**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) CUID No. NC0569 (Burke)

Falcon Cable )

)

Petition for Reconsideration )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: April 17, 2000 Released: April 19, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

1\. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration
(\"Petition\") of our Order, DA 95-1589 (\"Prior Order\"),[^1] filed
with the Federal Communications Commission (\"Commission\") by the
above-referenced operator (\"Operator\"). Operator filed its Petition on
September 15, 1995 along with a petition for stay and refund plan. The
stay was granted by Order, DA 96-425.[^2] Our Prior Order resolved all
pending complaints against Operator\'s CPST rates in the
above-referenced community through May 14, 1994, and found Operator\'s
cable programming services tier (\"CPST\") rates to be unreasonable.
Subsequent to our Prior Order, we resolved all complaints filed against
Operator\'s CPST rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994, and found
the CPST rates to be reasonable.[^3] In this Order, we vacate our Prior
Order and the stay and dismiss Operator\'s Petition and 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.[^4] The Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (\"1992 Cable
Act\"),[^5] and our rules in effect at the time the complaints were
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.[^6] If the Commission finds the rate to be
unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any refund
liability.[^7]

3\. We do not address any of the issues raised in Operator's Petition.
Our review of the record reveals that the single complaint filed against
Operator's rates was filed by a subscriber who received only the basic
tier. This finding is supported by the subscriber's bill attached to the
complaint which showed only a charge for a single basic tier. Therefore,
the complaint does not trigger the Commission's jurisdiction.
Consequently, we will vacate our Prior Order. Because we are vacating
our Prior Order, we will vacate the stay and dismiss Operator's Petition
and refund plan as moot.

4\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that In the Matter of Falcon
Holding Group, Inc., DA 95-1589, 10 FCC Rcd 8756 (1995) IS VACATED.

5\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.321, that the stay of DA 95-1589,
granted in Petitions for Stay, DA 96-425, 11 FCC Rcd 4196 (1996), IS
VACATED.

6\. 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.

7\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l 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 DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief

Cable Services Bureau

[^1]: In the Matter of Falcon Holding Group, Inc., DA 95-1589, 10 FCC
    Rcd 8756 (1995).

[^2]: In the Matter of Petitions for Stay, DA 96-425, 11 FCC Rcd 4196
    (1996).

[^3]: *See* In the Matter of Falcon Holding Group, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 4263
    (1996).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).

[^5]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §76.956.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. §76.957.