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.


                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                        )    File No.    EB-
Comcast Cable Communications  , Inc.         )    CUID   No.  
MD0172 (Prince George's County)
Petition for Reconsideration            )    


     Adopted:  July 16, 2002            Released:  July  17, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In  this   Order,  we  consider  a   petition  for 
reconsideration  ("Petition")2  of   Cable  Services  Bureau 
Order, DA  98-1558 ("Prior Order"),3 filed  with the Federal 
Communications  Commission  ("Commission")   by  the  above-
referenced operator ("Operator").4  The Prior Order resolved 
complaints filed  against the rates charged  by Operator for 
its  cable   programming  services  tier  ("CPST")   in  the 
community referenced  above and found Operator's  CPST rates 
to  be unreasonable  from May  1, 1995  through January  31, 
1998.  In this Order we grant Operator's Petition and modify 
the Prior Order.
             2.     Under    the     provisions    of    the 
Communications  Act5 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")6  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"),7  and  the 
Commission's  rules implementing  the legislation  ("Interim 
Rules"),8 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.9  If the Commission 
finds the  rate to be  unreasonable, it shall  determine the 
correct rate and any refund liability.10 

     3.   Operators  must use  the FCC  Form 1200  series to 
justify  rates  for the  period  beginning  May 15,  1994.11  
Operators may  file an  FCC Form  1210 to  justify quarterly 
rate  increases  based  on  the  addition  and  deletion  of 
channels, changes in certain external costs and inflation.12  
Operators may justify  their rates on an  annual basis using 
an  FCC   Form  1240  to  reflect   reasonably  certain  and 
quantifiable changes  in external costs, inflation,  and the 
number  of regulated  channels  that are  projected for  the 
twelve  months following  the rate  change.13  Any  incurred 
cost that is not projected  may be accrued with interest and 
added to rates at a later time.14   

     4.   In  the Prior  Order,  the  Cable Services  Bureau 
denied  a  request  by  Operator  to  include  certain  rate 
adjustments in  its maximum  permitted rate  ("MPR") because 
Operator failed  to file  with the  Commission the  FCC Form 
1210  in  which  it calculated  the  adjustments.   Operator 
asserts  that   it  did,  in  fact,   include  the  disputed 
adjustments in its  actual CPST rate increases  and that its 
subsequent  rate  filings  incorporated the  adjustments  in 
their  calculations.  Operator  argues that  it should  have 
been  clear  when the  Cable  Services  Bureau reviewed  the 
filings that the FCC Form 1210 that included the adjustments 
was missing.   Operator subsequently  filed the  missing FCC 
Form 1210.   We find  Operator's argument to  be persuasive.  
Operator  has not  attempted to  claim any  adjustments that 
Operator  is not  entitled to  claim under  our regulations.  
The  only  question  is  whether Operator's  filing  was  so 
untimely  as  to  preclude Operator's  claim.   Because  the 
record indicates that Operator did prepare the FCC Form 1210 
in  a timely  manner  and included  its  adjustments in  its 
actual CPST  rates in  a timely  manner, we  find Operator's 
request  to be  reasonable.  Upon  review of  Operator's FCC 
Form 1200  and subsequent  filings, taking into  account the 
additional  FCC   Form  1210,   we  find   Operator's  total 
overcharges for  the period under  review to be  de minimis, 
and it would not be in the public interest to order refunds.  
Therefore, we modify  the Prior Order to  exclude any refund 

     5.   Accordingly,  IT IS  ORDERED, pursuant  to Section 
1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the 
petition for reconsideration filed by Operator is GRANTED.
     6.   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  Jones  Communications  of 
Maryland, Inc., DA  98-1558, 13 FCC Rcd 17685  (CSB 1998) IS 

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

                              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 Operator  originally filed its petition  as an application 
for review.  However, by letter dated May 21, 2002, Operator 
requested that  we treat its  application as a  petition for 
3  See  In The Matter  of Jones Communications  of Maryland, 
Inc., DA 98-1558, 13 FCC Rcd 17685 (CSB 1998). 
4  The term  "Operator" includes  Operator's successors  and 
predecessors in interest.
5 47 U.S.C. 543(c) (1996).
6 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).
7 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).  
8 See Implementation  of Cable Act Reform  Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 1996).
9 See  Section 76.956 of  the Commission's rules,  47 C.F.R. 
10 See Section  76.957 of the Commission's  rules, 47 C.F.R. 
11  See Section 76.922 of  the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 
12  Id.
13  Id.
14  Id.