**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CUID No. WI0066 (Hartford)   |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Marcus Cable Partners, LP        | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Petition for Reconsideration and | ) |                              |
| Refund Plan                      |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

# AND REFUND PLAN ORDER

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

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1.  In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
    (\"Petition\") of our Order, DA 97-1533 (\"Prior Order\"),[^1] filed
    with the Federal Communications Commission (\"Commission\") on
    August 22, 1997 by the above-referenced operator (\"Operator\"). Our
    Prior Order resolved complaints against Operator's cable programming
    service tier (\"CPST\") rates in effect beginning May 15, 1994. On
    August 22, 1997, Operator also filed a refund plan (\"Refund Plan\")
    in response to our Prior Order. In this Order, we reconsider and
    modify our Prior Order and dismiss Operator's Petition and Refund
    Plan as moot.

2.  Under the Communications Act,[^2] 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. The Cable Television
    Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992[^3] (\"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\")[^4] and
    our rules implementing the legislation (\"Interim Rules\"),[^5]
    required that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the
    Commission by an LFA that has received more than one subscriber
    complaint.[^6] 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.  In response to Operator's Petition, we reviewed our Prior Order and
    found that Operator justified its actual CPST rate beginning July
    1, 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 1, 1994. Because
    the arguments raised by Operator in its Petition concern only our
    calculation in the Prior Order of refund liability for time periods
    beginning after July 1, 1994, we will dismiss Operator's Petition as
    moot, without addressing the merits of Operator's arguments.
    Secondly, our review reveals that the total overcharges per
    subscriber for the period from May 15, 1994 through June 30, 1994
    are *de minimis* and it would not be in the public interest to order
    a refund.

4.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that In the Matter of Marcus
    Cable Partners, LP, DA 97-1533, 13 FCC Rcd 4778 (1998) IS MODIFIED
    TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

5.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that Operator\'s Petition
    for Reconsideration and Refund Plan ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Marcus Cable Partners, LP, DA 97-1533, 13 FCC Rcd
    4778 (1998).

[^2]: Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    §543(c) (1996).

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

[^4]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^5]: *See* Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).

[^6]: *See* Communications Act, Section 623(c), *as amended*, 47 U.S.C.
    Section 543(c) (1996).

[^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.