**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) CUID No. NC0047 (Town of Kill Devil Hills)

Falcon Video Communications )

)

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 97-1951 (\"Prior Order\"),[^1] filed
with the Federal Communications Commission (\"Commission\") by the
above-referenced operator (\"Operator\"). Our Prior Order resolved a
complaint against Operator\'s CPST rates in the above-referenced
community and found Operator\'s cable programming services tier
(\"CPST\") rates to be unreasonable. Along with its Petition, Operator
filed a refund plan. In this Order, we grant Operator\'s Petition in
part, vacate our Prior Order and dismiss Operator\'s refund plan as
moot.

2\. Under the Communications Act, the Commission is authorized to review
the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to
ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable.[^2] The Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (\"1992 Cable
Act\"),[^3] and our rules in effect at the time the complaint was filed,
required the Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid
complaint by a subscriber. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an
obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its CPST
rates.[^4] If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall
determine the correct rate and any refund liability.[^5]

3\. In its Petition, Operator raises several issues, only one of which
is addressed herein. Operator argues that the sole complaint filed
against its CPST rates was invalid. Our review of the record reveals
that a single complaint was filed against Operator\'s CPST rates in the
above-referenced community. That complaint was filed against Operator\'s
CPST rates in effect prior to September 1, 1993. The complainant did not
file a complaint against Operator\'s restructured September 1, 1993 CPST
rates. CPST rates were not regulated prior to September 1, 1993[^6] and
therefore, the Commission is without jurisdiction to review those rates.
Accordingly, we will vacate our Prior Order and dismiss Operator\'s
refund plan as moot. Because our resolution of this issue disposes of
Operator's refund liability, we decline to address any other issue
raised by Operator in its Petition.

4\. 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.

5\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.321, that In the Matter of Falcon
Video Communications, DA 97-1951, 12 FCC Rcd 23833 (1997) IS VACATED and
Operator\'s refund plan IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

6\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §0.321, that the complaint referenced
herein against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the community
referenced above IS DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Falcon Video Communications, DA 97-1951, 12 FCC
    Rcd 23833 (1997).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).

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

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. §76.956.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. §76.957.

[^6]: *See In The Matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable
    Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate
    Regulation*, MM Docket 92-266, FCC 93-372, 73 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F)
    (1993).