**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Community TV Corporation ) CUID No. NH0047 (Merrimack) )

Petition for Reconsideration )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: June 18, 2001 Released: June 21, 2001**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1\. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
(\"Petition\") of our Order, DA 95-1298 (\"First Order\"),[^1] filed
with the Federal Communications Commission (\"Commission\") by the
above-referenced operator (\"Operator\") on July 21, 1995. Operator also
filed a petition for stay pending reconsideration, which was
granted.[^2] Our First Order resolved all pending complaints against
Operator\'s CPST rates in the above-referenced community through May 14,
1994, and found Operator\'s cable programming services tier (\"CPST\")
rates to be unreasonable. On April 15, 1997, we released an order, DA
97-751 (\"Second Order\")[^3] which found that Operator is a small cable
company pursuant to Section 623(m)(2) of the Communications Act[^4] and
dismissed all complaints against Operator filed with the Commission
between September 1, 1993 and February 7, 1996. In this Order, we vacate
our First Order and our stay and dismiss Operator\'s Petition as moot.

2\. Under the Communications Act, at the time the referenced complaints
were filed, the Commission was authorized to review the CPST rates of
cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates
charged were not unreasonable.[^5] The Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (\"1992 Cable Act\"),[^6] and our
rules in effect at the time the complaints were filed, required the
Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by
a subscriber. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (\"1996 Act\"),[^7]
amended Section 623 of the Communications Act and redefined a small
cable operator as one that \"directly or through an affiliate, serves in
the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United
States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross
annual revenues in the aggregate exceed \$250,000,000.\"[^8] In the 1996
Act, Congress determined that, effective February 8, 1996, the
Commission shall not apply its CPST rate regulation rules, promulgated
under Sections 623(a), (b) and (c) of the Communications Act,[^9] to a
small cable operator in any franchise area in which that operator
services 50,000 or fewer subscribers.[^10]

3\. Normally, a finding that an operator qualifies as a small cable
operator would not provide a basis to vacate a prior finding of
liability. It would only function to dismiss that portion of a complaint
that had not yet been resolved. For example, our First Order resolved
complaints through May 14, 1994. As we stated in our First Order, our
findings \"do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price
for CPST service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate
regulations.\"[^11] A review of Operator\'s CPST rates beginning May 15,
1994 was still pending when the Second Order was released. Because our
Second Order found that Operator qualifies as a small cable operator and
dismissed the complaint, we would not complete the pending review of
Operator\'s CPST rates beginning May 15, 1994. We would, however,
enforce any prior orders. The instant case differs from the normal
situation because Operator filed a timely appeal of our First Order.
Because we have determined, prior to a resolution of that appeal, that
Operator is a small cable operator and not subject to the CPST rate
regulation rules, we will vacate our First Order. Because we are
vacating our First Order, we will also vacate our stay and dismiss
Operator\'s Petition, which has become moot.

4\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that Operator\'s Petition for
Reconsideration IS DISMISSED.

5\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the stay of DA 95-1298,
granted in Battlefield Cable TV Co., et al., Petitions for Stay of
Action, 10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995), IS VACATED.

6\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that In the Matter of Community
TV Corporation., DA 95-1298, 10 FCC Rcd 6701 (1995) IS VACATED.

7\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the complaints referenced
herein against the rates charged by Operator in the community referenced
above ARE DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chie

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Community TV Corporation, 10 FCC Rcd 6701 (1995).

[^2]: *See* In the Matter of Battlefield Cable TV Co., et al., Petitions
    for Stay of Action, 10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995).

[^3]: *See* In the Matter of Community TV Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 21239
    (1997).

[^4]: Communications Act, Section 623(m)(2), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C. §
    543(m)(2) (1996).

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(c) (1996).

[^6]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^7]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2) (1996).

[^9]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 543(a) - (c) (1996).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(1) (1996). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 76.1403(a)
    (1998).

[^11]: First Order at n. 1.