**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CUID No. WI0386 (Village of  |
|                                  |   | Denmark)                     |
| Marcus Cable Partners, LP        | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Petition for Reconsideration     | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

**Adopted: November 9, 2001** **Released: November 14, 2001**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1.  In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
    (\"Petition\") of our Order, DA 97-2066 (\"Prior Order\"),[^1] filed
    with the Federal Communications Commission (\"Commission\") on
    October 27, 1997 by the above-referenced operator (\"Operator\").
    Our Prior Order resolved a complaint filed against Operator's cable
    programming service tier (\"CPST\") rates. Operator also filed a
    refund plan in response to our Prior Order. In this Order, we
    reconsider and amend our Prior Order and dismiss Operator's Petition
    and refund plan as moot.

2.  Under the Communications Act,[^2] the Commission was authorized, at
    the time the referenced complaint was filed, 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[^3] (\"1992 Cable
    Act\") 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\")[^4] and
    our rules implementing the legislation (\"Interim Rules\"),[^5]
    required that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the
    Commission by an LFA that has received more than one subscriber
    complaint.[^6] The filing of a complete and timely complaint
    triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a
    justification of its CPST rates.[^7] The Operator has the burden of
    demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are
    reasonable.[^8] If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable,
    it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability.[^9]

3.  Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify rates for the
    period beginning May 15, 1994.[^10] Cable operators may justify rate
    increases on a quarterly basis using FCC Form 1210, based on the
    addition and deletion of channels, changes in certain external costs
    and inflation.[^11] 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.[^12] Any incurred cost that is not
    projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later
    time.[^13]

4.  In response to Operator's Petition, we reviewed our Prior Order and
    the record and found that a single complaint was filed against
    Operator\'s CPST rates on November 15, 1993. We found that Operator
    justified its actual CPST rate beginning October 1, 1994. We also
    found that the total overcharges prior to that date were *de
    minimis* and it would not be in the public interest to order a
    refund for that period. As there were no valid complaints received
    against Operator's CPST rates in effect after October 1, 1994, we
    will, on our own motion, amend our Prior Order to exclude the
    finding of any refund liability for that period, without addressing
    the merits of Operator\'s arguments in the Petition. Because our
    review results in a finding of no refund liability, we will dismiss
    Operator's Petition and refund plan as moot.

5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that In the Matter of Marcus
    Cable Partners, LP, DA 97-2066, 13 FCC Rcd 6003 (1998) IS AMENDED TO
    THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that Operator\'s petition
    for reconsideration and refund plan ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Marcus Cable Partners, L.P., DA 97-2066, 13 FCC
    Rcd 6003 (1998).

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

[^3]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^4]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^5]: *See* Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).

[^6]: *See* Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    Section 543(c) (1996).

[^7]: *See* Section 76.956 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.956.

[^8]: *Id.*

[^9]: *See* Section 76.957 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.957.

[^10]: *See* Section 76. 922 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.922.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Id*.