********************************************************    
                         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.    MA0224 (Rockland)
                              )         
Harron Cablevision of Massachusetts, Inc.    )         
                              )         
Petition for Reconsideration            )         
                                
                                
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

     Adopted:  August 30, 1999                    Released:  September 2, 1999

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.   In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration ("Petition") of our Order, DA 95-558
("Prior Order"), filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") by the above-referenced
operator ("Operator") on April 24, 1995.  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.  Because the total amount of refund liability
was de minimis, we did not order Operator to pay any refunds.  Subsequently, we granted Operator a stay of
our Prior Order pending resolution of its Petition.  In this Order, we vacate the stay and dismiss Operator's
Petition because a review of Operator's Petition would have no effect on Operator's refund liability and would
encumber limited Commission resources.

     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 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 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.  

     3.   Section 623(c) of the Communications Act, which establishes the criteria for Commission
regulation of the cable programming service tier, does not apply to cable programming services provided after
March 31, 1999.  The Commission does not have authority to review CPST rates which became effective
after March 31, 1999.  Since 1993, the Commission has been receiving and resolving complaints from
subscribers and LFA's regarding the CPST rates.  Although the Commission has resolved almost 18,000
complaints involving 5,700 communities during that time frame, there are still complaints that are pending and
need to be resolved.  In addition to the pending complaints, there are a number of pending petitions for
reconsideration of prior orders.  Most of these prior orders that are the subject of a pending appeal determined
that a cable system operator had incurred refund liability for overcharges on its CPST.  Several petitions are
against prior orders which found that the operator did not incur any refund liability, either because its CPST
rate was found to be reasonable or because the total amount of the refund was de minimis and it would not
have been in the public interest to order a refund.

     4.   Prior to the sunset of CPST regulation, a de minimis order may have had some small effect
on subsequent rate calculations.  For instance, if a review of an operator's FCC Form 393 indicated that the
operator was overcharging $0.02 for its CPST, an order might find the refund amount to be de minimis but
require the operator to adjust its rates downward by $0.02 on a going forward basis.  With sunset, the period
of CPST rate regulation has become finite and it is possible to determine whether a de minimis finding had any
further effect on an operator's CPST rates.

     5.   It would not be a judicious use of Commission resources to attempt to resolve appeals of
CPST rate orders which had no adverse effect on the petitioner, either because the order found no refund
liability at all or found a de minimis liability which did not later result in the petitioner incurring actual refund
liability.  Resolution of such appeals will have no consequences other than to put additional strain on limited
Commission resources which are better put to resolving pending complaints and appeals of orders which
involve potential or actual refund liability.  Therefore, we have determined that appeals of CPST rate orders
which do not involve actual refund liability will be dismissed because there is no real relief which may be
granted through resolution of the appeal.

     6.   In our Prior Order, we made adjustments to Operator's FCC Form 393 filing and we found
Operator's actual CPST rate to be unreasonable.  Because the total amount overcharged was de minimis, we
did not order Operator to pay refunds.  Although Operator did not incur any refund liability, Operator chose
to file its Petition, challenging our adjustments to its FCC Form 393.  Our review of the record indicates that
a resolution of the appeal will have no effect on Operator's refund liability for its CPST.  Therefore, in order
to conserve Commission resources, we will dismiss Operator's Petition without addressing the merits of
Operator's arguments.  We will also vacate the stay of our Prior Order.

     7.   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 DISMISSED.

     8.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
0.321, that the stay granted to Operator in the Matter of Petitions for Stay of Action, DA 95-1235, 10 FCC
Rcd 6567 (1995), IS VACATED.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                              William H. Johnson
                              Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau