******************************************************** 
                      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-033
                              )    CUID No. TX0555 (Hurst)       
Marcus Cable Associates, LP             )
                              )            
Petition for Reconsideration            )


                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
                                

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

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1. In this Order we consider a petition for  reconsideration 
("Petition") of Order,  DA 99-1732 ("Second  Order"), filed  with 
the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") on  February 
16, 1999.   The Second  Order resolved  a complaint  against  the 
September 1, 1998 rate increase by the above-referenced  operator 
("Operator")3 for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in 
the community referenced above.  It also resolved a petition  for 
reconsideration of Order,  DA 97-2041 ("First  Order").4 In  this 
Order, we dismiss  Operator's Petition  and calculate  Operator's 
refund liability.

     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 require  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.   Operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series to  justify 
rates for the period  beginning May�, 1994.11  Cable  operators 
may justify quarterly  rate increases based  on the addition  and 
deletion of  channels,  changes  in certain  external  costs  and 
inflation, by  filing FCC  Form  1210.12  Operators  may  justify 
their rates on  an annual basis  using FCC Form  1240 to  reflect 
reasonably certain and  quantifiable changes  in external  costs, 
inflation,  and  the  number  of  regulated  channels  that   are 
projected for the twelve months following the rate change.13  Any 
incurred cost that is not projected may be accrued with  interest 
and added to rates at a later time.14

     4.   In the First Order the Cable Services Bureau  concluded 
that Operator's June 1, 1997 CPST rate increase was unreasonable.  
In  the   Second  Order   it  denied   Operator's  petition   for 
reconsideration of the  First Order and  reviewed Operator's  FCC 
Form 1240 for the projected  period beginning September 1,  1998.  
It found  Operator's  CPST  rate,  effective  September  1,  1998 
through March 31,  1999, to  be unreasonable.   In its  Petition, 
Operator raises one issue concerning the Cable Services  Bureau's 
calculation of its maximum permitted rate ("MPR") for the  period 
September 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999.  However, our review of 
the record reveals  that the total  refund liability incurred  by 
Operator, for  the period  September 1,  1998 through  March  31, 
1999, is de minimis, and it  would not be in the public  interest 
to order a refund for that period. 

     5.   It would not be a judicious use of Commission resources 
to attempt to  resolve appeals of  CPST rate orders  that had  no 
adverse affect on the petitioner, either because the order  found 
no refund liability at all or  found a de minimis liability  that 
did not later  result in the  petitioner incurring actual  refund 
liability.  Resolution of such appeals will have no  consequences 
other  than  to  put  additional  strain  on  limited  Commission 
resources which are better used to resolve pending complaints and 
appeals  of  orders  that  involve  potential  or  actual  refund 
liability.  Therefore, we  have determined that  appeals of  CPST 
rate orders that do not  involve actual refund liability will  be 
dismissed because there  is no  real relief that  may be  granted 
through resolution of  the appeal.15  Because  our resolution  of 
Operator's Petition  would have  no effect  on Operator's  refund 
liability, we decline to address the issue raised by Operator and 
we will dismiss Operator's Petition.

     6.   Because Operator  never  submitted  a  refund  plan  in 
response to the  First or Second  Order, we calculate  Operator's 
refund liability as  follows: For  the period from  June 1,  1998 
through August 31, 1998, we calculate an overcharge of $1.11  per 
month per subscriber. Operator's actual CPST rate for this period 
was $14.62 and  its MPR  was $13.51.   This time  period was  not 
included in the true-up portion  of Operator's FCC Form 1240  for 
the projected  period  beginning  September  1,  1998,  which  we 
reviewed in our Second  Order.  Our total calculation,  including 
five percent franchise fees plus interest on the overcharges  and 
franchise fees  through April  30,  2002, equals  $27,533.00.  We 
order  Operator  to  refund  this  amount,  plus  any  additional 
interest accrued to the date  of refund, to its CPST  subscribers 
within 60 days of the release of this Order.

     7.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED,  pursuant to Section  1.106 
of the  Commission's rules,  47  C.F.R  �106,  that  Operator's 
Petition for Reconsideration IS DISMISSED.

     8.   IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and 76.962 of the  Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Ё  0.111, 
0.311 and �.962, that Operator  shall refund to subscribers  in 
the  franchise  area  referenced   above  the  total  amount   of 
$27,533.00, plus any  additional interest  accrued between  April 
30, 2002 and the date of refund, within 60 days of the release of 
this Order.

     9.   IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and 76.962 of the  Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Ё  0.111, 
0.311 and �.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.


                              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 Marcus Cable Associates, DA 99-173, 14 FCC Rcd 
972 (CSB 1999).

3 The term "Operator" includes Operator's predecessors and 
successors in interest.

4 In the Matter of Marcus Cable Associates, DA 97-2041, 13 FCC 
Rcd 5967 (CSB 1997).

5 47 U.S.C. �3(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. 
�.956.

10 See Section 76.957 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 
�.957.

11 See Section 76.922 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 
76.922.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 See, for example, In the Matter TCI of Illinois d/b/a 
Telenois, Inc., DA 01-1468, 16 FCC Rcd 12654 (CSB 2001).