's services for which it had proposed
rate increases, namely C-SPAN and Bravo, were carried on a part-time shared basis on a single
channel.  Therefore, the Town determined that Century could pass on to subscribers only one half of
the total programming costs for these channels, i.e., only $0.0745 per month of the total programming
costs of $0.149 per month.  Century argues that it should be able to recover all of the costs that it
incurs for providing programming services.  The operator maintains that the fact that two
programming services share a single channel is irrelevant.  Century contends that the Town's decision
is inconsistent with Commission rules which permit operators to pass on external programming costs
to subscribers.

      6.In response, the Town contends that allowing Century to recover fully its
programming costs regardless of the number of programming services per channel would undermine
the Commission's definition of "channel."  Moreover, the Town argues that such a policy would harm
subscribers by forcing them to pay the full price for services that they may  access only a fraction of
the time.  The Town cites the instructions for completion of Form 1200 which state that, "[e]ven
though several programming services may be combined on a single channel, the channel still counts
as only one channel."  The Town notes that in its Form 1200 and 1210 submissions, Century has
counted Bravo and C-Span as a single channel.  The Town maintains that permitting Century to pass
through costs on a per-programmer rather than a per-channel basis would require subscribers to pay
for more services than they actually receive.   

      7.In its reply to the Town's opposition, Century argues that the Town has confused
benchmark and price cap rate methodologies in drafting its decision.  Century explains that
benchmark methodology is used to complete Form 1200.  Under benchmark methodology, a
maximum permitted per-channel rate is calculated regardless of the varying programming expenses
associated with each channel.  The benchmark calculation is not based on cost.  Century argues that
in contrast, under price cap rules, which are utilized in the completion of the Form 1210, the external
costs of the programming carried on regulated channels are relevant.  Century argues that regardless
of whether the programming originates from one source or multiple sources, the operator may pass
along any external costs incurred. 

      b. Discussion.

      8.Form 1210 is the official form an operator uses to justify adjustments in the rates it
computes on its FCC Form 1200 or to adjust rates on a previously filed Form 1210.  An operator
may file a Form 1210 to adjust its rates to reflect changes in external costs, channel additions and
deletions, and inflation.  External costs include the following categories of costs:  state and local
taxes specifically applicable to the provision of cable television service; franchise fees; costs of
complying with franchise requirements; retransmission consent fees and copyright fees incurred for
the carriage of broadcast signals; other programming costs; and Commission regulatory fees.  An
operator may file for changes in external costs for the period beginning at the end of the last quarter
for which an adjustment was previously made through the end of the quarter that has most recently
closed preceding the filing of the Form 1210.  An operator may file a Form 1210 quarterly, but must
file in the quarter following a decrease in costs due to channel deletions and within a year following
a decrease in other costs.  An operator must file for a rate increase within a year of the cost increase
in order to recover those costs in its rates.

      9.Commission rules permit operators to pass through their external costs, including
programming costs, to subscribers.  The amount that an operator may recover is determined by its
costs, and not by the amount of time the programming service is available to subscribers.  In this
case, Century incurs full programming costs for two different services, regardless of its decision to
place both services on the same channel.  In accordance with our rules, the Town should permit
Century to recover its actual costs.  We remand this issue to the Town for resolution in accordance
with this order.  
     
      B.MARCH 29, 1996 APPEAL.

      1.Universal Remote Control Units.

      a.Positions of the Parties. 

       10.In its March 26, 1996 Appeal,  Century contends that the Town arbitrarily rejected
all of its November 21, 1995 Form 1205 ("1995 Form 1205") rates due to a disagreement between
the parties regarding the price of Century's universal remote control units, a new equipment offering. 
Century further contends that as a result of this disagreement, the Town refused to establish
alternative rates for any of Century's equipment or installation.  According to Century, it set the price
of the universal remote control units based on "the average expected time required to maintain the
unit."  Century states that it used an estimated maintenance rate of 15 minutes per unit, based upon
its estimate of the time needed to receive, store, program, distribute and maintain each remote. 
Century further argues that the Town erred by finding that Century increased its equipment labor
time and costs due to the addition of the universal remote control units without simultaneously
reducing costs attributable to basic programming service rates, and correspondingly reducing the
basic programming service tier rate. Century contends that it was not required to reduce its basic
programming service tier rates.  

      11.The Town contends that it rejected Century's 1995 Form 1205 equipment rates not
because of a disagreement over the pricing of the universal remote control units, but because of
Century's "cumulative errors in calculating its entire labor costs."  With respect to the universal
remote control units, the Town contends that Century failed to use the formula approved by the
Commission for interim rate setting.  Instead, Century used the expected service hours for
"extremely old converter boxes."   Moreover, the Town contends that once it rejected the proposed
rate for the universal remote control units, it did not bear the burden of determining a reasonable
rate.   Instead, the Town asserts that it was up to Century to properly calculate and justify a rate for
the universal remote units.  With respect to the labor costs associated with the universal remote
control units,  the Town contends that 100% of Century's technical personnel time is devoted to
installation and no time is devoted to plant maintenance.  Accordingly, the Town asserts that if
Century recovered costs for the maintenance of universal remote control units, costs which the Town
claims have already been recovered for basic service equipment and installation, Century would be
allowed to double charge for the labor costs incurred.  

      12.In reply, Century contends that the Town is mistaken as to the facts.  Century explains
that it proposed rates for two types of remotes.  The first type of remote is a standard remote that
comes with the converter boxes that Century provides subscribers. With respect to this remote, the
operator alleges that it does not keep separate maintenance records and instead keeps joint
maintenance records for the standard remote and associated converter.  Accordingly, Century
calculated its maintenance/service hours for the standard remotes by multiplying the total number
of standard remotes in service by 8%.  The second type of remote is a universal remote.  With
respect to this remote, Century explains that it set the price of the universal remote control units
based on the average expected time required to maintain the unit.     
     
      b.Discussion.

      13.The Commission has determined that recalculation of rates for each equipment type
is allowed annually and should be based on the annual data for the operator's previous fiscal year. 
As newer equipment models are employed by an operator, a separate rate must be developed.  When
new equipment types are introduced during the interim period between annual justifications,
operators may calculate and utilize a rate for the new equipment.  In order to calculate the rate for
equipment introduced during this interim period operators must complete a Form 1205 and provide
the Form to the local franchising authority for review.  The Commission determined that operators
must file the Form 1205 no earlier than 60 days prior to the date the new type of equipment is
scheduled to be introduced to subscribers. In calculating the maintenance and service hours for the
new equipment, the operator should base its entry on the average annual expected time required to
maintain the unit, i.e., expected service hours over the life of the equipment unit being introduced
divided by the equipment unit's expected life.  The proposed rate for the new equipment will go
into effect at the end of this 60-day period unless the franchising authority rejects the proposed rate
as unreasonable or the franchising authority finds that the operator has submitted an incomplete
filing. 

      14.According to Century, it set the price of its universal remote control units based on
"the average expected time required to maintain the unit."  This average expected time was
determined based upon Century's estimate of the time needed to receive, store, program, distribute,
and maintain each remote.   Based on the record, there is no indication that Century calculated
those hours over the life of the unit.  As such, Century's formula does not conform to our instructions
that an operator must determine its average expected annual maintenance time by taking the expected
service hours over the life of the equipment unit being introduced and dividing the product of this
calculation by the equipment unit's expected life.  Therefore, the Town was justified in rejecting
Century's calculations.  

      15.However, the Town acted unreasonably by refusing to establish a rate for the
universal remotes. While a local franchising authority may question the reasonableness of an
operator's calculations, if it rejects an operator's proposed rate, the franchising authority must
establish a rate and provide a reasonable basis for its recalculation.  For example, the local authority
may request additional information from the operator regarding the calculations in question.  Upon
receiving answers to its questions, the local authority may recalculate the questioned figure based
upon the operator's responses.   If the operator fails to comply with the request, the local authority
may recalculate the figure based upon the best available evidence.  For example, a franchising
authority could set rates for a nonresponsive operator by using financial data from cable operators
in neighboring communities, if available.  A franchising authority could also use industry financial
data from the National Cable Television Association or another entity which makes such information
available based on industry averages.  Accordingly, upon rejecting Century's rates, the Town should
have set the rates for the universal remote control units based on the best available evidence.  We
remand this issue to the Town so that it may recalculate Century's universal remote control rates
based on the best available evidence.  On remand, we note that post-Form 1200/1205 changes in
programming rates are determined independent of changes in equipment and installation rates. 
Therefore, for purposes of setting the rates for the universal remote control unit, Century must be
allowed to allocate some labor hours to maintenance of the remote control units.  

      2.Converter Box Rates.

      a.Positions of the Parties.

      16.Century further disputes the Town's assertion that Century miscalculated its Form
1205 equipment rates by "failing to subtract the costs associated with unregulated converters that
are used to receive premium programming."  Century contends that the converter boxes that it uses
to provide premium service are also used by subscribers to receive the basic programming service
tier.  Century argues that the premium converters are regulated equipment, and as such, it was
required to include these converter boxes in its Form 1205 calculations.

      17.The Town contends that the premium converters at issue were used solely to receive
premium service programming, and thus were unregulated. According to the Town, it received
numerous complaints from subscribers who were required to lease converter boxes even though they
had cable-ready television sets or who were required to lease two converter boxes from Century, one
for basic service and one for premium channels.  In its opposition, the Town requests that Century
substantiate that none of the converters are being leased only to receive premium programming.  
In response, Century contends that if subscribers receive two converter boxes, it is because they have
two television sets.  With respect to those subscribers with cable-ready television sets, Century
admits that subscribers with such sets do not need a converter unless they take a scrambled premium
service.  However, Century argues that those subscribers' converters are also used to transmit the
non-premium channel signals.  

      b.Discussion.

      18.Congress defined equipment subject to rate regulation broadly as "equipment used
by subscribers to receive basic tier service."  In the Rate Order, we "agree[d] with commenters who
argue[d] that we should require complete unbundling of the charges for equipment and
installation."  The Rate Order also stated the Commission's belief that Congress intended all
equipment used to receive the basic service tier to be subject to rate regulation on the basis of actual
cost, even if also used to receive other cable services.   As the Town has not offered anything more
than an unsubstantiated assertion to support its claim that the "premium" converter boxes are used
solely for the provision of premium service, we find that the "premium" converter boxes are, in fact,
equipment used by subscribers to receive the basic tier.  As such, Century was required by our
regulations to unbundle the costs and charges associated with them.  We remand this issue to the
Town for resolution in accordance with this order.

      3.Labor Costs.

      a. Positions of the Parties.

      19.Century disputes the Town's finding that Century incorrectly completed its 1995
Form 1205 by using actual costs for fiscal year 1995, rather than the reduced labor costs that it
anticipated it would incur for fiscal year 1996.  Century contends that it followed Commission
regulations requiring it to complete Form 1205 using data from the most recently completed fiscal
year.  Accordingly, it filled out its 1995 Form 1205 using data from fiscal year 1995.  Specifically,
for fiscal year 1995, Century alleges that it employed five people, and thus included the salary costs
of these five employees in its 1995 Form 1205.  However, for fiscal year 1996 so far,  Century has
employed three people.  Thus, Century contends when it completes its 1996 Form 1205, if it
continues to employ only three people, its salary costs will decline and that decline will be reflected
 in its 1996 Form 1205. 

      20.According to the Town, during a portion of fiscal year 1995 Century employed only
two installers and did not have a plant manager for seven months.  Therefore, the Town alleges that
Century's labor costs for its 1995 Form 1205 should reflect the reduced number of people which the
operator employed for fiscal year 1995 and correspondingly should reflect the reduced labor costs
which the operator incurred during that fiscal year.  

      b. Discussion

      21.In reviewing Century's filing, the Town determined that for fiscal year 1995 Century
listed only three installers, yet reported actual wages of $93,103.20 and an average wage of $31,034
per year per installer.  The Town compared the fiscal year 1995 average wage with Century's 1993
fiscal year average wage and determined that Century's fiscal year 1995 average wage was
unreasonably high.  Accordingly, the Town rejected Century's Hourly Service Charge ("HSC"). 
Our review of Century's Form 1205 reveals that Century listed four installers and reported actual
wages of $93,103.20.  Accordingly, Century's correct average wage per installer per year is
$23,275.80.  Therefore, we remand this issue to the Town for further consideration.  Upon remand,
it is reasonable for the Town to question Century's fiscal year 1995 average wage based upon a
comparison of its fiscal year 1995 average wage and its fiscal year 1993 average wage.  If, based
upon this comparison, the Town determines that the average wage is unjustified, the Town must
establish a new average wage based upon the best available evidence and recalculate any other
related portions of the Form 1205 using this new average wage.  It cannot, as it has done here,
simply reject the HSC. 
     
