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-02-TC-082
Jones Growth Partners II, LP      )   CUID  No.   CA1442  (Anaheim 
                                 )   Hills)                
Complaint Regarding            )  )
Cable  Programming Services Tier  )


     Adopted:  September 4, 2002        Released:  September 
6, 2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In this  Order we  deny a complaint  filed against 
the  March 1,  1995  rate increase  by the  above-referenced 
operator  ("Operator")2 for  its cable  programming services 
tier ("CPST")  in the community referenced  above. Under the 
provisions of the Communications Act3 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  filing  of  a  valid 
complaint triggers an obligation  upon the cable operator to 
file a justification of its  CPST rates.4  If the Commission 
finds the  rate to be  unreasonable, it shall  determine the 
correct rate and any refund liability.5 

     2.   The Cable  Services Bureau  has already  issued an 
Order,  DA 99-13446  ("Prior Order"),  which denied  similar 
complaints  filed  against  Operator's  CPST  rates  in  the 
community of  Yorba Linda, CA,  based on the  Cable Services 
Bureau's  review of  Operator's  FCC  Form 1220.7   Operator 
filed its FCC Form 1220 on a system-wide basis, establishing 
maximum  permitted   rates  for  its  Yorba   Linda  system.    
Operator's cable service to  Anaheim Hills was also provided 
by  the Yorba  Linda system  at the  time the  complaint was 
filed.   Based  on the  Cable  Services  Bureau's review  of 
Operator's FCC Form 1220 for the Yorba Linda system, we find 
Operator's  March  1,  1995   CPST  rate  increase  for  the 
community of Anaheim Hills to be reasonable.

     3.   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  the  complaint  referenced  herein 
against the March 1, 1995  CPST rate increase by Operator in 
the community referenced above IS DENIED.
                              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  The term  "Operator" includes  Operator's successors  and 
predecessors in interest.
3 47 U.S.C. 543(c) (1996).
4 See  Section 76.956 of  the Commission's rules,  47 C.F.R. 
5 See  Section 76.957 of  the Commission's rules,  47 C.F.R. 
6 See In the Matter of Jones Growth Partners, II, LP, DA 99-
1344, 14 FCC Rcd 10626 (CSB 1999).
7 Cable operators may justify  their rates through a cost of 
service showing  using FCC Form 1220.  See Section 76.922(l) 
of the Commission's Rules,  47 C.F.R. 76.922(l).  See also, 
Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and 
Further Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 93?215 
and CS Docket No. 94?28, FCC 95?502, 11 FCC Rcd 2220 (1996).