**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of ) File No. EB-02-TC-032 ) File No. EB-02-TC-040

Jones Intercable, Inc. ) CUID Nos. AZ0158 (Oro Valley, AZ)

Jones Spacelink of Ohio ) OH0293 (Rittman, OH)

)

Consolidated Application for Review )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: May 6, 2002 Released: May 8, 2002**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:[^1]

1\. In this Order, we reconsider, on our own motion, Orders, DA 95-1742
(\"Rittman Order\")[^2] and DA 95-1794 (\"Oro Valley Order\")[^3]
(together \"Prior Orders\"). The Rittman Order resolved all pending
complaints against the cable programming services tier (\"CPST\") rates
charged by the above-referenced Operator (\"Operator\")[^4] in the
Rittman, Ohio community through May 14, 1994, and found Operator\'s CPST
rates to be unreasonable. The Oro Valley Order resolved all pending
complaints against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the Oro Valley,
Arizona community through May 14, 1994, and found Operator\'s CPST rates
to be unreasonable. On October 10, 1995, Operator filed a consolidated
application for review (\"Application\") of the Prior Orders. In this
Order, we vacate the Prior Orders and dismiss Operator's Application as
moot.

2\. On November 30, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission
(\"Commission\") adopted an Order, FCC 95-478,[^5] approving the Time
Warner Social Contract (\"Social Contract\") between Time Warner Cable
(\"Time Warner\") and the Commission. The Social Contract resolved all
of Time Warner\'s CPST cases. On December 26, 1996, we granted Time
Warner's request that certain of its subsequently-acquired cable
television systems be added to those systems already subject to the
Social Contract.[^6] As a result, the Rittman, Ohio cable system, the
subject of the Rittman Order, became subject to the Social Contract.
Accordingly, all complaints involving the system were resolved.[^7]
Therefore, we vacate the Rittman Order and dismiss as moot Operator's
Application with regard to that system.

3\. Under the Communications Act[^8] 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. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order released
April 17, 2000 (\"Competition Order\"), the Cable Services Bureau found
that Operator\'s system serving the Oro Valley community is subject to
effective competition.[^9] Based on the Cable Services Bureau\'s finding
of effective competition in our Competition Order, Operator\'s system in
the franchise area in the Oro Valley community is not subject to rate
regulation. Therefore, we vacate the Oro Valley Order and dismiss as
moot Operator's Application with regard to that system.

4\. 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 In the Matter of Jones Spacelink of Ohio, DA 95-1742, 10 FCC Rcd 9802
(1995) and In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1794, 10 FCC
Rcd 9781 (1995), ARE VACATED.

5\. 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 Spacelink of Ohio*, DA 95-1742, 10 FCC Rcd
    9802 (CSB 1995).

[^3]: *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*., DA 95-1794, 10 FCC Rcd
    9781 (CSB 1995).

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

[^5]: *In the Matter of Social Contract for Time Warner*, FCC 95-478, 11
    FCC Rcd 2788 (1996).

[^6]: *In the Matter of Time Warner Cable Social Contract*, FCC 96-2192,
    12 FCC Rcd 14881 (1996).

[^7]: *See* *In the Matter of Time Warner Cable*, DA 98-1026, 13 FCC Rcd
    13813 (CSB 1998).

[^8]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    §543(c) (1996).

[^9]: *See* *In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc*., DA 00-859, 15 FCC
    Rcd 7254 (CSB 2000).