Comcast May Face More Cable Rate Challenges
Comcast, which just settled a rate case, may see additional charges challenged by franchising authorities, said a lawyer who represents the LFAs and a cable accountant involved in the latest deal. A settlement unveiled this month ended a spat between cities and the company over charges for gear such as DVRs and remotes, said attorney Ken Fellman. But the accord didn’t involve rates that will soon be disclosed for 2006, said Fellman, who represents 31 Denver area cities and counties. More than a million cable customers in those localities and about 70 more will get $2.6 million under the arrangement (CD Feb 21 p10).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The settlement didn’t address 2006 rates, which could lead to a future dispute, said accountant Garth Ashpaugh: “There are still some issues that are unresolved from the past filings. The settlement didn’t resolve all of outstanding problems.” He declined to elaborate but said Comcast was aware of the issues. Ashpaugh and consultant Richard Treich charged municipalities $1,500-$10,000 to study Comcast’s past equipment rates, and said the company had overcharged customers $5 million. Comcast had no comment for this article.
The case was settled because of the potential for FCC delay in issuing a final ruling, said franchise representatives we spoke with. National Assn. of Telecom Officers & Advisors Exec. Director Libby Beaty agreed. The Commission had granted Comcast an emergency stay (CD April 27 p2). “Our experience in the past on rate issues has been that it could take two to five years sometimes, and sometimes we've seen rate appeals that could take longer than that,” said Coralie Wilson, exec. dir. of Minn.’s North Suburban Communications Commission, also part of the settlement. “We knew that problem would not be a priority for them, so if we could work out a deal, they would appreciate it, and we could get rid of the problem.”
Municipalities are likely to ask that 2006 rate proposals, due April 1, be reviewed, said Ashpaugh: “Odds are that we're going to have a few of the folks interested in us taking a look at it, and once we've done that, then we can contact these folks again and see if they're interested in doing something” such as contesting the charges. Franchise officials expressed optimism that won’t happen, but they said they're keeping their options open. “If they go back to doing it they way that caused the problems in the first place, those problems will reemerge,” said Fellman: “Hopefully that won’t happen.” Wilson also expressed hope. “There were some issues not dealt with in the settlement,” she said. “They may or may not come up in the 2006 filing.”