******************************************************** 
                      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-
     032                                          )    File   No. 
     EB-02-TC-040
Jones Intercable, Inc.                  )    CUID Nos. AZ0158 
(Oro Valley, AZ)
Jones Spacelink of Ohio                 )              OH0293 
(Rittman, OH)
                              )
Consolidated Application for Review          )              
               
     

                              ORDER

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

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.         In   this    Order,    we 
reconsider, on  our  own  motion, Orders,  DA  95-1742  ("Rittman 
Order")2 and DA  95-1794  ("Oro Valley Order")3 (together  "Prior 
Orders"). The  Rittman  Order  resolved  all  pending  complaints 
against  the  cable  programming  services  tier  ("CPST")  rates 
charged by  the above-referenced  Operator ("Operator")4  in  the 
Rittman,  Ohio  community  through   May  14,  1994,  and   found 
Operator's CPST rates  to be unreasonable.  The Oro Valley  Order 
resolved all pending complaints against the CPST rates charged by 
Operator in the  Oro Valley,  Arizona community  through May  14, 
1994, and found  Operator's CPST  rates to  be unreasonable.   On 
October 10, 1995, Operator  filed a consolidated application  for 
review ("Application") of  the Prior Orders.   In this Order,  we 
vacate the  Prior Orders  and dismiss  Operator's Application  as 
moot.
 
     2.   On  November  30,  1995,  the  Federal   Communications 
Commission  ("Commission")   adopted  an   Order,  FCC   95-478,5 
approving the  Time Warner  Social Contract  ("Social  Contract") 
between Time  Warner Cable  ("Time Warner")  and the  Commission.  
The Social Contract resolved all of Time Warner's CPST cases.  On 
December 26, 1996, we granted Time Warner's request that  certain 
of its subsequently-acquired cable television systems be added to 
those systems  already subject  to the  Social Contract.6   As  a 
result, the  Rittman,  Ohio  cable system,  the  subject  of  the 
Rittman  Order,   became   subject  to   the   Social   Contract.  
Accordingly, all complaints involving the system were  resolved.7  
Therefore, we  vacate  the  Rittman Order  and  dismiss  as  moot 
Operator's Application with regard to that system.

     3.   Under  the  Communications  Act8  the  Commission   was 
authorized, at the  time the referenced  complaint was filed,  to 
review the CPST rates of  cable systems not subject to  effective 
competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable. In 
a  Memorandum  Opinion   and  Order  released   April  17,   2000 
("Competition Order"),  the  Cable  Services  Bureau  found  that 
Operator's system serving the Oro Valley community is subject  to 
effective competition.9   Based on  the Cable  Services  Bureau's 
finding  of  effective  competition  in  our  Competition  Order, 
Operator's system  in  the  franchise  area  in  the  Oro  Valley 
community is  not  subject  to rate  regulation.   Therefore,  we 
vacate the  Oro  Valley  Order and  dismiss  as  moot  Operator's 
Application with regard to that system.

     4.   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 In the Matter of Jones Spacelink  of 
Ohio, DA 95-1742,  10 FCC Rcd  9802 (1995) and  In the Matter  of 
Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1794,  10 FCC Rcd 9781 (1995),  ARE 
VACATED.

     5.   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.

     
                              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 Jones Spacelink of  Ohio, DA 95-1742, 10  FCC 
Rcd 9802 (CSB 1995).
3 In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 95-1794, 10 FCC Rcd 
9781 (CSB 1995).
4  The  term  "Operator"  includes  Operator's  predecessors  and 
successors in interest.
5 In the Matter of Social  Contract for Time Warner, FCC  95-478, 
11 FCC Rcd 2788 (1996).
6 In the  Matter of Time  Warner Cable Social  Contract, FCC  96-
2192, 12 FCC Rcd 14881 (1996).

7 See In the Matter of Time Warner Cable, DA 98-1026, 13 FCC  Rcd 
13813 (CSB 1998).
8 Communications  Act,  Section  623(c), as  amended,  47  U.S.C. 
§543(c) (1996).
9 See In the Matter of Jones Intercable, Inc., DA 00-859, 15  FCC 
Rcd 7254 (CSB 2000).