Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      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 Nos.      
CUID Nos.
                              )    EB-02-TC-102   SC0130 
(Camden)
Cencom Cable Entertainment, Inc.        )    EB-02-TC-103   
SC0218 (Williamston)          
Cencom Cable Income Partners II, LP          )    EB-02-TC-
104  SC0518 (Kershaw County)
                              )    EB-02-TC-111   TX0803 
(Angleton)     
Complaints Regarding                    )
Cable Programming Services Tier Rates        )    
and Petition for Reconsideration             )    

                            ORDER

     Adopted:  September 30, 2002       Released:    October 
1, 2002 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In  this   Order,  we  consider  a   petition  for 
reconsideration2  ("Petition")  of   Cable  Services  Bureau 
Order, DA  95-1008 ("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 
communities  referenced  above.   In   this  Order  we  deny 
Operator's Petition  in part,  grant it  in part,  and order 
refunds.
 
             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.   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 393.11  The benchmark formula 
was  revised,  effective  May  15,  1994.12   Systems  first 
becoming subject to rate regulation  after May 15, 1994 were 
required  to justify  their  initial  regulated rates  using 
forms in the  FCC Form 1200 series.13  Systems against which 
rate  complaints  were  still pending  when  the  Commission 
revised its  benchmark formula were required  to recalculate 
their benchmark rates as of May  15, 1994 using the FCC Form 
1200.14  The   Commission's  rules  provide  for   a  refund 
liability  deferral  period,  if   timely  requested  by  an 
operator, beginning May  15, 1994 and ending  July 14, 1994, 
for   any   overcharges   resulting  from   the   operator's 
calculation of a new maximum  permitted rate on its FCC Form 
1200.15  However, an  operator will  incur refund  liability 
from May 15,  1994 through July 14, 1994 for  any CPST rates 
charged  above  the FCC  Form  393  maximum permitted  rate.  
Cable  operators  may  update  the  initial  FCC  Form  1200 
benchmark rate  calculation by  filing an  FCC Form  1210 to 
justify quarterly  rate increases based on  the addition and 
deletion of channels, changes  in certain external costs and 
inflation.16
     
     4.   In  its  Petition,  Operator raises  a  number  of 
issues that have been addressed in previous orders. Operator 
first  argues  that the  Cable  Services  Bureau erred  when 
imputing normalized  taxes to Operator's  customer equipment 
costs  prior  to  unbundling  those  costs  from  Operator's 
service  rates.    The  Cable  Services   Bureau  previously 
addressed  this issue  at length  in Suburban  Cable.17  The 
discussion in that case is directly on point and need not be 
repeated here.  The Cable Services Bureau concluded that the 
benchmark  rate methodology  contemplates the  unbundling of 
normalized taxes and it  would be arbitrary and inconsistent 
for  the  Commission  to  build normalized  taxes  into  the 
pricing  of tier  offerings and  only unbundle  actual taxes 
attributable to  equipment costs.  We conclude  here, as the 
Cable Services Bureau did in Suburban Cable, that it was not 
error  for the  Cable Services  Bureau to  impute normalized 
taxes  to  Operator's  customer  equipment  costs  prior  to 
unbundling those costs from Operator's service rates.

     5.   The  remaining issues  raised by  Operator in  its 
Petition, concerning the adjustment of its inflation factor, 
offsetting of  overcharges, sufficiency of  the explanations 
of calculations  and allegations of  retroactive ratemaking, 
were all  thoroughly addressed  by the Commission  in Cencom 
Cable  Income Partners  ("Cencom").18  For  all the  reasons 
stated in that  order, which we do not need  to repeat here, 
we  reject  Operator's  arguments concerning  these  issues.  
However, as in  Cencom, we will allow  Operator an inflation 
adjustment period equal  to the number of  whole months from 
September 1992 to the date Operator was required to file its 
FCC  Form 393  in  each community,  in  accordance with  the 
public notice issued May 2, 1995.19  

     6.   As a result  of our adjustment, we  find the total 
overcharges for the  CPST tier for all  periods under review 
to be de minimis, and it would not be in the public interest 
to  order refunds,  in  the communities  of Williamston  and 
Angleton.  For the communities of Camden and Kershaw County, 
our adjustment to Operator's inflation adjustment period for 
each community  results in  revised maximum  permitted rates 
("MPRs")  and total  CPST refund  liability for  all periods 
under  review as  follows,  and we  modify  our Prior  Order 
accordingly.20
               
Community/      Prior  Re-    Ac-    Monthly   Refund-  Total 
CUID No.        MPR    vised  tual   Over-     21       Refund 
                      MPR     Rate    charge    Period   Liability        

Camden/         $15.94 $15.-  $17.-  $1.14     10/15/9-  $82,669-
SC0130                 97     11               3-        .00
                                              7/14/94
Kershaw         $16.67 $16.-  $17.-  $0.26     1/26/94-  $11,455-
County/                85     11               7/14/94   .00
SC0518

     7.   Our  total refund  liability calculations  include 
interest on  the overcharges  through October 31,  2002. Our 
calculation  does  not  include  franchise  fees.  We  order 
Operator to refund this amount, plus any additional interest 
accrued to the date of  refund, plus franchise fees, if any, 
and interest on  the franchise fee principal  amount, to its 
CPST  subscribers within  60  days of  the  release of  this 
Order.  

