**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CUID Nos. MN0313 (Birchwood  |
|                                  |   | Village)                     |
| Meredith Cable                   | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0314 (Dellwood)            |
| Petitions for Reconsideration    | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0315 (Lake Elmo)           |
| Application for Review           | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0316 (Mahtomedi)           |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0317 (Maplewood)           |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0318 (North St. Paul)      |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0319 (Oakdale)             |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   | MN0320 (Vadnais Heights)     |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0321 (White Bear Lake)     |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0322 (Willernie)           |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0323 (Grant)               |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0324 (White Bear)          |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0335 (White Bear Lake)     |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0362 (Anoka)               |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0363 (Andover)             |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0364 (Champlin)            |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0365(Ramsey)               |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0370 (Blaine)              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | > MN0371 (Centerville)       |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0372 (Circle Pines)        |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0373 (Coon Rapids)         |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0374 (Ham Lake)            |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0375 (Lexington)           |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0376 (Lino Lakes)          |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0377 (Spring Lake Park)    |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | MN0378 (Spring Lake Park)    |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ | CSR No. 4855-R               |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
|                                  |   |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

**Adopted: September 7, 2001** **Released: September 14, 2001**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1.  In this Order we consider petitions for reconsideration
    (\"Petitions\"), of our Orders, DA 98-1151,[^1] DA 98-1311,[^2] and
    DA 98-1312[^3] (\"Prior Orders\"). In our Prior Orders, we resolved
    complaints against the cable programming service tier (\"CPST\")
    rates charged by the above referenced operator (\"Operator\")[^4] in
    the above referenced communities, beginning May 15, 1994. In DA
    98-1151, we also denied a petition for special relief (\"PSR\"), CSR
    No. 4855-R, in which Operator requested a waiver of the Commission's
    rules preventing Operator from offsetting basic services tier
    (\"BST\") rate reductions with CPST rate increases in the
    communities referenced above. Operator filed an application for
    review (\"Application\") of that part of DA 98-1151 that rejected
    the PSR along with a petition for stay. Operator also filed refund
    plans in response to our Prior Orders. In this Order, we grant
    Operator's Petitions in part, amend our Prior Orders and dismiss
    Operator's Application, petition for stay, and refund plans as moot.

2.  Under the Communications Act,[^5] at the time the referenced
    complaints were filed, the Federal Communications Commission
    (\"Commission\") was 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[^6] (\"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 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 its Petitions, Operator raises several issues, only one of which
    is addressed herein. In our Prior Orders, we concluded that Operator
    incurred refund liability for the period May 15, 1994 to July 14,
    1994, for overcharges associated with its FCC Form 1200 CPST rate
    calculations, because Operator had not elected to defer its CPST
    refund liability for that period as permitted by the Commission's
    rules.[^14] In its Petitions, Operator asserts that it timely filed
    BST refund deferral request letters with the above referenced
    LFAs.[^15] Operator requests that we accept these timely filed BST
    refund deferral request letters for the purpose of deferring CPST
    refund liability.[^16] Upon review, we will accept Operator's BST
    deferral request letters as evidence of Operator's deferral
    election, and we will grant Operator's request to defer its FCC Form
    1200 CPST refund liability until July 14, 1994. Our further review
    of our Prior Orders reveals that Operator justified its actual CPST
    rates beginning July 14, 1994. As there were no valid complaints
    received against Operator's CPST rates in effect after that time
    period, we will modify our Prior Order to exclude the finding of any
    refund liability for any time periods beginning after July 14, 1994.
    Because our resolution of the refund deferral issue and our further
    review dispose of Operator's refund liability, we decline to address
    any other issue raised by Operator in its Petitions or Application.
    We will grant Operator's Petitions in part, modify our Prior Orders
    to reflect no refund liability, and dismiss Operator's Application,
    petition for stay and refund plans as moot.

5.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 that Operator\'s Petitions
    for Reconsideration ARE GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT INDICATED
    HEREIN.

6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that In the Matter of
    Meredith Cable, DA 98-1151, 13 FCC Rcd 16676 (1998), In the Matter
    of Meredith Cable, DA 98-1311, 13 FCC Rcd 17409 (1998), and In the
    Matter of Meredith Cable, DA 98-1312, 13 FCC Rcd 17414 (1998) ARE
    MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

7.  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 communities referenced above, effective May 15,
    1995, ARE REASONABLE.

8.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that Operator\'s Application
    for Review, Petition for Stay Pending Review, and Refund Plans ARE
    DISMISSED as moot.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Meredith Cable, DA 98-1151, 13 FCC Rcd 16676
    (1998).

[^2]: In the Matter of Meredith Cable, DA 98-1311, 13 FCC Rcd 17409
    (1998).

[^3]: In the Matter of Meredith Cable, DA 98-1312, 13 FCC Rcd 17414
    (1998).

[^4]: The term \"Operator\" includes Operator's successors and
    predecessors in interest.

[^5]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    §543(c) (1996).

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

[^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*.

[^14]: Commission\'s rules provide for a refund liability deferral
    period beginning May 15, 1994 and ending July 14, 1994, if timely
    requested by 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).

[^15]: Operator included copies of the letters along with its Petitions.

[^16]: Operator cites In the Matter of Marcus Cable Associates, LP, DA
    97-2663, 13 FCC Rcd 9012 (1998) as precedent for the acceptance of
    these letters.