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

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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                        )    
                              )              
Kingwood Cablevision, Inc.              )     CUID No. TX0229 (Kingwood)        
                                   )              
Petition for Reconsideration            )
                                
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

     Adopted:  March 7, 2001                       Released:  March 9, 2001    

By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:

     1.   In this Order we consider a petition for reconsideration ("Petition") of our Order, DA 95-545
("First Order"), filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") by the above-referenced
operator ("Operator").  On April 24, 1995, Operator filed an application for review of our First Order.  On
November 3, 2000, Operator requested that the Cable Services Bureau process the application for review as a
petition for reconsideration ("Petition").  Our First 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.  On April 16, 1997, we released an order, DA
97-768 ("Second Order") which found that Operator is a small cable company pursuant to Section 623(m)(2)
of the Communications Act and dismissed all complaints against Operator filed with the Commission between
September 1, 1993 and February 7, 1996.  In this Order, we vacate our First Order and dismiss Operator's
Petition as moot.

     2.   Under the Communications Act, at the time the referenced complaints were filed, the
Commission was authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition to
ensure that rates charged were 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"), amended Section 623 of the Communications Act and
redefined a small cable operator as one that "directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross
annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000." In the 1996 Act, Congress determined that, effective
February 8, 1996, the Commission shall not apply its CPST rate regulation rules, promulgated under Sections
623(a), (b) and (c) of the Communications Act, to a small cable operator in any franchise area in which that
operator services 50,000 or fewer subscribers.

     3.  Normally, a finding that an operator qualifies as a small cable operator would not provide a basis
to vacate a prior finding of liability.  It would only function to dismiss that portion of a complaint that had not
yet been resolved.  For example, our First Order resolved complaints through May 14, 1994.  As we stated in
our First Order, our findings "do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service after
May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations."  A review of Operator's CPST rates beginning May 15, 1994
was still pending when the Second Order was released.  Because our Second Order found that Operator
qualifies as a small cable operator and dismissed the complaint, we would not complete the pending review of
Operator's CPST rates beginning May 15, 1994.  We would, however, enforce any prior orders.  The instant
case differs from the normal situation because Operator filed a timely appeal of our First Order.  Because we
have determined, prior to a resolution of that appeal, that Operator is a small cable operator and not subject to
the CPST rate regulation rules, we will vacate our First Order.  Because we are vacating our First Order, we
will also dismiss Operator's Petition, which has become moot.

     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 DISMISSED.

     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 Kingwood Cablevision, Inc., DA 95-545, 10 FCC Rcd 5446 (1995) IS
VACATED.

     6.   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 rates charged by Operator in the community
referenced above ARE DISMISSED.
     
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 


                              William H. Johnson
                              Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau