FORM 10-K
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)
[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934 (FEE REQUIRED)
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996
OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (NO FEE REQUIRED)
For the transition period from ________ to ________

Commission file number: 0-16183

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Colorado 84-1060544
-------- ----------
State of Organization (IRS Employer
Identification No.)

P.O. Box 3309, Englewood, Colorado 80155-3309 (303) 792-3111
- --------------------------------------------- --------------
(Address of principal executive office and Zip Code (Registrant's telephone
no. including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Limited
Partnership
Interests

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant, (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes x No
--- ---

State the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the registrant: N/A

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405
of Regulation S-K ((S)229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be
contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment to this Form 10-K. X
---

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: None

Information contained in this Form 10-K Report contains "forward-
looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical facts,
included in this Form 10-K Report that address activities, events or
developments that the Partnership or the Managing General Partner expects,
believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking
statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon certain assumptions
and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results could
differ materially from the results predicted by these forward-looking
statements.

PART I.
-------

ITEM 1. BUSINESS
-----------------

THE PARTNERSHIP. IDS/Jones Growth Partners 87-A, Ltd. (the
"Partnership") is a Colorado limited partnership that was formed to acquire, own
and operate cable television systems in the United States. Jones Cable
Corporation, a Colorado corporation, is the managing general partner (the
"Managing General Partner") and IDS Cable Corporation, a Minnesota corporation,
is the supervising general partner (the "Supervising General Partner") of the
Partnership. The Managing General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jones
Intercable, Inc. ("Intercable"), which is also a Colorado corporation and one of
the largest cable television system operators in the nation. The Supervising
General Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of IDS Management Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of American
Express Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation.

The Partnership was formed for the purpose of acquiring and operating
cable television systems. The Partnership originally owned two cable television
systems. In February 1996, the Partnership disposed of its cable television
system serving areas in and around Carmel, Indiana (the "Carmel System"), and in
October 1996, the Partnership entered into an agreement providing for the sale
of its remaining cable television system serving the areas in and around the
City of Roseville and neighboring portions of unincorporated Placer County, all
in the State of California (the "Roseville System"). See Disposition of Cable
Television System and Proposed Disposition of Cable Television System below.

DISPOSITION OF CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM. On February 28, 1996, the
Partnership sold the Carmel System to Jones Cable Holdings, Inc. ("JCH"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Intercable, for a sales price of $44,235,333. This
price represented the average of three separate, independent appraisals of the
fair market value of the Carmel System. A portion of the proceeds, $14,235,333,
was used to reduce Partnership debt, and the remainder of the proceeds,
$30,000,000, was distributed to the limited partners in April 1996. This
distribution gave the Partnership's limited partners an approximate return of
$183 per $250 interest or $731 per $1,000 invested in the Partnership. No vote
of the limited partners of the Partnership was required in connection with this
transaction because the assets of the Carmel System did not constitute all or
substantially all of the Partnership's assets. The Supervising General Partner
consented to the timing of the transaction and participated in the selection of
appraisers.

On February 29, 1996, JCH consummated an agreement with Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership ("TWEAN"), an unaffiliated cable
television system operator, pursuant to which JCH conveyed the Carmel System,
along with certain other cable television systems owned by JCH, and cash in the
amount of $3,500,000 to TWEAN in exchange for the cable television systems
serving Andrews Air Force Base, Capitol Heights, Cheltenham, District Heights,
Fairmount Heights, Forest Heights, Morningside, Seat Pleasant, Upper Marlboro,
and portions of Prince George's County, all in Maryland, and a portion of
Fairfax County, Virginia.

PROPOSED DISPOSITION OF CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM. On October 14, 1996,
the Partnership entered into an asset purchase agreement providing for the sale
by the Partnership to an unaffiliated party of the Roseville System. The sales
price is $30,900,000, subject to customary closing adjustments. Closing of the
sale is expected to occur during the second calendar quarter of 1997 and is
subject to a number of conditions, including

the approval of the transaction by the holders of a majority of the
Partnership's limited partnership interests. The General Partner, on behalf of
the Partnership, is preparing proxy solicitation materials and intends to
conduct a vote of the limited partners of the Partnership by mail during the
second quarter of 1997.

The obligations of the Partnership and the purchaser also are
conditioned upon the approval by the City of Roseville and the County of Placer
to the transfer to the purchaser of the respective cable television franchises
granted by such governmental entities to the Partnership. The County of Placer
granted its consent to the transfer of the county franchise in December 1996 and
the City of Roseville granted its consent to the transfer of the city franchise
during March 1997. In addition, the obligations of the Partnership and the
purchaser to consummate the transaction are conditioned upon the expiration or
termination of the waiting period specified in the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976 ("Hart-Scott-Rodino") and the rules and regulations
thereunder. In response to their Hart-Scott-Rodino filings, the Partnership and
the purchaser have received a second request for information about the proposed
sale of the Roseville System from the United States Department of Justice. The
Partnership and the purchaser will have to satisfy certain concerns of the
Department of Justice about the potential anti-competitive effects of the
transaction before the Partnership will be permitted to close the sale of the
Roseville System to the purchaser. The Partnership cannot predict if or when
the concerns of the Department of Justice will be satisfied. In addition,
because the purchaser is affiliated with the company that provides telephone
services in the geographical area in which the Roseville System provides cable
television services, a waiver from the Federal Communications Commission of
Section 652 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits the
acquisition by a telephone company and its affiliates of cable systems in the
telephone company's service area, is necessary to permit the purchaser to
consummate the purchase of the Roseville System. The Partnership cannot predict
if or when the waiver from the Federal Communications Commission will be
received. If all conditions precedent to the purchaser's obligation to close
are not satisfied or waived by June 30, 1997, either party may terminate the
asset purchase agreement and its obligations thereunder by giving notice thereof
to the other party.

Upon the consummation of the proposed sale of the Roseville System,
the Partnership will pay all of its indebtedness, which totaled approximately
$9,850,000 at December 31, 1996, and brokerage fees totaling $772,500 to
affiliates of the general partners, and then the Partnership will distribute the
net sale proceeds to its limited partners of record as of April 30, 1997.
Because $1,550,000 of the sale proceeds will remain in escrow for one year
following the closing date, this portion of the net sale proceeds, net of claims
against such escrow, will not be distributed to limited partners until 1998.
Because limited partners will receive total distributions that are less than 125
percent of the capital initially contributed to the Partnership by the limited
partners, the general partners of the Partnership will not receive any of the
proceeds from the Roseville System's sale. The Partnership will distribute the
approximate $18,727,500 remaining net proceeds to its limited partners. This
distribution will give the Partnership's limited partners an approximate return
of $456 per $1,000 invested in the Partnership. Taking into account the
distribution made on the sale of the Carmel System and the anticipated
distribution to be made on the sale of the Roseville System in 1997, the limited
partners will have received a total of $1,187 for each $1,000 invested in the
Partnership. Upon the completion of the escrow period in 1998, the Partnership
will distribute the remaining proceeds to limited partners, which, if no claims
are made against the escrow, would total approximately $38 for each $1,000
invested in the Partnership, and then the Partnership will be liquidated and
dissolved.

CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES. The Roseville System offers to its
subscribers various types of programming, which include basic service, tier
service, premium service, pay-per-view programs and packages including several
of these services at combined rates.

Basic cable television service usually consists of signals of all four
national television networks, various independent and educational television
stations (both VHF and UHF) and certain signals received from satellites. Basic
service also usually includes programs originated locally by the system, which
may consist of music, news, weather reports, stock market and financial
information and live or videotaped programs of a public service or entertainment
nature. FM radio signals are also frequently distributed to subscribers as part
of the basic service.

The Roseville System offers tier services on an optional basis to
their subscribers. A tier generally includes most of the cable networks such as
Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN), Cable News Network (CNN),
Turner Network Television (TNT), Family Channel, Discovery and others, and the
cable television operators buy tier programming from these networks. The
Roseville System also offers a package that includes the basic service channels
and the tier services.

The Roseville System also offers premium services to their
subscribers, which consist of feature films, sporting events and other special
features that are presented without commercial interruption. The cable
television operators buy premium programming from suppliers such as HBO,
Showtime, Cinemax or others at a cost based on the number of subscribers the
cable operator serves. Premium service programming usually is significantly
more expensive than the basic service or tier service programming, and
consequently cable operators price premium service separately when sold to
subscribers.

The Roseville System also offers to subscribers pay-per-view
programming. Pay-per-view is a service that allows subscribers to receive
single programs, frequently consisting of motion pictures that have recently
completed their theatrical exhibitions and major sporting events, and to pay for
such service on a program-by-program basis.

REVENUES. Monthly service fees for basic, tier and premium services
constitute the major source of revenue for the Roseville System. At December
31, 1996, the Roseville System's monthly basic service rate was $5.60, monthly
basic and tier ("basic plus") service rate was $24.30 and monthly premium
services ranged from $4.95 to $10.25 per premium service. In addition, the
Partnership earns revenues from the Roseville System's pay-per-view programs and
advertising fees. Related charges may include a nonrecurring installation fee
that ranges from $5.00 to $42.00; however, from time to time the Roseville
System has followed the common industry practice of reducing or waiving the
installation fee during promotional periods. Commercial subscribers such as
hotels, motels and hospitals are charged a nonrecurring connection fee that
usually covers the cost of installation. Except under the terms of certain
contracts with commercial subscribers and residential apartment and condominium
complexes, the subscribers are free to discontinue the service at any time
without penalty. For the year ended December 31, 1996, of the total fees
received by the Roseville System, basic service and tier service fees accounted
for approximately 68% of total revenues, premium service fees accounted for
approximately 14% of total revenues, pay-per-view fees were approximately 2% of
total revenues, advertising fees were approximately 9%of total revenues and the
remaining 7% of total revenues came principally from equipment rentals,
installation fees and program guide sales. The Partnership is dependent upon
the timely receipt of service fees to provide for maintenance and replacement of
plant and equipment, current operating expenses and other costs of the Roseville
System.

FRANCHISES. The Roseville System is constructed and operated under
non-exclusive, fixed-term franchises or other types of operating authorities
(referred to collectively herein as "franchises") granted by local governmental
authorities. The Roseville System's franchises require that franchise fees
generally based on gross revenues of the cable system be paid to the
governmental authority that granted the franchise, that certain channels be
dedicated to municipal use, that municipal facilities, hospitals and schools be
provided cable service free of charge and that any new cable plant be
substantially constructed within specific periods.

The Partnership holds 2 franchises relating to the Roseville System.
The 1984 Cable Act prohibits franchising authorities from imposing annual
franchise fees in excess of 5% of gross revenues and also permits the cable
television system operator to seek renegotiation and modification of franchise
requirements if warranted by changed circumstances.

The Partnership has never had a franchise revoked. The Partnership's
franchise expiration dates are December 1999 and November 2000. It is
anticipated that the Roseville System will be sold before these franchises must
be renewed.

COMPETITION. Cable television systems currently experience
competition from several sources.

Broadcast Television. Cable television systems have traditionally
---------------------
competed with broadcast television, which consists of television signals that
the viewer is able to receive directly on his television without charge using an
"off-air" antenna. The extent of such competition is dependent in part upon the
quality and quantity of signals available by such antenna reception as compared
to the services provided by the local cable system. Accordingly, it has
generally been less difficult for cable operators to obtain higher penetration
rates in rural areas where signals available off-air are limited, than in
metropolitan areas where numerous, high quality off-air signals are often
available without the aid of cable television systems.

Traditional Overbuild. Cable television franchises are not exclusive,
---------------------
so that more than one cable television system may be built in the same area
(known as an "overbuild"), with potential loss of revenues to the operator of
the original cable television system. Intercable has experienced overbuilds in
connection with certain systems that it has owned or managed for limited
partnerships, and currently there are overbuilds in the systems owned or managed
by Intercable. Constructing and developing a cable television system is a
capital intensive process, and it is often difficult for a new cable system
operator to create a marketing edge over the existing system. Generally, an
overbuilder would be required to obtain franchises from the local governmental
authorities, although in some instances, the overbuilder could be the local
government itself. In any case, an overbuilder would be required to obtain
programming contracts from entertainment programmers and, in most cases, would
have to build a complete cable system, including headends, trunk lines and drops
to individual subscribers homes, throughout the franchise areas.

DBS. High-powered direct-to-home satellites have made possible the
---
wide-scale delivery of programming to individuals throughout the United States
using small roof-top or wall-mounted antennas. Several companies began offering
direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") service over the last few years and
additional entrants are expected. Companies offering DBS service use video
compression technology to increase channel capacity of their systems to 100 or
more channels and to provide packages of movies, satellite network and other
program services which are competitive to those of cable television systems.
DBS cannot currently offer its subscribers local programming, although at least
one future DBS entrant is attempting to offer customers regional delivery of
local broadcast signals. In addition to emerging high-powered DBS competition,
cable television systems face competition from a major medium-powered satellite
distribution provider and several low-powered providers, whose service requires
use of much larger home satellite dishes. Not all subscribers terminate cable
television service upon acquiring a DBS system. The Managing General Partner
has observed that there are DBS subscribers that also elect to subscribe to
cable television service in order to obtain the greatest variety of programming
on multiple television sets, including local programming not available through
DBS service. The ability of DBS service providers to compete successfully with
the cable television industry will depend on, among other factors, the ability
of DBS providers to overcome certain legal and technical hurdles and the
availability of equipment at reasonable prices.

Telephone. Federal cross-ownership restrictions historically limited
---------
entry by local telephone companies into the cable television business. The 1996
Telecommunications Act (the "1996 Telecom Act") eliminated this cross-ownership
restriction, making it possible for companies with considerable resources to
overbuild existing cable operators and enter the business. Several telephone
companies have begun seeking cable television franchises from local governmental
authorities and constructing cable television systems. Ameritech, one of the
seven regional Bell Operating Companies ("BOCs"), which provides telephone
service in a multi-state region including Illinois, has been the most active BOC
in seeking local cable franchises within its service area. It has already begun
cable service in Naperville, Illinois and has also obtained franchises for Glen
Ellyn and Vernon Hills, Illinois, all of which are currently served by cable
systems owned by three partnerships managed by Intercable. The Managing General
Partner cannot predict at this time the extent of telephone company competition
that will emerge to owned or managed cable television systems. The entry of
telephone companies as direct competitors, however, is likely to continue over
the next several years and could adversely affect the profitability and market
value of Intercable's owned and managed systems. The entry of electric utility
companies

into the cable television business, as now authorized by the 1996 Telecom Act,
could have a similar adverse effect.

Private Cable. Additional competition is provided by private cable
-------------
television systems, known as Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV),
serving multi-unit dwellings such as condominiums, apartment complexes, and
private residential communities. These private cable systems may enter into
exclusive agreements with apartment owners and homeowners associations, which
may preclude operators of franchised systems from serving residents of such
private complexes. Private cable systems that do not cross public rights of way
are free from the federal, state and local regulatory requirements imposed on
franchised cable television operators. In some cases, the Partnership has been
unable to provide cable television service to buildings in which private
operators have secured exclusive contracts to provide video and telephony
services. The Partnership is interested in providing these same services, but
expects that the market to install and provide these services in multi-unit
buildings will continue to be highly competitive.

MMDS. Cable television systems also compete with wireless program
----
distribution services such as multichannel, multipoint distribution service
("MMDS") systems, commonly called wireless cable, which are licensed to serve
specific areas. MMDS uses low-power microwave frequencies to transmit
television programming over-the-air to paying subscribers. The MMDS industry is
less capital intensive than the cable television industry, and it is therefore
more practical to construct MMDS systems in areas of lower subscriber
penetration. Wireless cable systems are now in direct competition with cable
television systems in several areas of the country, including the system in Pima
County, Arizona owned by Intercable. Telephone companies have recently acquired
or invested in wireless companies, and may use MMDS systems to provide services
within their service areas in lieu of wired delivery systems. Enthusiasm for
MMDS has waned in recent months, however, as Bell Atlantic and NYNEX have
suspended their investment in two major MMDS companies. To date, the
Partnership has not lost a significant number of subscribers, nor a significant
amount of revenue, to MMDS operators competing with the Partnership's cable
television systems. A series of actions taken by the FCC, however, including
reallocating certain frequencies to the wireless services, are intended to
facilitate the development of wireless cable television systems as an
alternative means of distributing video programming. The FCC recently held
auctions for spectrum that will be used by wireless operators to provide
additional channels of programming over larger distances. In addition, an
emerging technology, Local Multipoint Distribution services ("LMDS"), could also
pose a significant threat to the cable television industry, if and when it
becomes established. LMDS, sometimes referred to as cellular television, could
have the capability of delivering more than 100 channels of video programming to
a subscriber's home. The potential impact, however, of LMDS is difficult to
assess due to the newness of the technology and the absence of any current fully
operational LMDS systems.

Cable television systems are also in competition, in various degrees
with other communications and entertainment media, including motion pictures and
home video cassette recorders.

REGULATION AND LEGISLATION
- --------------------------

The operation of cable television systems is extensively regulated by
the FCC, some state governments and most local governments. The new 1996
Telecom Act alters the regulatory structure governing the nation's
telecommunications providers. It removes barriers to competition in both the
cable television market and the local telephone market. Among other things, it
also reduces the scope of cable rate regulation.

The 1996 Telecom Act requires the FCC to undertake a host of
implementing rulemakings, the final outcome of which cannot yet be determined.
Moreover, Congress and the FCC have frequently revisited the subject of cable
regulation. Future legislative and regulatory changes could adversely affect
the Partnership's operations. This section briefly summarizes key laws and
regulations affecting the operation of the Partnership's cable systems and does
not purport to describe all present, proposed, or possible laws and regulations
affecting the Partnership.

Cable Rate Regulation. The 1992 Cable Act imposed an extensive rate
---------------------
regulation regime on the cable television industry. Under that regime, all
cable systems are subject to rate regulation, unless they face "effective
competition" in their local franchise area. Federal law now defines "effective
competition" on a community-specific basis as requiring either low penetration
(less than 30%) by the incumbent cable operator, appreciable penetration (more
than 15%) by competing multichannel video providers ("MVPs"), or the presence of
a competing MVP affiliated with a local telephone company.

Although the FCC rules control, local government units (commonly
referred to as local franchising authorities or "LFAs") are primarily
responsible for administering the regulation of the lowest level of cable -- the
basic service tier ("BST"), which typically contains local broadcast stations
and public, educational, and government ("PEG") access channels. Before an LFA
begins BST rate regulation, it must certify to the FCC that it will follow
applicable federal rules, and many LFAs have voluntarily declined to exercise
this authority. LFAs also have primary responsibility for regulating cable
equipment rates. Under federal law, charges for various types of cable
equipment must be unbundled from each other and from monthly charges for
programming services. The 1996 Telecom Act allows operators to aggregate costs
for broad categories of equipment across geographic and functional lines. This
change should facilitate the introduction of new technology.

The FCC itself directly administers rate regulation of any cable
programming service tiers ("CPST"), which typically contain satellite-delivered
programming. Under the 1996 Telecom Act, the FCC can regulate CPST rates only
if an LFA first receives at least two rate complaints from local subscribers and
then files a formal complaint with the FCC. When new CPST rate complaints are
filed, the FCC now considers only whether the incremental increase is justified
and will not reduce the previously established CPST rate.

Under the FCC's rate regulations, most cable systems were required to
reduce their BST and CPST rates in 1993 and 1994, and have since had their rate
increases governed by a complicated price cap scheme that allows for the
recovery of inflation and certain increased costs, as well as providing some
incentive for expanding channel carriage. The FCC has modified its rate
adjustment regulations to allow for annual rate increases and to minimize
previous problems associated with regulatory lag. Operators also have the
opportunity of bypassing this "benchmark" regulatory scheme in favor of
traditional "cost-of-service" regulation in cases where the latter methodology
appears favorable. Premium cable services offered on a per-channel or per-
program basis remain unregulated, as do affirmatively marketed packages
consisting entirely of new programming product. Federal law requires that the
BST be offered to all cable subscribers, but limits the ability of operators to
require purchase of any CPST before purchasing premium services offered on a
per-channel or per-program basis.

The 1996 Telecom Act sunsets FCC regulation of CPST rates for all
systems (regardless of size) on March 31, 1999. It also relaxes existing
uniform rate requirements by specifying that uniform rate requirements do not
apply where the operator faces "effective competition," and by exempting bulk
discounts to multiple dwelling units, although complaints about predatory
pricing still may be made to the FCC.

Cable Entry Into Telecommunications. The 1996 Telecom Act provides
-----------------------------------
that no state or local laws or regulations may prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting any entity from providing any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service. States are authorized, however, to impose
"competitively neutral" requirements regarding universal service, public safety
and welfare, service quality, and consumer protection. State and local
governments also retain their authority to manage the public rights-of-way and
may require reasonable, competitively neutral compensation for management of the
public rights-of-way when cable operators provide telecommunications service.
The favorable pole attachment rates afforded cable operators under federal law
can be gradually increased by utility companies owning the poles (beginning in
2001) if the operator provides telecommunications service, as well as cable
service, over its plant.

Cable entry into telecommunications will be affected by the regulatory
landscape now being fashioned by the FCC and state regulators. One critical
component of the 1996 Telecom Act to facilitate the entry of new
telecommunications providers (including cable operators) is the interconnection
obligation imposed on all telecommunications carriers. Review of the FCC's
initial interconnection order is now pending before the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

Telephone Company Entry Into Cable Television. The 1996 Telecom Act
---------------------------------------------
allows telephone companies to compete directly with cable operators by repealing
the historic telephone company/cable cross-ownership ban. Local exchange
carriers ("LECs"), including the BOCs, can now compete with cable operators both
inside and outside their telephone service areas. Because of their resources,
LECs could be formidable competitors to traditional cable operators, and certain
LECs have begun offering cable service. As described above, the General Partner
is now witnessing the beginning of LEC competition in a few of its cable
communities.

Under the 1996 Telecom Act, a LEC providing video programming to
subscribers will be regulated as a traditional cable operator (subject to local
franchising and federal regulatory requirements), unless the LEC elects to
provide its programming via an "open video system" ("OVS"). To qualify for OVS
status, the LEC must reserve two-thirds of the system's activated channels for
unaffiliated entities.

Although LECs and cable operators can now expand their offerings
across traditional service boundaries, the general prohibition remains on LEC
buyouts (i.e., any ownership interest exceeding 10 percent) of co-located cable
systems, cable operator buyouts of co-located LEC systems, and joint ventures
between cable operators and LECs in the same market. The 1996 Telecom Act
provides a few limited exceptions to this buyout prohibition, including a
carefully circumscribed "rural exemption." The 1996 Telecom Act also provides
the FCC with the limited authority to grant waivers of the buyout prohibition
(subject to LFA approval).

Electric Utility Entry Into Telecommunications/Cable Television. The
---------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Telecom Act provides that registered utility holding companies and
subsidiaries may provide telecommunications services (including cable
television) notwithstanding the Public Utilities Holding Company Act. Electric
utilities must establish separate subsidiaries, known as "exempt
telecommunications companies" and must apply to the FCC for operating authority.
Again, because of their resources, electric utilities could be formidable
competitors to traditional cable systems.

Additional Ownership Restrictions. The 1996 Telecom Act eliminates
---------------------------------
statutory restrictions on broadcast/cable cross-ownership (including broadcast
network/cable restrictions), but leaves in place existing FCC regulations
prohibiting local cross-ownership between co-located television stations and
cable systems. The 1996 Telecom Act also eliminates the three year holding
period required under the 1992 Cable Act's "anti-trafficking" provision. The
1996 Telecom Act leaves in place existing restrictions on cable cross-ownership
with SMATV and MMDS facilities, but lifts those restrictions where the cable
operator is subject to effective competition. In January 1995, however, the FCC
adopted regulations which permit cable operators to own and operate SMATV
systems within their franchise area, provided that such operation is consistent
with local cable franchise requirements.

Pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act, the FCC adopted rules precluding a
cable system from devoting more than 40% of its activated channel capacity to
the carriage of affiliated national program services. A companion rule
establishing a nationwide ownership cap on any cable operator equal to 30% of
all domestic cable subscribers has been stayed pending further judicial review.

There are no federal restrictions on non-U.S. entities having an
ownership interest in cable television systems or the FCC licenses commonly
employed by such systems. Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act does,
however, prohibit foreign ownership of FCC broadcast and telephone licenses,
unless the FCC concludes that such foreign ownership is consistent with the
public interest. BCI's investment in Intercable could, therefore, adversely
affect any plan to acquire FCC broadcast or common carrier licenses. The
Partnership, however, does not currently plan to acquire such licenses.

Must Carry/Retransmission Consent. The 1992 Cable Act contains
---------------------------------
broadcast signal carriage requirements that allow local commercial television
broadcast stations to elect once every three years between

requiring a cable system to carry the station ("must carry") or negotiating for
payments for granting permission to the cable operator to carry the station
("retransmission consent"). Less popular stations typically elect "must carry,"
and more popular stations typically elect "retransmission consent." Must carry
requests can dilute the appeal of a cable system's programming offerings, and
retransmission consent demands may require substantial payments or other
concessions. Either option has a potentially adverse affect on the Partnership's
business. Additionally, cable systems are required to obtain retransmission
consent for all "distant" commercial television stations (except for satellite-
delivered independent "superstations" such as WTBS). The constitutionality of
the must carry requirements has been challenged and is awaiting a decision from
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Access Channels. LFAs can include franchise provisions requiring
---------------
cable operators to set aside certain channels for public, educational and
governmental access programming. Federal law also requires cable systems to
designate a portion of their channel capacity (up to 15% in some cases) for
commercial leased access by unaffiliated third parties. The FCC has adopted
rules regulating the terms, conditions and maximum rates a cable operator may
charge for use of the designated channel capacity, but use of commercial leased
access channels has been relatively limited. The FCC released revised rules in
February 1997 which mandate a modest rate reduction and could make commercial
leased access a more attractive option to third party programmers.

Access to Programming. To spur the development of independent cable
---------------------
programmers and competition to incumbent cable operators, the 1992 Cable Act
imposed restrictions on the dealings between cable operators and cable
programmers. Of special significance from a competitive business posture, the
1992 Cable Act precludes video programmers affiliated with cable companies from
favoring cable operators over competitors and requires such programmers to sell
their programming to other multichannel video distributors. This provision
limits the ability of vertically integrated cable programmers to offer exclusive
programming arrangements to cable companies.

Other FCC Regulations. In addition to the FCC regulations noted
---------------------
above, there are other FCC regulations covering such areas as equal employment
opportunity, subscriber privacy, programming practices (including, among other
things, syndicated program exclusivity, network program nonduplication, local
sports blackouts, indecent programming, lottery programming, political
programming, sponsorship identification, and children's programming
advertisements), registration of cable systems and facilities licensing,
maintenance of various records and public inspection files, frequency usage,
lockbox availability, antenna structure notification, tower marking and
lighting, consumer protection and customer service standards, technical
standards, and consumer electronics equipment compatibility. The FCC is
expected to impose new Emergency Alert System requirements on cable operators
this year. The FCC has the authority to enforce its regulations through the
imposition of substantial fines, the issuance of cease and desist orders and/or
the imposition of other administrative sanctions, such as the revocation of FCC
licenses needed to operate certain transmission facilities used in connection
with cable operations.

Two pending FCC proceedings of particular competitive concern involve
inside wiring and navigational devices. The former rulemaking is considering
ownership of cable wiring located inside multiple dwelling unit complexes. If
the FCC concludes that such wiring belongs to, or can be unilaterally acquired
by the complex owner, it will become easier for complex owners to terminate
service from the incumbent cable operator in favor of a new entrant. The latter
rulemaking is considering whether cable customers must be allowed to purchase
cable converters from third party vendors. If the FCC concludes that such
distribution is required, and does not make appropriate allowances for signal
piracy concerns, it may become more difficult for cable operators to combat
theft of service.

Copyright. Cable television systems are subject to federal copyright
---------
licensing covering carriage of television and radio broadcast signals. In
exchange for filing certain reports and contributing a percentage of their
revenues to a federal copyright royalty pool (that varies depending on the size
of the system and the number of distant broadcast television signals carried),
cable operators can obtain blanket permission to retransmit copyrighted material
on broadcast signals. The possible modification or elimination of this
compulsory copyright license is the subject of continuing legislative review and
could adversely affect the Partnership's ability to obtain desired broadcast
programming. In addition, the cable industry pays music licensing fees to BMI
and is

negotiating a similar arrangement with ASCAP. Copyright clearances for
nonbroadcast programming services are arranged through private negotiations.

State and Local Regulation. Cable television systems generally are
--------------------------
operated pursuant to nonexclusive franchises granted by a municipality or other
state or local government entity in order to cross public rights-of-way.
Federal law now prohibits franchise authorities from granting exclusive
franchises or from unreasonably refusing to award additional franchises. Cable
franchises generally are granted for fixed terms and in many cases include
monetary penalties for non-compliance and may be terminable if the franchisee
fails to comply with material provisions.

The terms and conditions of franchises vary materially from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each franchise generally contains provisions
governing cable operations, service rates, franchise fees, system construction
and maintenance obligations, system channel capacity, design and technical
performance, customer service standards, and indemnification protections. A
number of states subject cable television systems to the jurisdiction of
centralized state governmental agencies, some of which impose regulation of a
character similar to that of a public utility. Although LFAs have considerable
discretion in establishing franchise terms, there are certain federal
limitations. For example, LFAs cannot insist on franchise fees exceeding 5% of
the system's gross revenues, cannot dictate the particular technology used by
the system, and cannot specify video programming other than identifying broad
categories of programming.

