******************************************************** 
                      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-
113
                              )         
Century Communications Corporation      )    CUID   No.    CO0030 
(Colorado Springs)
                              )    
Petition for Reconsideration            )    


                              ORDER

     Adopted: October 30, 2002          Released:   October   31, 
2002 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In   this   Order,   we   consider   a   petition   for 
reconsideration ("Petition") of Cable  Services Bureau Order,  DA 
02-408 ("Prior Order"),2  filed with  the Federal  Communications 
Commission  ("Commission")  by   the  above-referenced   operator 
("Operator").3  In  the Prior  Order, the  Cable Services  Bureau 
found that Operator's  refund plan,  filed in  response to  Cable 
Services Bureau  Order,  DA  99-300 ("Refund  Order"),4  did  not 
fulfill the requirements of the Refund Order.  The Cable Services 
Bureau calculated Operator's refund liability for the period from 
May 15, 1994 through March 31, 1995, plus interest through  March 
31, 2002. The Prior Order  required Operator to refund the  total 
amount of $819,847.60, plus interest accruing from March 31, 2002 
to the date of refund, plus franchise fees, if any, and  interest 
on the  franchise  fees.   In  this  Order  we  grant  Operator's 
Petition in part and modify the Prior Order.  
 
             2.     Under the  provisions of  the  Communications 
Act5 that were in effect at the time the complaint was filed, the 
Commission is authorized to review the cable programming services 
tier ("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 filing of a valid  complaint triggers an obligation upon  the 
cable operator to file  a justification of  its CPST rates.7   If 
the Commission  finds  the  rate to  be  unreasonable,  it  shall 
determine the correct rate and any refund liability.8 

     3.   In its Petition,  Operator states that  it has filed  a 
petition for effective competition with the Commission and  based 
on that filing, the Prior Order should be vacated.  However, even 
if the  Commission  were to  find  that Operator  is  subject  to 
effective competition in the  franchise area referenced above  in 
the year 2002,  that finding would  not affect Operator's  refund 
liability for  the period  from May  15, 1994  through March  31, 
1995, a  period when  Operator was  subject to  CPST  regulation.  
Secondly, Operator  asserts that  the revenue  figures  submitted 
with its refund plan  have been confirmed.   However, it was  the 
methodology that Operator used that was found to be  unacceptable 
in the Prior Order.  Operator is unable to provide a breakdown of 
CPST subscribers who paid the excessive CPST rate and those  that 
may have received a promotional rate.  Without that evidence,  we 
cannot determine  the subscriber  count needed  to calculate  the 
overcharges for the period under review.  However, we will reduce 
the subscriber  count  used  in the  refund  calculation  to  the 
maximum number of subscribers that  could have received the  CPST 
service at the  full rate in  light of the  total revenue  figure 
provided for the  CPST.  In  addition, our review  of the  record 
reveals that  Operator  was  entitled  to  the  refund  liability 
deferral period provided by the Commission's rules.9

     4.   As a  result  of the  refund  deferral period  and  the 
changes in subscriber counts,  we reduce Operator's total  refund 
liability from $819,847.60 to $645,644.25  as of March 31,  2002.  
On May 16, 2002, Operator certified that it refunded  $456,436.50 
to subscribers  during  the  month  of  April  2002.   Therefore, 
Operator's total remaining refund liability equals $189,207.75 as 
of March 31, 2002, plus interest accruing from March 31, 2002  to 
the date of refund, plus franchise fees, if any, and interest  on 
the franchise fees.  We modify the Prior Order accordingly.

     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 IN PART TO  THE 
EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

     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 Century Communications Corporation, DA  02-
408, 17  FCC  Rcd 3483  (CSB  2002)  IS MODIFIED  TO  THE  EXTENT 
INDICATED HEREIN.

     
                              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  See In  The Matter of  Century Communications Corporation,  DA 
02-408, 17 FCC Rcd 3483 (CSB 2002). 
3  The  term  "Operator"   includes  Operator's  successors   and 
predecessors in interest.
4 See In The Matter of Century Colorado Springs Partnership d/b/a 
Colorado Springs Cablevision, DA 99-300, 14 FCC Rcd 2787 (1999).
5 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).
6 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).
7 See  Section  76.956  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.F.R. 
§76.956.
8 See  Section  76.957  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.F.R. 
§76.957.
9 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.   See 47 C.F.R.  § 76.922(b)(6)(ii).  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.  Our review  of the FCC Form 393  reveals 
that Operator did  not charge in  excess of its  maximum FCC  393 
rate between May  15, 1994 and  July 14, 1994.   See also In  the 
Matter of Colorado Springs Cablevision,  Inc., DA 950757, 10  FCC 
Rcd 10810 (1995) (finding Operator's CPST rates to be  reasonable 
through May 14, 1994).