**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) CUID No. IL0525 (Libertyville)

AT&T Broadband, LLC ) IL0526 (Mundelein)

) IL0528 (Grayslake)

Petition for Reconsideration )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: October 24, 2000 Released: October 26, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1\. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
(\"Petition\") of our Order, DA 95-1381 (\"Prior Order\"),[^1] filed
with the Federal Communications Commission (\"Commission\") by the
above-referenced operator (\"Operator\"). Our Prior 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. In
our Prior Order, we stated that our findings \"do not in any way
prejudge the reasonableness of the prices for CPS service after May 14,
1994 under our new regulations.\"[^2] On July 28, 1995, Operator filed a
timely application for review of our Prior Order as well as a refund
plan. On July 13, 2000, Operator requested that the Cable Services
Bureau (\"Bureau\") process the application for review as a petition for
reconsideration.[^3] In this Order, we grant Operator\'s Petition in
part, modify our Prior Order and dismiss Operator's refund plan as moot.
We also review the reasonableness of Operator's CPST rates in effect
beginning May 15, 1994.

2\. Under the Communications Act, the Commission is authorized to review
the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to
ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable.[^4] The Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (\"1992 Cable
Act\"),[^5] 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 filing of a valid complaint
triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification
of its CPST rates.[^6] If the Commission finds the rate to be
unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund
liability.[^7]

3\. Operators must use the FCC Form 393 to justify rates for the period
prior to May 15, 1994. Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to
justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994.[^8] Operators may
file an FCC Form 1210 to justify quarterly rate increases based on the
addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs and
inflation.[^9] Operators may justify their rates on an annual basis
using FCC Form 1240 to reflect reasonably certain and quantifiable
changes in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated
channels that are projected for the twelve months following the rate
change.[^10] Any incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with
interest and added to rates at a later time.[^11]

4\. In its Petition, Operator points out that clerical mistakes were
made on both the FCC Form 393 it submitted to the Bureau and on the
revised FCC Form 393 which the Bureau relied on to calculate Operator's
maximum permitted rate (\"MPR\") in our Prior Order. These clerical
errors resulted in a reduction in both Operator's calculated FCC Form
393 MPR and the MPR established in our Prior Order. First, Operator
argues that the legal entity that owned the cable system is a limited
partnership and not subject to federal and state corporate income taxes.
Operator incorrectly made entries on its submitted FCC Form 393 that
indicated that Operator was a tax-paying corporation. Secondly, Operator
argues that the Bureau incorrectly entered a lower channel count on its
revised FCC Form 393 for the community of Grayslake (CUID No. IL0528).
Upon review of Operator's submitted FCC Form 393 and the Bureau's
revised FCC Form 393, we agree with Operator on both issues. Therefore,
we will modify our Prior Order.

5\. Along with its Petition, Operator submitted amended FCC Form 393s
that corrected the errors and calculated a new MPR of \$10.94 for all
three referenced communities. Upon review of these amended FCC Form
393s, we find the calculated MPR of \$10.94 to be reasonable. Operator
elected to defer refund liability for overcharges associated with its
FCC Form 1200, for the period May 15, 1994 through July 14, 1994,
pursuant to the Commission's Rules.[^12] Therefore, Operator will only
incur refund liability for the period May 15, 1994 through July 14, 1994
for any CPST charges over the FCC Form 393 MPR.[^13] Because Operator's
actual CPST rate of \$10.97, effective from the date of the first valid
complaint[^14] through July 14, 1994, exceeds its FCC Form 393 MPR of
\$10.94, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of \$10.97 to be
unreasonable. However, we find the total overcharge for the period under
review[^15] to be *de minimis*, and it would not be in the public
interest to order a refund. Because our resolution of these issues
disposes of Operator's refund liability, we decline to address any other
issues raised by Operator in its Petition. We will dismiss Operator's
refund plan as moot.

6\. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1200, we find Operator's
calculated MPRs of \$10.79 for Libertyville (IL0525), \$10.73 for
Mundelein (IL0526), and \$10.26 for Grayslake (IL0528), to be
reasonable. Because Operator's actual CPST rates of \$10.79 for
Libertyville (IL0525), \$10.73 for Mundelein (IL0526), and \$10.23 for
Grayslake (IL0528), effective July 15, 1994, do not exceed its MPRs, we
find Operator's actual CPST rates to be reasonable, effective July 15,
1994.[^16]

7\. 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 GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN and
Operator's refund plan IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

8\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that In the Matter of Jones
Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1381, 10 FCC Rcd 7187 (1995) IS MODIFIED TO THE
EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

9\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the CPST rate of \$10.97,
charged by Operator in the franchise areas referenced above, effective
from the date of the first valid complaint through July 14, 1994, IS
UNREASONABLE.

10\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the CPST rates charged by
Operator in the franchise areas referenced above, effective July 14,
1994, ARE REASONABLE.

11\. 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 CPST rates charged by Operator in the communities
referenced above ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA95-1381, 10 FCC Rcd
    7187 (1995).

[^2]: *Id.* at n. 1.

[^3]: *See* letter dated July 28, 2000 to the Cable Services Bureau from
    Steven J. Horvitz, attorney for AT&T Broadband, LLC, successor to
    Jones Intercable in the above-referenced communities.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).

[^5]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §76.956.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. §76.957.

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 76.922.

[^9]: *Id*.

[^10]: *Id*.

[^11]: *Id*.

[^12]: The Commission's rules provide for a refund liability deferral
    period beginning May 15, 1994 and ending July 14, 1994, if timely
    requested by the Operator, for any overcharges resulting from
    Operator's calculation of a new MPR on the FCC Form 1200. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 76.922(b)(6)(ii).

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: As noted in our Prior Order, the first valid complaint against
    the CPST rates in the community of Libertyville (IL0525) was
    received on November 8, 1993, in Mundelein (IL0526) on December 27,
    1993 and in Grayslake (IL0528) on February 28, 1994.

[^15]: ^?^ The period under review runs from the date of the first valid
    complaint through July 14, 1994.

[^16]: These findings are based solely on the representations of
    Operator. Should information come to our attention that these
    representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to
    take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a
    finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry,
    explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not
    specifically addressed herein.