**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CUID No. VA0074 (City of     |
|                                  |   | Williamsburg)                |
| Cox Communications, Inc.         | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| 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 97-1127 (\"Prior Order\")[^1]. In
    our Prior Order, we resolved a complaint against the
    above-referenced operator\'s (\"Operator\'s\")[^2] January 1, 1997
    rate increase for the cable programming services tier (\"CPST\") in
    the above- referenced community. Operator filed a petition for stay
    as well as a refund plan in response to our Prior Order. In this
    Order, we grant Operator's Petition in part, amend our Prior Order
    and dismiss Operator's petition for stay and refund plan as moot.

2.  Under the Communications Act,[^3] 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[^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 raises several issues. Operator argues
    that the Commission erred by not allowing Operator to include an
    unclaimed inflation factor in its 1996 FCC Form 1240 filing and by
    miscalculating Operator's external costs.[^15] Upon review, we find
    that these were inadvertent clerical errors and find Operator's
    arguments to be compelling. Our further review reveals that the
    total overcharges per subscriber for the period addressed in our
    Prior Order are *de minimis* and it would not be in the public
    interest to order a refund. Because our resolution of these issues
    disposes of Operator's refund liability, we decline to address any
    other issue raised by Operator in its Petition and we will amend our
    Prior Order to exclude any refund liability. Therefore, we will
    grant Operator's Petition in part and dismiss Operator's petition
    for stay 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 Operator\'s Petition for
    Reconsideration IS 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 Cox
    Communications, Inc. DA 97-1127, 12 FCC Rcd 23345 (1998), IS AMENDED
    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 petition
    for stay and refund plan ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Cox Communications, Inc. DA 97-1127, 12 FCC Rcd
    23345 (1997).

[^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]: Operator included revised forms with its Petition, in conformance
    with our bifurcated methodology for treating the Time Warner Social
    Contract Dollar. *See, for example*, In the Matter of Time Warner
    Cable, 13 FCC Rcd 17319 (1998). This cable system was previously
    owned by Time Warner Cable and was included in the Social Contract
    for Time Warner, 11 FCC Rcd 2788 (1996).