Federal law contains renewal procedures designed to protect incumbent
franchisees against arbitrary denials of renewal. Even if a franchise is
renewed, the franchise authority may seek to impose new and more onerous
requirements such as significant upgrades in facilities and services or
increased franchise fees as a condition of renewal. Similarly, if a franchise
authority's consent is required for the purchase or sale of a cable system or
franchise, such authority may attempt to impose more burdensome or onerous
franchise requirements in connection with a request for consent. Historically,
franchises have been renewed for cable operators that have provided satisfactory
services and have complied with the terms of their franchises.

GENERAL. The Partnership's business consists of providing cable
television services to a large number of customers, the loss of any one of which
would have no material effect on the Partnership's business. The Roseville
System has had some subscribers who later terminated the service. Terminations
occur primarily because people move to another home or to another city. In
other cases, people terminate on a seasonal basis or because they no longer can
afford or are dissatisfied with the service. The amount of past due accounts in
the Roseville System is not significant. The Partnership's policy with regard
to past due accounts is basically one of disconnecting service before a past due
account becomes material.

The Partnership does not depend to any material extent on the
availability of raw materials; it carries no significant amounts of inventory
and it has no material backlog of customer orders. The Partnership does not
have any employees because all properties are managed by employees of the
Managing General Partner. Intercable has engaged in research and development
activities relating to the provision of new services but the amount of the
Partnership's funds expended for such research and development has never been
material.

Compliance with federal, state and local provisions that have been
enacted or adopted regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to the protection of the environment has had no material
effect upon the capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position of the
Partnership.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
-------------------

The Partnership acquired the Roseville System in April 1988. The
following sets forth (i) the monthly basic plus service rates charged to
subscribers and (ii) the number of basic subscribers and pay units for the
Roseville System. The monthly basic service rate set forth herein represents,
with respect to systems with multiple headends, the basic service rate charged
to the majority of the subscribers within the system. In cable television

systems, basic subscribers can subscribe to more than one pay TV service. Thus,
the total number of pay services subscribed to by basic subscribers are called
pay units. As of December 31, 1996, the Roseville System operated cable plant
passing approximately 23,300 homes, with an approximate 76% penetration rate.
Figures for numbers of subscribers, miles of cable plant and homes passed are
compiled from the Managing General Partner's records and may be subject to
adjustments.

At December 31,
-------------------------
ROSEVILLE SYSTEM 1996 1995 1994
- ---------------- ------- ------- -------

Monthly basic plus service rate $ 24.30 $ 22.95 $ 21.75
Basic subscribers 17,878 16,470 14,946
Pay units 10,975 11,153 10,733

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------

None.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------------

None.

PART II.
--------

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S COMMON STOCK
-------------------------------------------------
AND RELATED SECURITY HOLDER MATTERS
-----------------------------------

While the Partnership is publicly held, there is no public market for
the limited partnership interests, and it is not expected that a market will
develop in the future. As of February 14, 1997, the number of equity security
holders in the Partnership was 6,342.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data
- --------------------------------

For the Year Ended December 31,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Revenues $ 8,571,921 $14,465,490 $13,082,094 $12,251,764 $11,160,962
Operating Expenses 5,273,095 7,972,171 7,298,356 6,476,534 5,726,675
Management and Supervision Fees
and Allocated Overhead from
General Partners 1,060,130 1,848,033 1,737,106 1,590,738 1,452,321
Depreciation and Amortization 1,786,583 4,469,809 5,645,264 6,007,116 5,981,609
Operating Income (Loss) 452,113 175,477 (1,598,632) (1,822,624) (1,999,643)
Net Income (Loss) 20,760,774/(a)/ (1,553,063) (2,994,486) (2,879,606) (3,195,844)
Net Income (Loss) per
Limited Partnership Unit 124.98/(a)/ (9.37) (18.06) (17.36) (19.27)
Weighted Average Number of
Limited Partnership
Units Outstanding 164,178 164,178 164,178 164,178 164,178
General Partners' Deficit (3,356) (245,344) (229,814) (199,869) (171,073)
Limited Partners' Capital 2,464,357 11,945,571 13,483,104 16,447,645 19,298,455
Total Assets 12,727,595 36,160,374 36,683,823 39,507,610 43,454,780
Debt 9,850,000 22,981,227 21,832,052 22,208,312 23,086,835
Managing General Partner
Advances - 448,872 665,782 - 238,198

(a) Net income resulted primarily from the sale of the Carmel System by
IDS/Jones Growth Partners 87-A, Ltd.

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of Operations
- -------------

The following discussion of the financial condition and results of
operations of IDS/Jones Growth Partners 87-A, Ltd. (the "Partnership") contains,
in addition to historical information, forward-looking statements that are based
upon certain assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties.
The Partnership's actual results may differ significantly from the results
predicted in such forward-looking statements.

FINANCIAL CONDITION
- -------------------

It is the publicly announced policy of Jones Intercable, Inc.'s
("Intercable") that it intends to liquidate its managed limited partnerships,
including the Partnership, as opportunities for sales of partnership cable
television systems arise in the marketplace over the next several years. In
accordance with Intercable's policy, the Partnership's cable television system
serving the communities in and around Carmel, Indiana (the "Carmel System") was
sold in February 1996 and the Partnership has entered into an asset purchase
agreement to sell the cable television system serving the communities in and
around Roseville, California (the "Roseville System") to an unaffiliated third
party in the first half of 1997.

On October 14, 1996, the Partnership entered into an asset purchase
agreement pursuant to which it agreed to sell the Roseville System to an
unaffiliated party. The sales price is $30,900,000, subject to normal closing
adjustments. Closing of the sale is subject to several closing conditions,
including the approval of the holders of a majority of the limited partnership
interests in a vote of limited partners to be conducted in the first half of
1997. Upon closing of the sale of the Roseville System, the Partnership will pay
all of its indebtedness, which totaled $9,850,000 at December 31, 1996, a
brokerage fee of $386,250 to The Jones Group, Ltd., an affiliate of the Managing
General Partner and a brokerage fee of $386,250 to IDS Management Corporation,
an affiliate of the Supervising General Partner. For a period of one year
following the closing date, $1,550,000 of the sale proceeds will remain in
escrow as security for the Partnership's agreement to indemnify the purchaser
under the asset purchase agreement. Because the $1,550,000 will remain in escrow
for one year following the closing date, this portion of the net sales proceeds,
net of claims against such escrow, will not be distributed to limited partners
until 1998. The Partnership will distribute the approximate $18,727,500
remaining net proceeds to its limited partners. This distribution will give the
Partnership's limited partners an approximate return of $456 per $1,000 invested
in the Partnership. Taking into account the distribution made on the sale of the
Carmel System and the anticipated distribution to be made on the sale of the
Roseville System in 1997, the limited partners will have received a total of
$1,187 for each $1,000 invested in the Partnership. Because the limited partners
will receive total distributions that are less than 125 percent of their initial
capital contributions, the general partners of the Partnership will receive no
distributions from the sale of the Roseville System. Upon the completion of the
escrow period related to sale of the Roseville System, the Partnership will
distribute the remaining proceeds to limited partners, which, if no claims are
made against the escrow, would total approximately $38 for each $1,000 invested
in the Partnership and then the Partnership will be liquidated and dissolved.

On February 28, 1996, the Partnership sold the Carmel System to Jones Cable
Holdings, Inc. ("JCH"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercable, for a sales
price of $44,235,333. This price represented the average of three separate,
independent appraisals of the fair market value of the Carmel System. The
proceeds were used to repay the outstanding principal balance of the
Partnership's term loan of $22,655,000, and, together with funds borrowed from
the Partnership's new revolving credit facility, a $30,000,000 distribution was
made to the limited partners in April 1996. This distribution gave the
Partnership's limited partners an approximate return of $731 per $1,000 invested
in the Partnership.

Disregarding the effect of the Carmel System's operations, for 1996, the
Partnership reported operating income before depreciation and amortization of
approximately $1,987,368. The Partnership expended approximately $1,568,312 in
capital improvements during 1996. Of these improvements, approximately 65
percent related to the construction of cable television plant. Approximately 29
percent related to service drops to homes. The remaining expenditures related
to various system enhancements in the Partnership's system. Funding for these
expenditures was provided by cash generated from operations and borrowings
available under the Partnership's credit facility. Anticipated capital
expenditures for 1997 in the Partnership's Roseville System are approximately
$1,424,000. Construction of system extensions will account for approximately 55
percent of these expenditures. The remainder of the expenditures relate to
various enhancements in the Partnership's Roseville System. These capital
expenditures are necessary to maintain the value of the Roseville System until
it is sold. Funding for these expenditures is expected to be provided by cash
on hand and cash generated from operations and, if necessary, borrowings
available under the Partnership's credit facility, as discussed below.
Depending upon the timing of the closing of the sale of the Roseville System,
the Partnership likely will make only the portion of budgeted capital
expenditures scheduled to be made during the Partnership's continued ownership
of the Roseville System.

When the Partnership sold its Carmel System, it used a portion of the sales
proceeds to repay its term loan's then-outstanding principal balance of
$22,655,000. Also on February 28, 1996, the Partnership entered into a new
reducing revolving credit agreement with a commitment up to $10,000,000. The
reducing revolving credit period expires December 31, 2003. The commitment
amount reduces quarterly, beginning March 31, 1999. In April 1996, the
Partnership re-borrowed approximately $9,100,000 available from the new
$10,000,000 revolving credit facility, which it used, together with cash on hand
from the sale of the Carmel System, to fund a $30,000,000 distribution to the
Partnership's limited partners in April 1996. At December 31, 1996, the
Partnership had $9,850,000 outstanding under the credit facility, leaving
$150,000 available for future borrowings. Interest on the new commitment is at
the Partnership's option of the Prime Rate or the London Interbank Offering Rate
plus 1-1/4 percent. The effective interest rate on amounts outstanding were 6.77
percent and 6.91 percent at December 31, 1996 and 1995, respectively. The credit
facility will be repaid in full upon the sale of the Roseville System.

The Partnership believes that cash on hand and cash generated from operations
will be sufficient to fund capital expenditures and other liquidity needs of the
Partnership until the Roseville System is sold.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
- ---------------------

1996 Compared to 1995
---------------------

Revenues of the Partnership decreased $5,893,569, or approximately 41
percent, to $8,571,921 in 1996 from $14,465,490 in 1995. This decrease was due
to the sale of the Carmel System. Disregarding the effect of the Carmel System
sale, revenues increased $831,050, or approximately 13 percent, to $7,213,953 in
1996 from $6,382,903 in 1995. Increases in the number of basic service
subscribers in the Partnership's Roseville System accounted for approximately 54
percent of the increase in revenues. The number of basic service subscribers in
the Roseville System increased by 1,408 subscribers, or approximately 9 percent,
to 17,878 subscribers at December 31, 1996 from 16,470 subscribers for the
similar period in 1995. Basic service rate increases accounted for approximately
23 percent of the increase in revenues. No other single factor significantly
contributed to the increase in revenues.

Operating expenses consist primarily of costs associated with the operation
and administration of the Partnership's cable television systems. The principal
cost components are salaries paid to system personnel, programming expenses,
professional fees, subscriber billing costs, rent for leased facilities, cable
system maintenance expenses and marketing expenses.

Operating expenses decreased $2,699,076, or approximately 34 percent, to
$5,273,095 in 1996 from $7,972,171 in 1995. This decrease was due to the sale
of the Carmel System. Disregarding the effect of the Carmel System sale,
operating expenses increased $463,956, or approximately 12 percent, to
$4,335,837 for 1996 from $3,871,881 for 1995. This increase was primarily due
to increases in programming fees, which accounted for approximately 69 percent
of the increase. No other single factor significantly affected the increase in
operating expenses. Operating expenses represented 60 percent of revenues in
1996 and 61 percent in 1995.

Management and supervision fees and allocated overhead from the General
Partners decreased $787,903, or approximately 43 percent, to $1,060,130 in 1996
from $1,848,033 in 1995. This decrease was due to the sale of the Carmel
System. Disregarding the effect of the Carmel System sale, management and
supervision fees and allocated overhead from the General Partners increased
$75,587, or approximately 9 percent, to $890,748 in 1996 from $815,161 in 1995.
This increase was due to the increase in revenues, upon which such fees and
allocations are based.

Depreciation and amortization expense decreased $2,683,226, or
approximately 60 percent, to $1,786,583 in 1996 from $4,469,809 in 1995. This
decrease was due to the sale of the Carmel System. Disregarding the effect of
the Carmel System sale, depreciation and amortization expense decreased
$378,043, or approximately 22 percent, to $1,340,395 in 1996 from $1,718,438 in
1995. This decrease was due to the maturation of the Partnership's asset base.

Operating income increased $276,636, to $452,113 in 1996 compared to
$175,477 in 1995. This change was primarily due to the decrease in depreciation
and amortization expense.

The cable television industry generally measures the financial performance
of a cable television system in terms of operating income before depreciation
and amortization. This measure is not intended to be a substitute or improvement
upon the items disclosed on the financial statements, rather it is included
because it is an industry standard. Operating

income before depreciation and amortization decreased $2,406,590, or
approximately 52 percent, to $2,238,696 in 1996 from $4,645,286 for 1995. This
decrease was due to the sale of the Carmel System. Disregarding the effect of
the Carmel System sale, operating income before depreciation and amortization
increased $291,507, or approximately 17 percent, to $1,987,368 in 1996 from
$1,695,861 in 1995. This increase was due to the increase in revenues exceeding
the increases in operating expenses and management and supervision fees and
allocated overhead from the General Partners.

Interest expense decreased $983,277, or approximately 57 percent, to
$749,270 in 1996 from $1,732,547 in 1995. This decrease in interest expense was
primarily due to the lower outstanding balance on the Partnership's interest
bearing obligation, as a result of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of
the Carmel System being used to repay the outstanding loan principal balance of
$22,655,000 on February 28, 1996.

The Partnership reported a gain on the sale of the Carmel System of
$21,096,325 in 1996. No such gain was reported in 1995.

The Partnership reported net income of $20,760,774 in 1996 compared to a
net loss of $1,553,063 for 1995. The net income in 1996 was a result of the
gain on the sale of the Carmel System.

1995 Compared to 1994
---------------------

Revenues of the Partnership increased $1,383,396, or approximately 11
percent, to $14,465,490 in 1995 from $13,082,094 in 1994. An increase in basic
subscribers accounted for approximately 49 percent of the increase in revenues.
Basic subscribers totaled 35,669 at December 31, 1995 compared to 33,102 at
December 31, 1994, an increase of 2,567, or approximately 8 percent.
Advertising revenues accounted for approximately 27 percent of the increase in
revenues. No other individual factor significantly affected the increase in
revenues.

Operating expenses increased $673,815, or approximately 9 percent, to
$7,972,171 in 1995 from $7,298,356 in 1994. Operating expenses consumed 55
percent and 56 percent of revenue during the years ended December 31, 1995 and
1994, respectively. The increase in operating expenses was primarily due to
increases in programming fees, which accounted for approximately 71 percent of
the increase. No other individual factor significantly affected the increase in
operating expenses.

Management and supervision fees and allocated overhead from the General
Partners increased $110,927, or approximately 6 percent, to $1,848,033 in 1995
from $1,737,106 in 1994. This increase was due to the increase in revenues,
upon which such management and supervision fees are based, as well as increases
in allocated expenses from the Managing General Partner.

Depreciation and amortization decreased $1,175,455, or approximately 21
percent, to $4,469,809 in 1995 from $5,645,264 in 1994. This decrease was due
to the maturation of the Partnership's intangible asset base.

The Partnership recorded operating income of $175,477 in 1995, compared to
an operating loss of $1,598,632 in 1994. This change was a result of the
increase in revenues and the decrease in depreciation and amortization expense
exceeding the increases in operating expenses, management and supervision fees
and allocated overhead from the General Partners.

Operating income before depreciation and amortization expenses increased
$598,654, or approximately 15 percent, to $4,645,286 in 1995 from $4,046,632 in
1994 due to the increase in revenues exceeding the increase in operating
expenses and management and supervision fees and allocated overhead from the
General Partners.

Interest expense increased $358,591, or approximately 26 percent, to
$1,732,547 in 1995 from $1,373,956 in 1994. This increase was due primarily to
higher outstanding balances on interest bearing obligations during 1995.

Net loss decreased $1,441,423, or approximately 48 percent, to $1,553,063
in 1995 from $2,994,486 in 1994. These losses were due to the factors discussed
above.

Item 8. Financial Statements
- -----------------------------

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
------------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
--------------------

AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND 1995
--------------------------------

INDEX
-----

Page
----

Report of Independent Public Accountants 17

Balance Sheets 18

Statements of Operations 20

Statements of Partners' Capital (Deficit) 21

Statements of Cash Flows 22

Notes to Financial Statements 23

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
----------------------------------------

To the Partners of IDS/Jones Growth Partners 87-A, Ltd.:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of IDS/JONES GROWTH
PARTNERS 87-A, LTD. (a Colorado limited partnership) as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related statements of operations, partners' capital (deficit) and
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the General Partners'
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the financial position of IDS/Jones Growth Partners
87-A, Ltd. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the results of its operations
and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1996, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Denver, Colorado,
March 7, 1997.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
------------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

BALANCE SHEETS
--------------

December 31,
--------------------------
ASSETS 1996 1995
------ ----------- ------------

CASH $ 478,797 $ 557,506

TRADE RECEIVABLES, less allowance for
doubtful receivables of $32,637 and $24,428
at December 31, 1996 and 1995, respectively 373,301 623,890

INVESTMENT IN CABLE TELEVISION PROPERTIES:
Property, plant and equipment, at cost 16,234,764 35,421,532
Less- accumulated depreciation (7,195,326) (15,195,244)
----------- ------------

9,039,438 20,226,288
Franchise costs and other intangible assets, net of
accumulated amortization of $12,551,102 and
$24,675,391 at December 31, 1996 and 1995,
respectively 2,650,448 14,397,338
----------- ------------

Total investment in cable television properties 11,689,886 34,623,626

DEPOSITS AND PREPAID EXPENSES 185,611 355,352
----------- ------------

Total assets $12,727,595 $ 36,160,374
=========== ============

The accompanying notes to financial statements
are an integral part of these balance sheets.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
------------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

BALANCE SHEETS
--------------

LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' CAPITAL (DEFICIT)
-------------------------------------------

December 31,
----------------------------
LIABILITIES: 1996 1995
------------ ------------

Debt $ 9,850,000 $ 22,981,227
Accounts payable-Managing General Partner 43,813 448,872
Trade accounts payable and accrued liabilities 349,695 984,610
Subscriber prepayments 23,086 45,438
------------ ------------

Total liabilities 10,266,594 24,460,147
------------ ------------

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (NOTE 7)

PARTNERS' CAPITAL (DEFICIT):
General Partners-
Contributed capital 500 500
Accumulated deficit (3,856) (245,844)
------------ ------------

(3,356) (245,344)
------------ ------------

Limited Partners-
Net contributed capital
(164,178 units outstanding at
December 31, 1996 and 1995) 35,824,200 35,824,200
Accumulated deficit (3,359,843) (23,878,629)
Distributions (30,000,000) -
------------ ------------

2,464,357 11,945,571
------------ ------------

Total liabilities and partners' capital $ 12,727,595 $ 36,160,374
============ ============

The accompanying notes to financial statements
are an integral part of these balance sheets.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
------------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
------------------------

Year Ended December 31,
----------------------------------------
1996 1995 1994
----------- ----------- -----------

REVENUES $ 8,571,921 $14,465,490 $13,082,094

COSTS AND EXPENSES:
Operating expenses 5,273,095 7,972,171 7,298,356
Management and supervision
fees and allocated overhead
from General Partners 1,060,130 1,848,033 1,737,106
Depreciation and
amortization 1,786,583 4,469,809 5,645,264
----------- ----------- -----------

OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 452,113 175,477 (1,598,632)
----------- ----------- -----------

OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
Interest expense (749,270) (1,732,547) (1,373,956)
Gain on sale of cable television system 21,096,325 - -
Other, net (38,394) 4,007 (21,898)
----------- ----------- -----------

Total other income
(expense) 20,308,661 (1,728,540) (1,395,854)
----------- ----------- -----------

NET INCOME (LOSS) $20,760,774 $(1,553,063) $(2,994,486)
=========== =========== ===========

ALLOCATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS):
General Partners $ 241,988 $ (15,530) $ (29,945)
=========== =========== ===========

Limited Partners $20,518,786 $(1,537,533) $(2,964,541)
=========== =========== ===========

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP UNIT $ 124.98 $ (9.37) $ (18.06)
=========== =========== ===========

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP UNITS OUTSTANDING 164,178 164,178 164,178
=========== =========== ===========

The accompanying notes to financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
------------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' CAPITAL (DEFICIT)
-----------------------------------------

Year Ended December 31,
----------------------------------------
1996 1995 1994
----------- ----------- -----------

GENERAL PARTNERS:
Jones Cable Corporation
Balance, beginning of year $ (122,672) $ (114,907) $ (99,935)
Net income (loss) for year 120,994 (7,765) (14,972)
----------- ----------- -----------

Balance, end of year $ (1,678) $ (122,672) $ (114,907)
=========== =========== ===========

IDS Cable Corporation
Balance, beginning of year $ (122,672) $ (114,907) $ (99,934)
Net income (loss) for year 120,994 (7,765) (14,973)
----------- ----------- -----------

Balance, end of year $ (1,678) $ (122,672) $ (114,907)
=========== =========== ===========

Total
Balance, beginning of year $ (245,344) $ (229,814) $ (199,869)
Net income (loss) for year 241,988 (15,530) (29,945)
----------- ----------- -----------

Balance, end of year $ (3,356) $ (245,344) $ (229,814)
=========== =========== ===========

LIMITED PARTNERS:
Balance, beginning of year $11,945,571 $13,483,104 $16,447,645
Distributions (30,000,000) - -
Net income (loss) for year 20,518,786 (1,537,533) (2,964,541)
----------- ----------- -----------

Balance, end of year $ 2,464,357 $11,945,571 $13,483,104
=========== =========== ===========

The accompanying notes to financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
-----------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
------------------------

Year Ended December 31
-----------------------------------------

1996 1995 1994
------------ ------------ ------------

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net income (loss) $ 20,760,774 $(1,553,063) $(2,994,486)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to
net cash provided by operating
activities:
Depreciation and amortization 1,786,583 4,469,809 5,645,264
Gain on sale of cable television system (21,096,325) - -
Amortization of interest rate protection contract - 33,336 33,336
Decrease (increase) in trade receivables 250,589 (125,374) (177,629)
Decrease (increase) in deposits and prepaid expenses (253,798) (129,790) 41,383
Increase (decrease) in trade accounts
payable and accrued liabilities and
subscriber prepayments (657,267) 97,349 (118,823)
Increase (decrease) in amount due
Managing General Partner (405,059) (216,910) 665,782
------------ ----------- -----------
Net cash provided by operating
activities 385,497 2,575,357 3,094,827
------------ ----------- -----------
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Purchase of property and equipment, net (1,568,312) (3,573,252) (3,174,865)
Franchise renewal costs - (1,384) (105,508)
Proceeds from sale of cable television system 44,235,333 - -
------------ ----------- -----------
Net cash provided by (used in) investing
activities 42,667,021 (3,574,636) (3,280,373)
------------ ----------- -----------
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Proceeds from borrowings 9,895,965 1,398,225 36,298
Repayment of debt (23,027,192) (249,050) (412,558)
Distribution to Limited Partners (30,000,000) - -
------------ ----------- -----------
Net cash provided by (used in) financing
activities (43,131,227) 1,149,175 (376,260)
------------ ----------- -----------

Increase (decrease) in cash (78,709) 149,896 (561,806)

Cash, beginning of year 557,506 407,610 969,416
------------ ----------- -----------

Cash, end of year $ 478,797 $ 557,506 $ 407,610
============ =========== ===========
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DISCLOSURE:
Interest paid $ 900,250 $ 1,690,619 $ 1,256,215
============ =========== ===========

The accompanying notes to financial statements
are an integral part of these statements.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS 87-A, LTD.
-----------------------------------
(A Limited Partnership)

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
-----------------------------

(1) ORGANIZATION AND PARTNERS' INTERESTS
------------------------------------

Formation and Business
----------------------

IDS/Jones Growth Partners 87-A, Ltd. (the "Partnership"), a Colorado
limited partnership, was formed on September 15, 1987, pursuant to a public
offering. The Partnership was formed to acquire, develop and operate cable
television systems. Jones Cable Corporation, a Colorado corporation, is the
"Managing General Partner" and manager of the Partnership. IDS Cable
Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, is the "Supervising General Partner".
Jones Intercable, Inc. ("Intercable"), the parent of Jones Cable Corporation,
manages the cable television systems owned by the Partnership. Intercable and
its subsidiaries also own and operate cable television systems as well as manage
cable television systems for other limited partnerships for which it is general
partner and, also, for affiliated entities.

Cable Television System Acquisitions
------------------------------------

In 1988, the Partnership acquired the cable television system serving the
communities in and around Roseville, California (the "Roseville System") and, in
1989, the Partnership acquired the cable television system serving the
communities in and around Carmel, Indiana (the "Carmel System"). The Carmel
System was sold in February 1996 and the Partnership has entered into an asset
purchase agreement to sell the Roseville System during the first half of 1997.

Cable Television System Sales
-----------------------------

On February 28, 1996, the Partnership sold the Carmel System to Jones Cable
Holdings, Inc. ("JCH"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercable, for a sales
price of $44,235,333. This price represented the average of three separate,
independent appraisals of the fair market value of the Carmel System. The
proceeds were used to repay the outstanding principal balance on the
Partnership's term loan of $22,655,000, and, together with funds borrowed from
the Partnership's new revolving credit facility, a $30,000,000 distribution was
made to the limited partners in April 1996. This distribution gave the
Partnership's limited partners an approximate return of $731 per $1,000 invested
in the Partnership.

Contributed Capital
-------------------

The capitalization of the Partnership is set forth in the accompanying
statements of partners' capital (deficit). No limited partner is obligated to
make any additional contribution to partnership capital.

The Managing General Partner and the Supervising General Partner purchased
their interests in the Partnership by contributing $250 each to partnership
capital.

All profits and losses of the Partnership are allocated 99 percent to the
limited partners, 1/2 percent to the Managing General Partner and 1/2 percent to
the Supervising General Partner, except for income or gain from the sale or
disposition of cable television properties, which will be allocated to the
partners based upon the formula set forth in the Partnership's partnership
agreement and interest income earned prior to the first acquisition by the
Partnership of a cable television system, which was allocated 100 percent to the
limited partners.

(2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
------------------------------------------

Accounting Records
------------------

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared on the accrual
basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
The Partnership's tax returns are also prepared on the accrual basis.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles requires the Managing General Partner's
management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at
the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.

Purchase Price Allocation
-------------------------

Cable television system acquisitions were accounted for as purchases with
the purchase price allocated to tangible and intangible assets based upon an
independent appraisal. The method of allocation of the purchase price was as
follows: first, to the fair value of the net tangible assets acquired; second to
the value of subscriber lists and any non-compete agreements; third, to
franchise costs; and fourth, to costs in excess of interests in net assets
purchased. Acquisition fees paid to affiliates of the general partners and other
system acquisition costs were capitalized and included in the costs of
intangible assets.

Property, Plant and Equipment
-----------------------------

Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over the following
estimated service lives:

Cable distribution systems 5 - 15 years
Equipment and tools 3 - 5 years
Office furniture and equipment 5 years
Buildings 10 - 20 years
Vehicles 3 years

Replacements, renewals and improvements are capitalized and maintenance and
repairs are charged to expense as incurred.

Intangible Assets
-----------------

Costs assigned to franchises, subscriber lists and costs in excess of
interests in net assets purchased are amortized using the straight-line method
over the following remaining estimated useful lives:

Franchise costs 1 - 11 years
Subscriber lists 1 year
Costs in excess of interests
in net assets purchased 32 years

Revenue Recognition
-------------------

Subscriber prepayments are initially deferred and recognized as revenue
when earned.

Reclassifications
-----------------

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 1996
presentation.

(3) TRANSACTIONS WITH THE GENERAL PARTNERS AND AFFILIATES
-----------------------------------------------------

Management Fees, Supervision Fees, Distribution Ratios and Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Managing General Partner manages the Partnership and receives a fee for
its services equal to 5 percent of the gross revenues of the Partnership,
excluding revenues from the sale of cable television systems or franchises.
Management fees paid to the Managing General Partner were $428,596, $723,275 and
$654,105 during 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.

The Supervising General Partner participates in certain management
decisions of the Partnership and receives a fee for its services equal to 1/2
percent of the gross revenues of the Partnership, excluding revenues from the
sale of cable television systems or franchises. Supervision fees paid to the
Supervising General Partner during the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and
1994 were $42,860, $72,327 and $65,410, respectively.

The Partnership reimburses Intercable for certain allocated overhead and
administrative expenses. These expenses represent the salaries and related
benefits paid for corporate personnel, rent, data processing services and other
corporate facilities costs. Such personnel provide engineering, marketing,
administrative, accounting, legal and investor relations services to the
Partnership. Such services, and their related costs, are necessary to the
operation of the Partnership and would have been incurred by the Partnership if
it was a stand alone entity. Allocations of personnel costs are based primarily
on actual time spent by employees of Intercable with respect to each partnership
managed. Remaining overhead costs are allocated based on the pro rata
relationship of the Partnership's revenues to the total revenues of all systems
owned or managed by Intercable and certain of its affiliates. Systems owned by
Intercable and all other systems owned by partnerships for which Intercable is
the general partner are also allocated a proportionate share of these expenses.
The Managing General Partner believes that the methodology used in allocating
overhead and administrative expense is reasonable. Reimbursements made to
Intercable by the Partnership for allocated overhead and administrative expenses
were $588,674, $1,052,431 and $1,017,591 for 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.
The Supervising General Partner may also be reimbursed for certain expenses
incurred on behalf of the Partnership. There were no reimbursements made to the
Supervising General Partner by the Partnership for allocated overhead and
administrative expenses during the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994.

The Partnership was charged interest by Intercable during 1996 at an
average interest rate of 8.58 percent on amounts due to the Managing General
Partner, which approximated Intercable's weighted average cost of borrowing.
Total interest charged to the Partnership by Intercable was $1,864, $25,456 and
$19,296 in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.

Payments to/from Affiliates for Programming Services
----------------------------------------------------

The Partnership receives programming from Superaudio, Jones Education
Company, Great American Country, Inc. and Product Information Network, all of
which are affiliates of the Managing General Partner.

Payments to Superaudio totaled approximately $12,464, $19,486 and $19,257
in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively. Payments to Jones Education Company
totaled $39,838, $46,778 and $22,017 in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.
Payments to Great American Country, Inc., which initiated service in 1996,
totaled $14,806 in 1996.

The Partnership receives a commission from Product Information Network
based on a percentage of advertising revenue and number of subscribers. Product
Information Network paid commissions to the Partnership totaling $22,820,
$29,029 and $12,236 in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively.

(4) PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
-----------------------------

Property, plant and equipment as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, consists of
the following:

December 31,
--------------------------

1996 1995
----------- ------------

Cable distribution systems $15,376,046 $ 32,857,826
Equipment and tools 438,674 1,180,288
Office furniture and equipment 232,915 596,016
Buildings 9,060 72,415
Vehicles 176,069 712,987
Land 2,000 2,000
----------- ------------
16,234,764 35,421,532

Less - accumulated depreciation (7,195,326) (15,195,244)
----------- ------------

$ 9,039,438 $ 20,226,288
=========== ============

(5) DEBT
----

Debt consists of the following: December 31,
--------------------------

1996 1995
----------- ------------

Lending institutions -
Revolving credit agreement $ 9,850,000 $ -
Term loan - 22,827,500
Capital lease obligations - 153,727
----------- ------------

$ 9,850,000 $ 22,981,227
=========== ============

As discussed in Note (1), on February 28, 1996, the Partnership sold its
Carmel System and used a portion of the sales proceeds to repay the then-
outstanding term loan principal balance of $22,655,000. Also, on February 28,
1996, the Partnership entered into a new reducing revolving credit agreement
with a commitment up to $10,000,000. The reducing revolving credit period
expires December 31, 2003. The commitment amount reduces quarterly, beginning
March 31, 1999. At December 31, 1996, the outstanding balance under the
Partnership's revolving credit facility was $9,850,000. Installments due on debt
principal for each of the five years in the period ending December 31, 2001 and
thereafter, respectively, are: $-0-, $-0-, $850,000, $1,500,000, $2,000,000 and
$5,500,000. All outstanding indebtedness is expected to be repaid upon the sale
of the Roseville System. Interest on the new commitment is at the Partnership's
option of the Prime Rate or the London Interbank Offering Rate plus 1-1/4
percent. The effective interest rates on amounts outstanding were 6.77 percent
and 6.91 percent at December 31, 1996 and 1995, respectively.

At December 31, 1996, the carrying amount of the Partnership's long-term
debt did not differ significantly from the estimated fair value of the financial
instruments. The fair value of the Partnership's long-term debt is estimated
based on the discounted amount of future debt service payments using rates of
borrowing for a liability of similar risk.

At December 31, 1996, substantially all of the Partnership's property,
plant and equipment secured the above indebtedness.

(6) INCOME TAXES
------------

Income taxes have not been recorded in the accompanying financial
statements because they accrue directly to the partners. The federal and state
income tax returns of the Partnership are prepared and filed by the Managing
General Partner.

The Partnership's tax returns, the qualification of the Partnership as such
for tax purposes, and the amount of distributable Partnership income or loss are
subject to examination by federal and state taxing authorities. If such
examinations result in changes with respect to the Partnership's qualification
as such, or in changes with respect to the Partnership's recorded income or
loss, the tax liability of the general and limited partners would likely be
changed accordingly.

Taxable losses reported to the partners is different from that reported in
the statements of operations due to the difference in depreciation allowed under
generally accepted accounting principles and the expense allowed for tax
purposes under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS). There are
no other significant differences between taxable loss and the net loss reported
in the statements of operations.

(7) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
-----------------------------

Office and other facilities are rented under various long-term lease
arrangements. Rent paid under such lease arrangements totaled $124,949,
$159,083 and $152,323, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995
and 1994. Minimum commitments under operating leases for each of the five years
in the period ended December 31, 2001 and thereafter are as follows:

1997 $19,343
1998 -
1999 -
2000 -
2001 -
Thereafter -
-------

$19,343
=======

(8) SUPPLEMENTARY PROFIT AND LOSS INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------

Supplementary profit and loss information is presented below:

Year Ended December 31,
----------------------------------

1996 1995 1994
---------- ---------- ----------

Maintenance and repairs $ 61,416 $ 133,002 $ 135,550
========== ========== ==========

Taxes, other than income and payroll taxes $ 327,504 $ 397,118 $ 364,608
========== ========== ==========

Advertising $ 66,135 $ 141,988 $ 95,760
========== ========== ==========

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment $1,317,776 $2,529,591 $2,277,171
========== ========== ==========

Amortization of intangible assets $ 468,807 $1,940,218 $3,368,093
========== ========== ==========

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON
---------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
-----------------------------------

None.

PART III.
---------

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
------------------------------------------------------------

The Partnership itself has no officers or directors. Certain
information concerning the directors and executive officers of the Managing
General Partner is set forth below. Directors of the Managing General Partner
serve until the next annual meeting of the Managing General Partner and until
their successors shall be elected and qualified.

Name Age Positions with the Managing General Partner
- ---- --- -------------------------------------------

Glenn R. Jones 67 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
James B. O'Brien 47 President
Kevin P. Coyle 45 Vice President of Finance
Elizabeth M. Steele 45 Vice President and Secretary

Mr. Glenn R. Jones has been Chairman of the Board of the Managing
General Partner since its formation in October 1986. Mr. Jones served as
President of the Managing General Partner until September of 1990 at which time
he was elected Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Jones has served as Chairman of
the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Jones Intercable, Inc.
since its formation in 1970, and he was President from June 1984 until April
1988. Mr. Jones is the sole shareholder, President and Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Jones International, Ltd. He is also Chairman of the Board of
Directors of several affiliates of the Managing General Partner. Mr. Jones has
been involved in the cable television business in various capacities since 1961,
is a member of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee of the
National Cable Television Association. Additionally, Mr. Jones is a member of
the Board of Governors for the American Society for Training and Development,
and a member of the Board of Education Council of the National Alliance of
Business. Mr. Jones is also a founding member of the James Madison Council of
the Library of Congress. Mr. Jones has been the recipient of several awards
including the Grand Tam Award in 1989, the highest award from the Cable
Television Administration and Marketing Society; the President's Award from the
Cable Television Public Affairs Association in recognition of Jones
International's educational efforts through Mind Extension University (now
Knowledge TV); the Donald G. McGannon Award for the advancement of minorities
and women in cable from the United Church of Christ Office of Communications;
the STAR Award from American Women in Radio and Television, Inc. for exhibition
of a commitment to the issues and concerns of women in television and radio; the
Cableforce 2000 Accolade awarded by Women in Cable in recognition of Jones
Intercable, Inc.'s innovative employee programs; the Most Outstanding Corporate
Individual Achievement Award from the International Distance Learning Conference
for his contributions to distance education; the Golden Plate Award from the
American Academy of Achievement for his advances in distance education; the Man
of the Year named by the Denver chapter of the Achievement Rewards for College
Scientists; and in 1994 Mr. Jones was inducted into Broadcasting and Cable's
Hall of Fame.

Mr. James B. O'Brien was elected President of the Managing General
Partner in September of 1990. Mr. O'Brien joined Jones Intercable, Inc. in
January 1982. Mr. O'Brien was elected President and a Director of Jones
Intercable, Inc. in December 1989. Prior to being elected President and a
Director of Jones Intercable, Inc., Mr. O'Brien served as a Division Manager,
Director of Operations Planning/Assistant to the CEO, Fund Vice President and
Group Vice President/Operations. Mr. O'Brien was appointed to the Jones
Intercable, Inc. Executive Committee in August 1993. As President, he is
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the cable television systems
managed and owned by Jones Intercable, Inc. Mr. O'Brien is a board member of
Cable Labs,

Inc., the research arm of the cable television industry. He also serves as a
director of the Cable Television Administration and Marketing Association and as
a director of the Walter Kaitz Foundation, a foundation that places people of
any ethnic minority group in positions with cable television systems, networks
and vendor companies.

Mr. Kevin P. Coyle was elected Vice President of Finance of the
Managing General Partner in February 1989. Mr. Coyle is the principal financial
and accounting officer of the Managing General Partner. Mr. Coyle joined The
Jones Group, Ltd. in July 1981 as Vice President/Financial Services. He was
elected Treasurer of Jones Intercable, Inc. in August 1987, Vice
President/Treasurer in April 1988 and Group Vice President/Finance in October
1990.

Ms. Elizabeth M. Steele has served as Secretary of the Managing
General Partner since August 1987 and Vice President since February 1989. Ms.
Steele joined Jones Intercable, Inc. in August 1987 as Vice President/General
Counsel and Secretary. From August 1980 until joining Jones Intercable, Inc.,
Ms. Steele was an associate and then a partner at the Denver law firm of Davis,
Graham & Stubbs, which serves as counsel to Jones Intercable, Inc.

