Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
IDS/Jones Joint Venture ) File No. EB-02-TC-013
Partners ) CUID No. IL0094 (Aurora)
d/b/a Jones Intercable )
) File Nos. EB-02-TC-042
Jones Cable Income Fund 1-B/C ) EB-02-TC-043
Venture ) CUID Nos. MI0204 (Dowagiac)
d/b/a Jones Intercable ) MI0243
) File Nos. EB-02-TC-044
Cable TV Fund 12-BCD Venture ) EB-02-TC-045
d/b/a Jones Intercable ) CUID Nos. CA0342 (Palmdale)
Consolidated Application for (Quartz Hill)
Adopted: July 16, 2002 Released:
July 17, 2002
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1
In this Order we reconsider on our own motion three Cable
Services Bureau Orders, DA 95-1570,2 DA 95-1590,3 and DA 95-
15914 (together "Prior Orders"), that resolved complaints
filed against the rates charged by the above-referenced
operators ("together "Operator")5 for the cable programming
services tier ("CPST") in the communities referenced above
through May 14, 1994. In the Prior Orders, the Cable
Services Bureau stated that its findings "do not in any way
prejudge the reasonableness of the price for CPS service
after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations."6
Subsequently, the Cable Services Bureau issued orders
resolving complaints against Operator's CPST rates beginning
May 15, 1994, and found those rates to be reasonable in all
of the communities.7 In this Order, we reconsider, on our
own motion, and amend the Prior Orders, and dismiss
Operator's Application for Review as moot.
Under the provisions of the Communications Act8 that were in
effect at the time the complaints were 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")9
and the Commission's rules required the Commission to review
CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by a
subscriber or local franchising authority ("LFA"). The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"),10 and the
Commission's rules implementing the legislation ("Interim
Rules"),11 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.12 If the Commission
finds the rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the
correct rate and any refund liability.13
During the first phase of rate regulation, from September 1,
1993 until May 15, 1994, the benchmark rate analysis and
comparison with an operator's actual rates were calculated
using the FCC Form 393.14 Operator points out that a
clerical mistake was made on the FCC Form 393s it submitted
to the Cable Services Bureau, which the Bureau relied on to
calculate Operator's maximum permitted rates ("MPRs") in the
Prior Orders. This clerical error resulted in a reduction in
both Operator's calculated FCC Form 393 MPR and the MPR
established in the Prior Orders. Operator argues that the
legal entities that owned the cable systems in issue are
limited partnerships and not subject to federal and state
corporate income taxes and that Operator incorrectly made
entries on its submitted FCC Form 393s that indicated that
Operator was a tax-paying corporation. Upon review of
Operator's submitted FCC Form 393s and the Cable Services
Bureau's revised FCC Form 393s, we agree with Operator
regarding this issue.
We adjusted Operator's FCC Form 393s to reflect Operator's
partnership status. Upon review of the adjusted FCC Form
393s, we find that Operator's total overcharges for the
period under review are de minimis and it would not be in
the public interest to order a refund. We modify the Prior
Orders accordingly. Because our resolution of this issue
disposes of Operator's refund liability, we dismiss
Operator's Application for Review, which has become moot.15
Accordingly, IT IS 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 Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-
1570, 10 FCC Rcd 8751 (CSB 1995), In the Matter of Jones
Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1590, 10 FCC Rcd 8753 (CSB 1995),
and In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1591, 10
FCC Rcd 8811 (CSB 1995) ARE MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED
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 the stay of Orders, DA 95-1570, DA 95-1590 and DA 95-
1591, granted in Petitions for Stay, DA 96-425, 11 FCC Rcd
4196 (1996), IS VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311
and 1.115, that Operator's consolidated application for
review IS DISMISSED.
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 Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1570, 10
FCC Rcd 8751 (CSB 1995).
3 In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1590, 10
FCC Rcd 8753 (CSB 1995).
4 In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1591, 10
FCC Rcd 8811 (CSB 1995).
5 The term "Operator" includes Operators' predecessors and
successors in interest.
6 Prior Orders at n. 1.
7 See In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 99-1575,
14 FCC Rcd 13262 (CSB 1999) (CUID No. IL0094); In the Matter
of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 99-1697, 14 FCC Rcd 13880 (CSB
1999) (CUID No. MI0204); In the Matter of Jones Intercable,
Inc., DA 99-1703, 14 FCC Rcd 13884 (CSB 1999) (CUID No.
MI0243); In the Matter of Comcast Cable Communications,
Inc., DA 99-1576, 14 FCC Rcd 13265 (CSB 1999) (CUID Nos.
CA0342 and CA0343).
8 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).
9 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).
10 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
11 See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 1996).
12 See Section 76.956 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
13 See Section 76.957 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
14 See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate
Regulation, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5755-56, 5766-67, 5881-83
15 See, e.g., In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA
02-538, 17 FCC Rcd 4358 (CSB 2002) (If resolution of an
operator's application for review will have no effect on the
operator's refund liability, the application for review will
be dismissed as moot).