FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986 Page: 424
ix, 375-719 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Reports
filed by cable companies alleging that a utility is charging in
excess of its fully allocated costs. In addition, in those few cases
filed by utilities, the utility argues that the rate being charged
should be at the maximum level under the statute. Therefore, we
have been called on to concentrate on defining the maximum rate.
We continue to expect to focus on the upper end of the statutory
range since complaints by cable companies claiming that a rate
exceeds fully allocated costs will continue to be the norm. Hence,
we do not propose to establish the minimum rate in routine cases.
By definition, fully allocated costs exceed avoidable costs (i.e.,
incremental costs). Thus, there is a presumption that the pole
attachment rate determined by the formula falls above the
utility's incremental costs. If the utility wishes to rebut this
presumption, it will have the burden of proving the minimum
statutory rate.
23. On the other hand, in light of the court's concerns we
propose to formalize through this proceeding the notion that the
rate determined by our formula is the maximum rate as defined
by 47 U.S.C. 224. Even though we also recognize that
accounting used by utilities permits some flexibility in identifying
and recording expenses, we cannot fashion a formula of general
applicability that encompasses all situations. Indeed, most utili-
ties do not keep, much less report in publicly available records,
the detailed subaccounts which would be necessary to assure a
precise maximum rate in every case. Absent a full ratemaking
proceeding in each dispute, in which we examine each account and
subaccount to select the amount related to the cost of owning and
maintaining a pole, it is virtually impossible to include every
expense and only those expenses which would lead to the
calculation of the exact maximum rate for each particular utility,
which we are convinced was not the intent of Congress. Thus, our
goal is to adopt a formula which, using publicly available data,
meets the concerns of the court and results in a rate which is, for
the purpose of fulfilling the intent of Congress, the maximum
level within the statutory just and reasonable range."7 At the
same time the components of the formula for computing this rate
should be predictable and retain the level of certainty which in
the past has yielded a significant volume of negotiated settle-
ments relying on Commission standards. We therefore request
17 We do not read Section 224 of the Act to require us to find the absolute
maximum rate. As long as our formula provides for a rate within the zone of
reasonableness (see Section 224(d)(1)), we will have exercised our responsibilities
under the statute.104 F.C.C. 2d
424
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986, report, 1986-08~; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306573/m1/62/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.