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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
                                
                              )
In the Matter of                        )    File  No.  EB-02-TC-
031
                              )              
Comcast Cablevision of Indiana, LP      )    CUID   No.    IN0114 
(St. Joseph)        
                              )              
Petition for Reconsideration            )

                    
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
                                

     Adopted: May 6, 2002               Released: May 8, 2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.    In this  Order we  consider  a 
petition for  reconsideration ("Petition")  of Order,  DA  99-794 
("Prior  Order"),2   filed   with  the   Federal   Communications 
Commission ("Commission") on June 1, 1999 by the above-referenced 
operator ("Operator").3  The  Prior Order  resolved  a  complaint 
against Operator's November  1, 1998  cable programming  services 
tier ("CPST") rate increase.  Operator  also filed a refund  plan 
in response  to  the  Prior  Order.   In  this  Order,  we  grant 
Operator's Petition in part and dismiss Operator's refund plan as 
moot.

     2.   Under the provisions  of the  Communications Act4  that 
were  in  effect  at  the  time  the  complaint  was  filed,  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")5  and 
the Commission's  rules required  the Commission  to review  CPST 
rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a local franchising 
authority ("LFA").   The Telecommunications  Act of  1996  ("1996 
Act"),6 and the Commission's  rules implementing the  legislation 
("Interim Rules"),7 required  that a complaint  against the  CPST 
rate be filed  with the Commission  by an 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.8  If the Commission finds  the 
rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate  and 
any refund liability.9 
 
     3.   In its Petition, Operator  raises several issues,  only 
one of which  is addressed  herein. Operator argues  that in  our 
Prior Order, the  Cable Services  Bureau failed  to consider  the 
March 31, 1999  date for the  sunset of CPST  rate regulation  in 
determining Operator's refund liability period.10  We agree.  Our 
review of our Prior Order and the record reveals that  Operator's 
total overcharge for the period under review is de minimus and it 
would not be in the public  interest to order a refund.   Because 
our resolution  of  this  issue  disposes  of  Operator's  refund 
liability, we need not address any other issue raised by Operator 
in its Petition.  We modify the Prior Order to exclude any refund 
liability and dismiss Operator's refund plan as 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 GRANTED  IN PART  TO THE  EXTENT 
INDICATED HEREIN.

     5.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,  pursuant to Sections 0.111  and 
0.311 of the Commission's  rules, 47 C.F.R.  §§ 0.111 and  0.311, 
that In the Matter of Comcast Cablevision of Indiana, LP, DA  99-
794, 14 FCC Rcd 6837 (1999), IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT  INDICATED 
HEREIN.

     6.   IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and 76.962 of the  Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§  0.111, 
0.311 and 76.962, that Operator's refund plan is DISMISSED.

      
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau      
_________________________

1  Effective   March  25,   2002,  the   Commission   transferred 
responsibility for resolving cable programming services tier rate 
complaints  from  the  former   Cable  Services  Bureau  to   the 
Enforcement Bureau.  See Establishment  of the Media Bureau,  the 
Wireline Competition  Bureau and  the Consumer  and  Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reorganization  of the  International Bureau  and 
Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002).
2 In the Matter of Comcast Cablevision of Indiana, LP, DA 99-794, 
14 FCC Rcd 6837 (CSB 1999).
3  The  term  "Operator"  includes  Operator's  predecessors  and 
successors in interest.
4 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).
5 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).
6 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).  
7 See  Implementation  of  Cable Act  Reform  Provisions  of  the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996).
8 47 C.F.R. §76.956.
9 47 C.F.R. §76.957.
10 See 47 U.S.C. § 623 (c)(4).