     8.   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 IN 
PART AND DENIED IN PART TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

     9.   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 Cencom  Cable Entertainment, 
Inc. and Cencom Cable Income Partners II, LP, DA 95-1008, 10 
FCC Rcd 8166 (CSB 1995)  IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED 
HEREIN.

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,  pursuant to Section 76.961 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator 
shall refund to  subscribers in the community  of Camden, SC 
(CUID No. SC0130), the total  amount of $82,669.00, plus any 
additional interest  accruing between  October 31,  2002 and 
the  date  of  refund,  plus franchise  fees,  if  any,  and 
interest  on the  franchise fee  principal amount  within 60 
days of the release of this Order.

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,  pursuant to Section 76.961 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator 
shall  refund to  subscribers  in the  community of  Kershaw 
County,  SC   (CUID  No.   SC0518),  the  total   amount  of 
$11,969.00,  plus any  additional interest  accruing between 
October  31, 2002  and the  date of  refund, plus  franchise 
fees, if  any, and interest  on the franchise  fee principal 
amount within 60 days of the release of this Order.

     12.  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  file a certificate 
of compliance with the  Chief, Enforcement Bureau, within 90 
days of the release of  this Order certifying its compliance 
with this Order.

     13.  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 complaints against the CPST rates charged by 
Operator in the communities  referenced above ARE GRANTED TO 
THE  EXTENT  INDICATED  HEREIN   AND  DENIED  IN  ALL  OTHER 
RESPECTS.
     
                              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 Operator  originally filed its petition  as an application 
for  review.   However,  by  letter dated  August  9,  2002, 
Operator  requested  that  we  treat its  application  as  a 
petition for reconsideration. 
3  See In The Matter of Cencom Cable Entertainment, Inc. and 
Cencom Cable Income Partners II,  LP, DA 95-1008, 10 FCC Rcd 
8166 (CSB 1995). 
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. 
76.956.
10 See Section  76.957 of the Commission's  rules, 47 C.F.R. 
76.957.
11 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 
(1993). 
12 See  Implementation of  Sections of the  Cable Television 
Consumer  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of  1992:  Rate 
Regulation, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994).
13 See Section 76.922 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  
76.922.
14 Id.
15 See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6)(ii).
16 Id.
17 In the Matter of Suburban  Cable TV, Inc., DA 97-2032, 13 
FCC  Rcd 13111  (CSB  1997).   See also,  In  the Matter  of 
Charter Communications,  DA 02-637  (CSB released  March 20, 
2002).
18 In the Matter of Cencom Cable Income Partners II, LP, FCC 
97-205, 12 FCC Rcd 7948 (1997).
19 See Public Notice "Cable Services Bureau Announces Policy 
Regarding Inflation Adjustment on  Form 393," DA 95-999 (CSB 
1995).
20 These findings are based solely on the representations of 
Operator.   Should information  come to  our attention  that 
these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve 
the right to take appropriate  action.  This Order is not to 
be construed as  a finding that we have  accepted as correct 
any  specific entry,  explanation  or argument  made by  any 
party to this proceeding  not specifically addressed herein.   
Information  regarding  the  specific  adjustments  made  to 
Operator's FCC  Forms can be  found in the public  files for 
the above-referenced  community which  are available  in the 
FCC  Reference  Information  Center, Portals  II,  445  12th 
Street,  SW,  Room  CY-A257, Washington,  DC,  20554.   This 
document  may  also  be   purchased  from  the  Commission's 
duplicating  contractor, Qualex  International, Portals  II, 
445 12th  Street, SW,  Room CY-B402, Washington,  DC, 20554, 
telephone  202-863-2893, facsimile  202-863-2898, or  via e-
mail qualexint@aol.com.
21 The refund periods for the FCC Form 393 overcharges begin 
on the  date that the  first valid complaint was  filed with 
the Commission  against the  CPST rates charged  by Operator 
for each specific community.   Because Operator filed refund 
deferral letters in  all of these communities,  the FCC Form 
393 refund period ends on July 14, 1994.