**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | File No. EB-02-TC-013        |
|                                  |   |                              |
| IDS/Jones Joint Venture Partners | ) | CUID No. IL0094 (Aurora)     |
|                                  |   |                              |
| d/b/a Jones Intercable           | ) | File Nos. EB-02-TC-042       |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Jones Cable Income Fund 1-B/C    | ) | EB-02-TC-043                 |
| Venture                          |   |                              |
|                                  | ) | CUID Nos. MI0204 (Dowagiac)  |
| d/b/a Jones Intercable           |   |                              |
|                                  | ) | MI0243 (Watervliet)          |
| Cable TV Fund 12-BCD Venture     |   |                              |
|                                  | ) | File Nos. EB-02-TC-044       |
| d/b/a Jones Intercable           |   |                              |
|                                  | ) | EB-02-TC-045                 |
| Consolidated Application for     |   |                              |
| Review                           | ) | CUID Nos. CA0342 (Palmdale)  |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) | CA0343 (Quartz Hill)         |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER

**Adopted: July 16, 2002** **Released: July 17, 2002**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:[^1]

1.  In this Order we reconsider on our own motion three Cable Services
    Bureau Orders, DA 95-1570,[^2] DA 95-1590,[^3] and DA 95-1591[^4]
    (together \"Prior Orders\"), that resolved complaints filed against
    the rates charged by the above-referenced operators (\"together
    \"Operator\")[^5] for the cable programming services tier (\"CPST\")
    in the communities referenced above through May 14, 1994. In the
    Prior Orders, the Cable Services Bureau stated that its findings
    \"do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS
    service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations.\"[^6]
    Subsequently, the Cable Services Bureau issued orders resolving
    complaints against Operator's CPST rates beginning May 15, 1994, and
    found those rates to be reasonable in all of the communities.[^7] In
    this Order, we reconsider, on our own motion, and amend the Prior
    Orders, and dismiss Operator's Application for Review as moot.

2.  Under the provisions of the Communications Act[^8] that were in
    effect at the time the complaints were filed, 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. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and
    Competition Act of 1992 (\"1992 Cable Act\")[^9] and the
    Commission\'s rules required the Commission to review CPST rates
    upon the filing of a valid complaint by a subscriber or local
    franchising authority (\"LFA\"). The Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (\"1996 Act\"),[^10] and the Commission\'s rules implementing the
    legislation (\"Interim Rules\"),[^11] required that a complaint
    against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission by an LFA that
    has received more than one subscriber complaint. The filing of a
    valid complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to
    file a justification of its CPST rates.[^12] If the Commission finds
    the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and
    any refund liability.[^13]

3.  During the first phase of rate regulation, from September 1, 1993
    until May 15, 1994, the benchmark rate analysis and comparison with
    an operator's actual rates were calculated using the FCC Form
    393.[^14] Operator points out that a clerical mistake was made on
    the FCC Form 393s it submitted to the Cable Services Bureau, which
    the Bureau relied on to calculate Operator\'s maximum permitted
    rates (\"MPRs\") in the Prior Orders. This clerical error resulted
    in a reduction in both Operator\'s calculated FCC Form 393 MPR and
    the MPR established in the Prior Orders. Operator argues that the
    legal entities that owned the cable systems in issue are limited
    partnerships and not subject to federal and state corporate income
    taxes and that Operator incorrectly made entries on its submitted
    FCC Form 393s that indicated that Operator was a tax-paying
    corporation. Upon review of Operator\'s submitted FCC Form 393s and
    the Cable Services Bureau\'s revised FCC Form 393s, we agree with
    Operator regarding this issue.

4.  We adjusted Operator's FCC Form 393s to reflect Operator's
    partnership status. Upon review of the adjusted FCC Form 393s, we
    find that Operator's total overcharges for the period under review
    are *de minimis* and it would not be in the public interest to order
    a refund. We modify the Prior Orders accordingly. Because our
    resolution of this issue disposes of Operator's refund liability, we
    dismiss Operator's Application for Review, which has become
    moot.[^15]

5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of
    the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that *In the
    Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc.*, DA 95-1570, 10 FCC Rcd 8751 (CSB
    1995), *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*., DA 95-1590, 10 FCC
    Rcd 8753 (CSB 1995), and *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*.,
    DA 95-1591, 10 FCC Rcd 8811 (CSB 1995) ARE MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT
    INDICATED HEREIN.

6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that the stay of
    Orders, DA 95-1570, DA 95-1590 and DA 95-1591, granted in *Petitions
    for Stay*, DA 96-425, 11 FCC Rcd 4196 (1996), IS VACATED.

7.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.115
    of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.115, that
    Operator's consolidated application for review IS DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: Effective March 25, 2002, the Commission transferred
    responsibility for resolving cable programming services tier rate
    complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement
    Bureau. *See* *Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline
    Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
    Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational
    Changes*, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002).

[^2]: *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc.*, DA 95-1570, 10 FCC Rcd
    8751 (CSB 1995).

[^3]: *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*., DA 95-1590, 10 FCC Rcd
    8753 (CSB 1995).

[^4]: *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*., DA 95-1591, 10 FCC Rcd
    8811 (CSB 1995).

[^5]: The term \"Operator\" includes Operators' predecessors and
    successors in interest.

[^6]: Prior Orders at n. 1.

[^7]: *See In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*., DA 99-1575, 14 FCC
    Rcd 13262 (CSB 1999) (CUID No. IL0094); In the Matter of Jones
    Intercable, Inc., DA 99-1697, 14 FCC Rcd 13880 (CSB 1999) (CUID No.
    MI0204); In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 99-1703, 14 FCC
    Rcd 13884 (CSB 1999) (CUID No. MI0243); In the Matter of Comcast
    Cable Communications, Inc., DA 99-1576, 14 FCC Rcd 13265 (CSB 1999)
    (CUID Nos. CA0342 and CA0343).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).

[^9]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^10]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^11]: *See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 1996).

[^12]: *See* Section 76.956 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §76.956.

[^13]: *See* Section 76.957 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §76.957.

[^14]: See *Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
    Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation*, 8 FCC Rcd
    5631, 5755-56, 5766-67, 5881-83 (1993).

[^15]: *See, e.g.,* *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc.*, DA
    02-538, 17 FCC Rcd 4358 (CSB 2002) (If resolution of an operator's
    application for review will have no effect on the operator\'s refund
    liability, the application for review will be dismissed as moot).