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

In the Matter of                   )         CUID Nos.
                              )      OR0064 (Lake Oswego-Clackamas Co.)
     
TCI Cablevision of Oregon            )            OR0283 (Hillsboro) 
                              )      OR0290 (Beaverton)
Petition for Reconsideration                 )    OR0304 (Lake Oswego-Washington Co.)
                                
                                
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

     Adopted:  July 26, 1999                                Released:  July 29, 1999 

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.   In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration ("Petition") of our Order, DA 95-
1985 ("Prior Order"), filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") by the above-
referenced operator ("Operator") on October 23, 1995.  Our Prior Order resolved all pending complaints
against Operator's CPST rates in the above-referenced communities 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 against Operator's CPST rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994 and
found Operator's rates to be reasonable.  In this Order, we grant Operator's Petition in part and vacate our
Prior Order.

     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.  The
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"), 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.  If the Commission finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall
determine the correct rate and any refund liability.  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.  

     3.   In our Prior order, we adjusted Line 104 (Equipment Revenue - Monthly) of Operator's FCC
Form 393, Worksheet 1 to equal the amount entered on Line 34 (Monthly Equipment and Installation Cost)
of Step G, Part III.  In its Petition, Operator does not challenge our adjustment but argues that our use of
restructured rate information on Line 104 should be balanced by using restructured rate information on Line
101 (Tier Charge - Monthly).  We agree.  Therefore, we will vacate our Prior Order and recalculate
Operator's maximum permitted rate ("MPR") using restructured rate information.  Operator restructured its
CPST rate on September 1, 1993 to $14.79, exclusive of franchise fees.  Upon review of Operator's FCC
Form 393, using the restructured rates, we find that Operator has justified an MPR of $14.76.  Because
Operator's actual CPST rate of $14.79 exceeds its MPR, we find Operator's actual CPST rate of $14.79 to
be unreasonable.  However, we find the total overcharge to be 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 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 Columbia Cable of Oregon, DA 95-1985, 10 FCC Rcd 10438 (1995) IS
VACATED.

     6.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. 0.321, that the CPST rate of $14.79, charged by Operator in the franchise areas referenced above,
effective September 1, 1993 through May 14, 1994, IS UNREASONABLE.

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.32l of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
0.321, that the complaints referenced herein against the CPST rates charged by Operator in the communities
referenced above ARE DENIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

     
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                              William H. Johnson
                              Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau