Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Chris Sherwood <br />City of Pleasanton <br />July 25, 1994 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />March 31, 1994.5 However, the FCC has said that if the <br />rates on March 31 were incorrect, the filing would have to <br />be corrected to reflect the what the rates should have been <br />at that time. <br /> <br /> Further, the FCC has yet to resolve the issue of refund <br />liability. Initially, the FCC appeared to state that if a <br />franchising authority found the rates for the basic tier to <br />be too high, the authority could order reductions and <br />refunds. Subsequently, the FCC has appeared to indicate <br />that if rates for one level of service are too high, but are <br />less than permitted in other areas, the total dollars to be <br />refunded must be "offset" by any undercharges. Many <br />franchising authorities believe that this is contrary to the <br />letter and intent of the original rules. <br /> <br /> The cities would appear to have a number of possible <br />actions to consider: <br /> <br />The cities can accept Viacom~s filing and <br />direct that rates be maintained as <br />indicated.s <br /> <br />The cities can find that Viacom has <br />inappropriately counted channels to be <br />included in the benchmark and direct rates <br />for the Basic Tier to be reduced to reflect <br />this incorrect counting. <br /> <br />Viacom should be invited to comment on the <br />possible findings and provide justification <br />of its rates based on the analysis indicated <br />above. <br /> <br />The Cities should permit the participation of <br />"interested parties" in the review process. <br />This is a requirement of the FCC regulation, <br />and must be done during the 120 day review <br />period. This may be a public hearing, but <br />the FCC rules do not specify that one must be <br />held (for example, the cities could invite <br />written comment), <br /> <br />5 FCC Form 1200. <br /> <br /> <br />