FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION November 24, 1999 Mr. Andrew Jay Schwartzman President and CEO Media Access Project 1707 L Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Re: Application for Consent to Transfer of Control of Licenses from MediaOne Group, Inc. to AT&T Corp. (CS 99-251) Dear Mr. Schwartzman: This letter responds to the requests for Commission action and clarification stated in your letter of November 9, 1999, filed on behalf of Consumers Union, Media Access Project, and Consumer Federation of America ("CU et al."). In that letter, CU et al. requested that (1) the Commission require service on all parties of written communications relating to contested issues in the AT&T/MediaOne transaction; (2) the Commission require that all oral communications between the staff and AT&T and MediaOne relating to contested issues be conducted with counsel for all parties in attendance; (3) AT&T be required to submit a certification regarding its reach under the existing, rather than the revised, horizontal ownership rules, including "specifying the ownership in terms of homes passed before and after the acquisition is complete;" (4) the Commission issue a written order if it has determined to deny the August 17, 1999 CU et al. Motion to Dismiss; and (5) the staff clarify that the October 26, 1999 letter from Ms. To- Quyen Truong of the Cable Services Bureau to Ms. Joan Marsh of AT&T did not reflect a judgment that AT&T's proposed MediaOne acquisition will satisfy existing or contemplated Commission rules. As you know, consistent with Commission precedent, we have designated this matter as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding for ex parte purposes. This allows for individual parties to make presentations to staff as long as the substance of those presentations is described in a written submission, which then becomes a part of the public record. These filings are accessible to all interested parties through the Commission's Public Reference Room and on the Internet via the Electronic Comments Filing System. In addition, the Cable Services Bureau has established an Internet web page devoted to the AT&T/MediaOne merger review, where we post all major written communications between Commission staff and the merger applicants. Parties may visit this web page at www.fcc.gov/csb for quick access to communications of significant interest to parties, often posted on the same day that the communications are received. The "permit-but-disclose" ex parte procedures adopted for the AT&T/MediaOne merger review are the same procedures used to keep all interested parties informed in other Commission merger reviews (including such large mergers as SBC/Ameritech and AT&T/TCI) and rulemakings. Your letter asks, among other things, that we essentially convert this proceeding from "permit-but-disclose" status to restricted status. Specifically, you ask that we not permit individual presentations to staff by interested parties, but rather that all parties be represented whenever one party makes such a presentation. Further, you ask that written communications be served on all parties. Our practice of designating proceedings such as this one as "permit-but-disclose" is aimed at making our process as open and transparent as possible, while also allowing parties and Commission staff to operate efficiently. Approximately twenty-two parties have filed comments or other pleadings in this proceeding. We believe that coordinating the schedules of each of these parties every time one of them wishes to make a presentation to staff would be logistically impossible. We believe the better approach is to allow individual presentations, with written notice of those presentations placed on the record so that other parties can respond with similar oral and written presentations. The purpose of creating our merger Internet web page, together with our Public Reference Room and Electronic Comments Filing System, is to provide the most convenient and least costly means for parties to follow and participate in this proceeding. The prospect of coordinating schedules to ensure that all parties are present for all presentations would entail significantly greater resource burdens than having parties go on-line or visit our Public Reference Room to stay abreast of filings. Similarly, requiring service of all communications on all parties would impose paperwork burdens and could result in parties being served with pleadings that they do not wish to receive or intend to review. Again, the public availability of these documents on-line and in our Public Reference Room allows those who wish to review documents to do so, without imposing unnecessary burdens on others. We are mindful of the disparity in resources between various parties and we seek to be as inclusive and open as possible in our proceedings. We believe our current procedures allow efficient conduct of merger reviews and other proceedings of public interest on the record. As to the remaining requests, let me be clear that the Commission has made no determination regarding the CU et al. Motion to Dismiss and other filings related to AT&T notification and certification obligations under 47 U.S.C.  76.503(c) of the cable horizontal ownership rules. Ms. Truong's October 26 Letter did not suggest that such a determination had been made. That letter asked AT&T to "make a showing and certification that its proposed acquisition of MediaOne will fit under the Commission's revised cable ownership rules." This request thus raised the very question of whether the merged entity would in fact be compliant with our rules. In no way did the letter imply that the Commission will automatically accept any assertions made by AT&T in the requested submission or find that the proposed merger will satisfy existing or contemplated Commission rules. Finally, the letter, issued in the course of the staff's review of the proposed merger, focused on the revised rules because, given the timing for closure of the transaction, these are the rules relevant to our analysis of the merger: the merged entity would be subject to the revised ownership rules, not the old. We understand that CU et al. have alleged that AT&T is in violation of the current rules and have asked the Commission to take appropriate action. As indicated above, the Commission has made no determination regarding that request. Please feel free to call us at (202) 418-7200 if you have any further questions. We look forward to the continued participation of CU et al. in the merger review process. Sincerely, Deborah Lathen Chief, Cable Services Bureau cc: Chairman William Kennard All Commissioners Kathy Brown To-Quyen Truong David Carpenter Howard Symons Wesley Heppler Philip Verveer Mark Rosenblum Susan Eid 2 3