**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CUID No. CA0631 (City of     |
|                                  |   | Atascadero)                  |
| Falcon Cable Systems Company II  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Petition for Reconsideration     | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
|                                  |   |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

**Adopted: March 5, 2002** **Released: March 7, 2002**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1.  In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
    (\"Petition\") of our Order, DA 98-1672 (\"Prior Order\").[^1] In
    our Prior Order, we resolved a complaint against the
    above-referenced operator\'s (\"Operator\'s\")[^2] cable programming
    services tier (\"CPST\") rates in the above-referenced community.
    Operator also filed a refund plan in response to our Prior Order. In
    this Order, we grant Operator's Petition, modify our Prior Order and
    dismiss Operator's refund plan as moot.

2.  Under the Communications Act,[^3] at the time the referenced
    complaint was 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[^4] (\"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\")[^5] and
    our rules implementing the legislation (\"Interim Rules\"),[^6]
    required that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the
    Commission by an LFA that has received more than one subscriber
    complaint.[^7] The filing of a complete and timely complaint
    triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a
    justification of its CPST rates.[^8] The Operator has the burden of
    demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are
    reasonable.[^9] If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable,
    it shall determine the correct rate and any refund liability.[^10]

3.  Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to justify rates for the
    period beginning May 15, 1994.[^11] 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.[^12] 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.[^13] Any incurred cost that is not
    projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later
    time.[^14]

4.  In its Petition, Operator asserts that our Prior Order incorrectly
    identified Operator\'s actual CPST rate under review as \$8.01 when
    its actual CPST rate for the period under review was \$1.50. Our
    review of Operator\'s rate cards and supporting billing records
    confirms that Operator\'s actual CPST rate as of May 15, 1994 was
    \$1.50. In our Prior Order, we found Operator\'s FCC Form 1200
    calculated maximum permitted rate (\"MPR\") of \$5.98 to be
    reasonable effective May 15, 1994.[^15] Because Operator\'s actual
    CPST rate of \$1.50 does not exceed its MPR of \$5.98, we find
    Operator\'s actual CPST rate of \$1.50 to be reasonable, effective
    May 15, 1994. Because our resolution of this issue disposes of
    Operator's refund liability, we will modify our Prior Order to
    exclude any refund liability. Therefore, we will grant Operator's
    Petition and dismiss Operator's 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 Operator\'s Petition for
    Reconsideration IS GRANTED 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 Falcon
    Cable Systems Company II, DA 98-1672, 13 FCC Rcd 18410 (1998), IS
    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 Operator\'s refund plan
    IS DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Falcon Cable System Company II, DA 98-1672, 13
    FCC Rcd 18410 (1998).

[^2]: The term \"Operator\" includes Operator's successors and
    predecessors in interest.

[^3]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    §543(c) (1996).

[^4]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^5]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^6]: *See* Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).

[^7]: *See* Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    Section 543(c) (1996).

[^8]: *See* Section 76.956 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §76.956.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *See* Section 76.957 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.957.

[^11]: *See* Section 76. 922 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    76.922.

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Id*.

[^15]: In our Prior Order, we accepted Operator\'s request for refund
    liability deferral until July 15, 1994. However, if there is no
    refund liability as of May 15, 1994, based on the FCC Form 1200 MPR,
    then there is no need for deferral.