      C. MOTION FOR FORFEITURE
     
      1.Background
     
      22.In Century New Mexico Cable Corporation (Silver City, NM), 10 FCC Rcd 9403,
9404 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995) ("Century I"), the Cable Services Bureau ("the Bureau") addressed
the Town's request that Century be assessed fines under a local ordinance and forfeitures pursuant
to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act for its "failure to respond to the franchising authority's
requests for information."  The Bureau concluded that the Town failed to provide substantiation
for these allegations.  The Bureau explained that the fact that Century relied on estimates for certain
equipment basket figures did not constitute a willful and repeated failure to comply with our rules
or the Communications Act.  Accordingly, the Bureau declined to impose forfeitures against
Century. 
     
      2. October 9, 1995 Request for Forfeitures

      23.On October 9, 1995, the Town filed another Motion for Forfeiture requesting that the
Commission impose forfeiture fines against Century for "willful and repeated violations of the
[Commission's] rules.

      a. Position of the Parties.

      24.  Taking as a basis its October 9, 1994 Motion and subsequent amendments, the Town
alleges that Century's actions constitute a "systematic course of deception" which warrants
forfeitures.  As basis for its position, the Town contends that Century did not implement the refund
plan called for in its December 19, 1994 local rate order by July 23, 1995.  Instead, Century
implemented the plan starting with the billing cycle beginning December 22, 1995.  The Town
further contends that Century failed to respond to several requests for information.  Specifically,
the Town contends that, inter alia,  Century failed to respond to requests for information regarding
Century's implementation of the refund plan required by the Town's December 19, 1994 rate order. 
As additional evidence of  Century's alleged "systematic course of deception," the Town contends
that on numerous occasions Century has failed to provide subscribers 30 days' notice of rate
reductions or increases.  Specifically, the Town claims that Century implemented the rate reduction
required by the Town's December 19, 1994 order without providing subscribers 30 days' notice, as
required by the Commission's regulations.  Moreover, the Town claims that when Century increased
its Century Select Tier a la carte channel rates, it failed to notify subscribers of their right to file a
Form 329 complaint regarding the increase and failed to provide subscribers with the address and
phone number of the Cable Services Bureau.  Finally, as further evidence of Century's alleged
systematic course of deception, the Town contends that Century failed to provide the Town with a
"certification of compliance" within 90 days of the implementation of the plan to refund Form 393
overcharges, as required by Commission rules.

      25.  Century disputes the Town's claims. Specifically, with respect to its delay in
implementing the refund plan required by the Town's December 1994 rate order and the operator's
failure to provide requested information regarding the implementation of the plan,  Century alleges
that a cable operator may not be held in breach of a local rate order while the operator's refund plan
is in dispute.  According to Century, on June 23, 1995, it provided the Town with a detailed refund
implementation plan which the Town rejected on July 27, 1995.  The Town and Century then
entered into negotiations regarding the refund implementation and on November 14, 1995, the Town
approved a new refund implementation plan.  Century contends that once it was notified of the
Town's July 27, 1995 rejection, its desire was to reduce its rates to subscribers as quickly as possible,
thus it did not give subscribers 30 days' notice, and instead immediately implemented the rates
rollback.  Thus, Century contends that its failure to provide subscribers notice of implementation of
the rate rollback does not warrant the imposition by the Commission of punitive sanctions. With
respect to its failure to provide subscribers notice of its a la carte channel rate increase, Century
argues that, because its a la carte channels qualify for New Product Tier ("NPT") treatment, it did
not have to provide subscribers information as to how to file a Form 329.  With respect to its failure
to provide a certificate of compliance, Century contends that the Commission's rules requiring a
certification of compliance apply only to the cable programming service tier.  Finally, Century
contends that the Town erred in relying on 47 C.F.R.  76.963 (Imposition of Forfeitures) and
contends that section applies only to cable programming service tier rate orders.  

      b.Discussion

      26. Our rules provide that a forfeiture may be assessed against any person who has
willfully or repeatedly failed to comply substantially with an order or regulation issued by the
Commission or with any provision of the Communications Act.  While the relationship between
the parties has been acrimonious, the record before us does not demonstrate that Century either
willfully or repeatedly violated the Commission's regulations in such a manner necessitating the
imposition of forfeitures.  First, with respect to Century's delay in implementing the refund plan, the
Town by a June 6, 1995 letter required Century to implement a refund plan by July 23, 1995. 
Century submitted a refund implementation plan to the Town for approval on June 23, 1995.  The
Town did not notify Century until July 27, 1995, four days after the implementation deadline, that
the implementation plan had been rejected.  The Town cannot now claim that Century willfully
failed to meet the July 23, 1996 deadline.  While we acknowledge that Century failed to respond
promptly to the subsequent information requests dated  July 27, 1995 and September 25, 1995, the
two parties did reach agreement regarding the implementation plan. The record does not allow us
to conclude that  Century's delay in responding to these requests was so egregious to warrant
forfeitures. 

      27.Second, with respect to Century's increase of its a la carte channel rates, Century
claims that its Century Select Tier qualified for NPT treatment, and thus Century was not required
to provide subscribers with information regarding how to file a Form 329.  In support of its
argument, Century cites the Bureau's orders in Century Cable TV and Century Cable TV Huntington
in which the Bureau found that Century's Century Select package, composed of three a la carte
channels, qualified for NPT treatment.  Although the Bureau has not yet addressed the Town's Form
329, the Bureau has found that the operator's Century Select Package, which is the same package at
issue here, qualified for NPT treatment. Accordingly, Century's subscribers were not entitled to
information on how to file a complaint regarding increases in the Century Select Tier rates.  As
Century provided its subscribers with 30 days' notice of the Century Select Tier rate change, it
compiled with our rules.   
 
      28.Third, with respect to Century's failure to provide subscribers adequate notice of the
implementation of the rate rollback mandated by the December 19, 1994 rate order,  Century, by its
own admission, failed to provide adequate notice in accordance with our rules.  It did, however,
implement the rollback.  Again, we are unwilling to conclude that the overall circumstances warrant
a forfeiture action.
     
      29.Fourth, with respect to Century's alleged failure to provide a "certification of
compliance," the Commission's regulations regarding "certification of compliance" expressly apply
only to "Commission orders mandating remedial requirements."  This is not the case here.  In this
case, the order at issue is not a Commission order, but rather is a local franchising authority rate
order.   Accordingly, Century was not required by the Commission's rules to provide the Town with
a certification of compliance.  Overall, we do not endorse the range of actions, or inactions, on
Century's behalf.  We cannot conclude that Century either willfully or repeatedly violated the
Commission's regulations in such a manner as to necessitate the imposition of forfeitures.  We,
therefore, decline to impose forfeitures against Century in this proceeding. 

      D. REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION

      1.Positions of the Parties

      30.Along with its Motion for Forfeiture and subsequently filed amendments, the Town
also made several requests for clarification of past Bureau decisions.  Specifically, the Town
requests clarification of the Bureau's Times Mirror Cable Television of Orange County, Inc.
decision and "whether the waiver granted to Century by the Commission for the filing of Form 1205
for fiscal year 1995 entitled Century not to file a revised Form 1205 based on fiscal year 1994
data."  Moreover, the Town requests that the Commission explain how Century's refund liability
for 1994 is to be recalculated to reflect its equipment and installation charges for that fiscal year.
  
      31.In response to the Town's requests, Century explains that it does not believe that the
waiver of the Form 1205 filing deadline for fiscal year 1995 entitled the company not to file a
revised Form 1205 based on fiscal year 1994 data.  Rather, it is Century's position that it was not
required to make a fiscal year 1994 Form 1205 filing based upon the Commission's rules, Form 1205
instructions, and the Bureau's decision in TCI Oregon.
   
      2.Discussion

      32.Century contends that, even though the data in its attached Form 1205 affects its
Form 1200 maximum permitted basic service tier rates, it is not required to make concomitant
adjustments to its equipment and installation rates until after it files a new Form 1205 after the close
of its next fiscal year.  We agree.

      33.The Town is correct in asserting that Forms 1200 and 1205 establish a direct linkage
between programming service rates and equipment and installation costs and charges.  When setting
rates or calculating refund liability, a franchising authority should normally adhere to the principles
underlying the benchmark methodology described above, thereby assuring that an operator is
allowed to earn neither more nor less than its maximum permitted revenues.  Therefore, Form 1205
calculations resulting in lower equipment basket costs should normally lead to higher programming
service rates and correspondingly lower equipment and installation rates. When the Commission
initially promulgated FCC Forms 1200 and 1205 it created an exception to this direct linkage.  The
instructions to Form 1205 state that, if an operator has already unbundled equipment and installation
charges at cost, the operator must wait one year from the date on which it unbundled equipment and
installation charges before changing these charges.   The instructions go on to state that an operator
does not even need to complete the Worksheet for Calculating Permitted Equipment and Installation
Charges on Schedule D, which lists the average hours by type of installation, if the operator is filing
Form 1205 only as part of establishing its initial maximum permitted rates for programming
services.  These instructions comport with our previous determination that equipment rates can be
changed only annually.  Since Century had restructured its rates on September 1, 1993, Century
could not change its equipment and installation rates before September 1, 1994. 

      34.Moreover, as we stated in TCI Oregon, we believe that the postponement of
equipment and installation rate changes until the filing of the first fiscal year Form 1205, which took
place at least one year after the operator unbundled its equipment and installation rates, was
permissible since it could serve to limit administrative expenses for the operators and confusion for
consumers.  If we had required changes to these rates to become effective on September 1, 1994,
operators might have had to adjust their rates twice in a relatively short time period.  Accordingly,
Century reasonably relied on the form instructions and was not required to file its next Form 1205
until after the close of its fiscal year on May 31, 1995.  Century's next 1205 filing should have been
its 1995 Form 1205 reflecting data from fiscal year 1995.  It was at that time that Century should
have changed its equipment and installation rates if its filing indicates a change in its maximum
permitted rates.  The Town is not permitted to recalculate Century's refund liability retroactively to
reflect Century's equipment and installation charges for fiscal year 1994.   The Bureau recognized
that its finding in TCI Oregon would allow some operators, such as Century, who were charging
more for equipment than is justified by their Form 1205 costs, to receive in excess of their maximum
permitted revenues for some period of time.   However,  because the Form 1205 instructions and
the Bureau's ruling in TCI Oregon apply to "changes" in equipment rates, this ruling should have a
neutral effect industry wide.  Therefore, other operators who were charging less than their maximum
permitted rates under their initial Form 1205 filing earned less than their maximum permitted
revenues for a similar period of time.  

 III.ORDERING CLAUSES

      35.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Century New Mexico Cable Corporation's
January 23, 1995 appeal of the Town of Silver City, New Mexico's December 19, 1994 local rate
order, regarding the Form 1210 submission IS GRANTED, and the cause IS REMANDED for
further consideration consistent with this order.
     
      36.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Century New Mexico Cable Corporation's 
March 29, 1996 appeal of the Town of Silver City, New Mexico's December 19, 1994 local rate
order, regarding the issue of Century's universal remote control unit rates IS GRANTED, and the
cause IS REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this order.

      37.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Century New Mexico Cable Corporation's 
March 29, 1996 appeal of the Town of Silver City, New Mexico's December 19, 1994 local rate
order, regarding the issue of Century's converter box rates IS GRANTED, and the cause IS
REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this order.

      38.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Century New Mexico Cable Corporation's 
March 29, 1996 appeal of the Town of Silver City, New Mexico's December 19, 1994 local rate
order, regarding the issue of Century's labor costs IS GRANTED, and the cause IS REMANDED
for further consideration consistent with this order.

      39.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Town of Silver City, New Mexico's request
for forfeiture IS DENIED.

      40.This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority
delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules.  47 C.F.R.  0.321.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



     Meredith J. Jones
     Chief, Cable Services Bureau