********************************************************    
                         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:               )
                                )  File No. CSB-A-0532 Chatham County/NC0468
TIME WARNER CABLE               )  File No. CSB-A-0533 Orange County/NC0276, 
                                )                 NC0256    
                                )  File No. CSB-A-0534 Apex/NC0067
Appeals of Local Rate Orders Issued)    File No. CSB-A-0536 Garner/NC0069
by Five Towns and Counties in   )  File No. CSB-A-0537 Wake Forest/NC0341
North Carolina                  )
                                )
                                )
Petition for Reconsideration    )
                                 

                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

   Adopted:  August 31, 1999            Released:  September 2, 1999

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.   Pursuant to Section 1.106(a) of the Commission's rules, Time Warner Cable ("Time
Warner"), a franchised cable system operator, has filed with the Commission a Petition for Reconsideration
of the order ("Order") of the Cable Services Bureau ("Bureau") in the above-captioned rate appeals involving
five towns and counties in North Carolina (the "Communities").  

     2.   In its appeal, Time Warner argued that the local franchising authorities ("LFAs") unreasonably
adjusted its rates based upon new inflation information which only became available after Time Warner filed
its rate forms.  The Bureau agreed with Time Warner that, pursuant to the Commission's rules, an LFA is not
permitted to find a rate unreasonable solely because more current inflation data has become available by the
time the LFA reviews a cable operator's rate submission.  However, if a rate is unreasonable on its face or has
to be adjusted for reasons other than the availability of a more current inflation figure, the LFA may recalculate
the maximum permitted basic service tier ("BST") rate using the most accurate inflation information available
at the time of its review for the period at issue.  In order to resolve the issue raised by Time Warner, the Bureau
reviewed the consultant's reports prepared for each of the LFAs and noted from the true-up periods reflected
in the reports that there appeared to be a question as to whether Time Warner had used the correct true-up
periods in its rate forms.  Time Warner argues that the Bureau should not have raised the question because this
issue was not raised by Time Warner and the Bureau does not engage in de novo review in local rate appeal
cases.

     3.   While the Bureau does not engage in de novo review of a cable operator's BST rates, the
Bureau did not err in noting that there may be a question about the operator's true-up periods relevant to its
appeal.  The operator argued that, because it correctly prepared its rate forms, the LFAs could not refresh the
inflation figure used in its rate forms.  From true-up period described in the consultant's reports, it appeared
that there was a question as to whether the operator had correctly prepared its rate forms.  While the Bureau
did not review the rate forms or make findings about the rate forms, it properly noted this question in its remand
order.  In rate appeals cases, the Bureau is not required to disregard questions arising from the face of the
operator's documentation that could have an impact on the issues raised in the appeal.

     4.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the captioned petition for reconsideration IS DENIED.

     5.   This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules.

  
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                   
                              William H. Johnson
                              Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau