********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                   )    CUID No.       NJ0001    (Absecon)
                              )            NJ0005 (Somers Point)
Lenfest Atlantic, Inc.,                 )                   NJ0006    (Atlantic City)
                              )            NJ0015 (Millville)
Petition for Reconsideration            )              NJ0030    (Ocean City)
and Refund Plans                   )


                     ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

     Adopted:  May 4, 1999                                   Released:  May 6, 1999   

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1. In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration ("Petition") and refund plans filed by the
operator ("Operator") for the communities referenced above.  We have already issued orders which granted
complaints filed against the rates charged by Operator for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the
communities referenced above ("Rate Orders").  Next, we issued an order in which we found that Operator's
refund plans ("1995 Refund Plans"), filed in response to our Rate Orders, were unacceptable ("Refund
Order").  Operator filed its Petition against our Refund Order on March 30, 1998 along with revised refund
plans ("1998 Refund Plans").  Consequently, this Order addresses Operator's Petition and 1998 Refund Plans. 


     2. Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") is
authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates
charged are not unreasonable.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") and our rules implementing
the legislation ("Interim Rules"), require that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission
by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received more than one subscriber complaint.  The filing of
a complete and timely complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its
CPST rates.  The Operator has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are
reasonable.  If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any
refund liability. 

     3. In its Petition, Operator argues that it should have been allowed to raise the issue of inter-tier
offsets for the first time when it filed its 1995 Refund Plans.  Because, in our Refund Order, we rejected
Operator's argument on other grounds, we find this argument to be moot and decline to address it.  In its
Petition, Operator also argues that it should be permitted to offset its past CPST overcharges with its past basic
service tier ("BST") undercharges.  This is essentially the same argument advanced by Operator in its 1995
Refund Plans.  We rejected this argument in the Refund Order and we reject it again now.  The Commission
has addressed the issue of inter-tier offsets in Cencom Cable Income Partners ("Cencom").  In Cencom, the
Commission determined that such inter-tier offsets are "inconsistent with the Commission's conclusion in the
[Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate
Regulation, MM Docket 92-266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] that cable
operators should not balance low BST rates with CPST rates that exceed the maximum permitted rate for the
tier."  Therefore, we will not allow Operator to offset its CPST overcharges with its BST undercharges.  Our
review of Operator's 1998 Refund Plans reveals that the 1998 Refund Plans fulfill the requirements of the
Refund Order.

     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 DENIED.

     5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Operator's 1998 Refund Plans ARE APPROVED, and IT
IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.962 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.962, that
Operator implement its 1998 Refund Plans within 60 days of the date of this Order.

     6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.962 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
Section 76.962, that Operator file a certificate of compliance with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, within
90 days of the release of this Order certifying its compliance with this Order.

     7. This action is taken pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section
0.321.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                              William H. Johnson
                              Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau