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                  )
                                 )
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 
                                 )   (Watervliet)
                                 )
                                 )   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)
                                                           CA0343 
Consolidated   Application   for      (Quartz Hill)
Review                                                            


                            ORDER


     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  May14,  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 
HEREIN.

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.

     
                              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 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. 
76.956.
13 See Section  76.957 of the Commission's  rules, 47 C.F.R. 
76.957.
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 
(1993). 
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).