*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 15895*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  636 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Mid-  Atlantic  CATV  Limited  Partnership 
 Petition  for  reconsideration 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  CUID  No.  MD0355  (Howard  County) 


 ORDER  ON  RECONSIDERATION 
 Adopted:  March  14,  2002  Released:  March  20,  2002 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Cable  Services  Bureau: 
 1.  In  this  Order  we  consider  a  petition  for  reconsideration  ("  Petition")  of  our  Order,  DA  94-  1147  ("  Prior  Order")  1  filed  with  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  ("  Commission")  by  the  local 
 franchising  authority  ("  LFA")  for  the  above-  referenced  community.  Our  Prior  Order  found  Operator's  cable  programming  service  tier  ("  CPST")  rates  to  be  reasonable  based  on  our  review  of  Operator  cost  of 
 service  FCC  Form  1220  filing.  In  this  Order  we  dismiss  the  LFA's  Petition. 
 2.  Under  the  Communications  Act,  2  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.  If 
 the  Commission  finds  a  rate  to  be  unreasonable,  it  shall  determine  the  correct  rate  and  any  refund  liability.  3  The  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of  1992  ("  1992  Cable  Act"),  4  in  effect  at 
 the  time  the  referenced  complaints  were  filed,  required  the  Commission  to  review  CPST  rates  upon  the  filing  of  a  valid  complaint  by  a  subscriber  or  LFA. 


 3.  Cable  operators  may  justify  their  rates  through  a  cost  of  service  showing  using  FCC  Form  1220.  5  In  reviewing  an  operator's  FCC  Form  1220  cost  of  service  showing,  we  evaluate  the  operator's  rate 
 base  and  expense  elements  to  determine  whether  the  operator  should  be  permitted  to  recover  those  items.  Where  a  certain  rate  base  or  expense  element  is  not  justified  under  our  rules,  such  cost  is  disallowed  in 
 whole  or  in  part.  6  Where  reported  costs  are  disallowed,  we  make  appropriate  adjustments. 
 1  In  the  Matter  of  Mid-  Atlantic  CATV  Limited  Partnership,  DA  94-  1147,  9  FCC  Rcd  7204  (1994). 
 2  Communications  Act,  Section  623(  c),  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §543(  c)  (1996). 
 3  See  Section  76.  957  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §76.957. 
 4  Pub.  L.  No.  102-  385,  106  Stat.  1460  (1992). 
 5  See  Section  76.  922(  l)  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §76.922(  l).  See  also,  Second  Report  and  Order,  First 
 Order  on  Reconsideration,  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  MM  Docket  No.  93-  215  and  CS  Docket  No.  94-  28,  FCC  95-  502,  11  FCC  Rcd  2220  (1996)  ("  Final  Cost  Order"). 


 6  The  Commission  made  clear  that  the  fact  that  an  operator  has  incurred  costs  does  not  necessarily  establish  its  right 
 to  recover  those  costs  from  subscribers.  See  Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  (continued.…) 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  636 
 2 
 4.  In  our  Prior  Order,  we  reviewed  Operator’s  cost  of  service  filing,  applied  general  cost  of  service  principles  and  applicable  allocation  rules  and  found  that  Operator  justified  its  CPST  rate  for  the 
 period  under  review.  In  its  Petition,  the  LFA  alleges  that  Operator  may  have  violated  the  Commission's  Rate  Freeze  Order.  7  The  LFA  requests  that  the  Commission  inquire  into  this  possibility.  In  its 
 Opposition,  Operator  responds  that  under  the  Commission's  rules,  the  LFA  is  prohibited  from  raising  new  issues  on  appeal.  8  We  agree.  The  referenced  complaints  did  not  raise,  and  we  did  not  address  in  our  Prior 
 Order,  the  possibility  of  a  violation  of  the  Rate  Freeze  Order.  In  its  Petition,  the  LFA  does  not  raise  any  issues  concerning  our  review  of  Operator's  FCC  Form  1220  and  our  conclusion  that  Operator's  CPST 
 rates  were  reasonable,  based  on  that  review.  Therefore,  we  will  dismiss  the  LFA's  Petition. 
 5.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  Section  1.106  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.106  that  the  local  franchising  authority's  petition  for  reconsideration  IS  DISMISSED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 William  H.  Johnson  Deputy  Chief 
 Cable  Services  Bureau 


 (…  continued  from  previous  page)  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of  1992:  Rate  Regulation,  MM  Docket  No.  92-  266,  Report  and  Order  and  Further 
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  8  FCC  Rcd  5631,  5794  at  n.  619  (1993)  ("  Rate  Order").  7 
 Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of  1992:  Rate  Regulation,  MM  Docket  92-  266,  8  FCC  Rcd  2921  (1993). 


 8  See  Section  1.106  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.106. 
2