Certain information concerning directors and executive officers of the
Supervising General Partner is set forth below. Directors of the Supervising
General Partner serve until the next annual meeting of the Supervising General
Partner and until their successors shall be elected and qualified.

Name Age Positions with the Supervising General Partner
- ---- --- ----------------------------------------------

Janis E. Miller 44 President and Director
Morris Goodwin, Jr. 44 Vice President, Treasurer and Director
Lori J. Larson 37 Vice President and Director
Ronald W. Powell 51 Vice President
Bradley C. Nelson 31 Vice President
John M. Knight 43 Vice President

Ms. Janis E. Miller has served as Vice President of Variable Assets of
American Express Financial Corporation since December 1993. From June 1990 to
November 1993, Ms. Miller held the position of Vice President of Mutual
Funds/Limited Partnership Product Development and Marketing with American
Express Financial Corporation.

Mr. Morris Goodwin, Jr. has served as Vice President and Treasurer of
American Express Financial Corporation since July 1989. From January 1988 to
July 1989, he had been the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of IDS Bank &
Trust Company. From January 1980 to January 1988, he was a Vice President with
Morgan Stanley, an investment banking business headquartered in New York.

Ms. Lori J. Larson has been employed by American Express Financial
Corporation since 1981 and currently holds the title of Vice President. Since
August 1988, she has been responsible for day-to-day management of vendor
relationships, due diligence review, and operational aspects for various limited
partnerships distributed by American Express Financial Advisors Inc. In
addition, Ms. Larson is responsible for product development of the publicly
offered mutual funds in the IDS Mutual Fund Group.

Mr. Ronald W. Powell has held the position of Vice President and
Assistant General Counsel with American Express Financial Corporation since
November 1985. He has been a member of the American Express Financial
Corporation law department since 1975.

Mr. Bradley C. Nelson joined American Express Financial Corporation in
1991 as an Investment Department analyst following his graduation from Cornell
University's Johnson Graduate School of Management where he earned an MBA with a
concentration in finance.

Inc., the research arm of the cable television industry. He also serves as Vice
Chairman and a director of the Cable Television Administration and Marketing
Association and as a director and member of the Executive Committee of the
Walter Kaitz Foundation, a foundation that places people of any ethnic minority
group in positions with cable television systems, networks and vendor companies.

Mr. Kevin P. Coyle was elected Vice President of Finance of the
Managing General Partner in February 1989. Mr. Coyle is the principal financial
and accounting officer of the Managing General Partner. Mr. Coyle joined The
Jones Group, Ltd. in July 1981 as Vice President/Financial Services. He was
elected Treasurer of Jones Intercable, Inc. in August 1987, Vice President/
Treasurer in April 1988 and Group Vice President/Finance in October 1990.

Ms. Elizabeth M. Steele has served as Secretary of the Managing General
Partner since August 1987 and Vice President since February 1989. Ms. Steele
joined Jones Intercable, Inc. in August 1987 as Vice President/General Counsel
and Secretary. From August 1980 until joining Jones Intercable, Inc., Ms. Steele
was an associate and then a partner at the Denver law firm of Davis, Graham &
Stubbs, which serves as counsel to Jones Intercable, Inc.

Name Age Positions with the Supervising General
- ---- --- --------------------------------------

Lori J. Larson 37 President and Director
Morris Goodwin, Jr. 45 Vice President, Treasurer and Director
Bradley C. Nelson 32 Vice President
Ronald W. Powell 52 Vice President
John M. Knight 44 Vice President

Ms. Lori J. Larson has been employed by American Express Financial
Corporation since 1981 and currently holds the title of President. Since
August 1988, she has been responsible for day-to-day management of vendor
relationships, due diligence review, and operational aspects for various limited
partnerships distributed by American Express Financial Advisors Inc. In
addition, Ms. Larson is responsible for product development of the publicly
offered mutual funds in the IDS Mutual Fund Group.

Mr. Ronald W. Powell has held the position of Vice President and Vice
President and Assistant General Counsel with American Express Financial
Corporation since November 1985. He has been a member of the American Express
Financial Corporation law department since 1975.

Intercable, the parent of the Managing General Partner, also advances
funds and charges interest on the balance payable from the Partnership. The
interest rate charged the Partnership approximates Intercable's weighted average
cost of borrowing.

TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES

Jones Education Company ("JEC") is owned 63% by Jones International,
Ltd. ("International"), an affiliate of the General Partner, 9% by Glenn R.
Jones, 12% by Bell Canada International Inc. ("BCI") and 16% by the General
Partner. JEC operates two television networks, JEC Knowledge TV and Jones
Computer Network. JEC Knowledge TV provides programming related to computers
and technology; business, careers and finance; health and wellness; and global
culture and languages. Jones Computer Network provides programming focused
primarily on computers and technology. JEC sells its programming to certain
cable television systems owned or managed by Intercable.

The Great American Country network provides country music video
programming to certain cable television systems owned or managed by Intercable.
This network is owned and operated by Great American Country, Inc., a subsidiary
of Jones International Networks, Ltd., an affiliate of International.

Jones Galactic Radio, Inc. is a company now owned by Jones
International Networks, Ltd., an affiliate of International. Superaudio, a
joint venture between Jones Galactic Radio, Inc. and an unaffiliated entity,
provides satellite programming to certain cable television systems owned or
managed by Intercable.

The Product Information Network Venture (the "PIN Venture") is a
venture among a subsidiary of Jones International Networks, Ltd., an affiliate
of International, and two unaffiliated cable system operators. The PIN Venture
operates the Product Information Network ("PIN"), which is a 24-hour network
that airs long-form advertising generally known as "infomercials." The PIN
Venture generally makes incentive payments of approximately 60% of its net
advertising revenue to the cable systems that carry its programming. Most of
Intercable's owned and managed systems carry PIN for all or part of each day.
Revenues received by the Partnership from the PIN Venture relating to the
Roseville System totaled approximately $22,820 for the year ended December 31,
1996.

The charges to the Partnership for related party transactions are as
follows for the periods indicated:

For the Year Ended December 31,
-------------------------------
1996 1995 1994
-------- ---------- -------

Management fees $428,596 $ 723,275 $ 654,105
Supervision fees 42,860 72,327 65,410
Allocation of expenses 588,674 1,052,431 1,017,591
Interest expense 2,275 25,456 29,296
Amount of advances outstanding 43,813 448,872 665,782
Highest amount of advances outstanding 647,012 448,872 665,782
Programming fees:
Jones Education Company 39,838 46,778 22,017
Great American Country 14,806 0 0
Superaudio 12,464 19,486 19,257

TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES

Jones Education Company ("JEC") is owned 63% by Jones International,
Ltd. {"International"), an affiliate of the General Partner, 9% by Glenn R.
Jones, 12% by Bell Canada International Inc. ("BCI") and 16% by the General
Partner. JEC operates two television networks, JEC Knowledge TV and Jones
Computer Network. JEC Knowledge TV provides programming related to computers and
technology; business, careers and finance; health and wellness; and global
culture and languages. Jones Computer Network provides programming focused
primarily on computers and technology. JEC sells its programming to certain
cable television systems owned or managed by Intercable.

The Product Information Network Venture ("PIN Venture") is a venture
among a subsidiary of Jones International Networks, Ltd., an affiliate of
International, and two unaffiliated cable system operators. The PIN Venture
operates the Product Information Network ("PIN"), which is a 24-hour network
that airs long-form advertising generally know as "infomercials." The PIN
Venture generally makes incentive payments of approximately 60% of its net
advertising revenue to the cable systems that carry its programming. Most of
Intercable's owned and managed systems carry PIN for all of part of each day.
Revenues received by the Partnership from the PIN Venture relating to the
Roseville Systems totaled approximately $22,820 for the year ended December 31,
1996.

The charges to the Partnership for related party transactions are as
follows for the periods indicated:

For the Year Ended December 31,
-------------------------------
1996 1995 1994
------- --------- -------

Management fees $428,596 $ 723,275 $ 654,105
Supervision fees 42,860 72,327 65,410
Allocation of expenses 588,674 1,052,431 1,017,591
Interest expense 1,864 25,456 29,296
Amount of advances outstanding 43,813 448,872 665,782
Highest amount of advances outstanding 647,012 448,872 665,782
Programming fees:
Jones Education Company 39,838 46,778 22,017
Great American Country 14,806 0 0
Superaudio 12,464 19,486 19,257

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

IDS/JONES GROWTH PARTNERS
87-A, LTD.,
a Colorado limited partnership
By Jones Cable Corporation,
its Managing General Partner

By:______________________________
Glenn R. Jones
Chairman of the Board and
Dated: March 24, 1997 Chief Executive Officer

By IDS Cable Corporation,
its Supervising General Partner

By:_____________________________
Lori J. Larson
Dated: March 24, 1997 President and Director

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF JONES CABLE CORPORATION:

By:_______________________________
Glenn R. Jones
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
Dated: March 24, 1997 (Principal Executive Officer)

By:_______________________________
Kevin P. Coyle
Vice President/Finance
(Principal Financial and
Dated: March 24, 1997 Accounting Officer)

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF IDS CABLE CORPORATION:

By:_______________________________
Lori J. Larsen
President and Director
Dated: March 24, 1997 (Principal Executive Officer)

By:_______________________________
Morris Goodwin, Jr.
Vice President, Treasurer and
Director
(Principal Financial and
Dated: March 24, 1997 Accounting Officer)

By:_______________________________
Bradley C. Nelson
Dated: March 24, 1997 Vice President and Director

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF IDS CABLE CORPORATION:

By:_______________________________
Lori J. Larson
President and Director
Dated: March 24, 1997 (Principal Executive Officer)

By:_______________________________
Morris Goodwin, Jr.
Vice President, Treasurer and
Director
(Principal Financial and
Dated: March 24, 1997 Accounting Officer)

By:_______________________________
Bradley C. Nelson
Dated: March 24, 1997 Vice President and Director