Joan Marsh 1120 20th Street NW Director, Federal Government Affairs Suite 1000 Washington DC 20036 202/457-3120 FAX 202/263-2716 June 2, 2000 Ms. Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room TWB-204 Washington, D.C. 20554 RE: Notice of Written Ex Parte In the Matter of Applications for Transfer of Control to AT&T Corp. ("AT&T") of Licenses and Authorizations Held by MediaOne Group, Inc. ("MediaOne"), CS Docket No. 99-251 Dear Ms. Salas: The information in this letter is being provided in response to a request for an update on information previously provided to the Cable Services Bureau: LFA Information: As previously reported, AT&T and MediaOne were required to seek approval for license transfers in connection with the proposed merger from a total of 512 out of 665 franchises affected. Of those 512 franchises, two denied the applicants' request for a license transfer (Cambridge, MA and Mentor, OH). As to the Cambridge denial, the MA Department of Telecommunications and Energy recently ruled that municipal authorities cannot use the open-access issue to block the transfer of cable franchises. The Mentor, OH decision remains pending on appeal. Two other communities (Newton, MA and Somerville, MA) initially denied the transfer, but both have now withdrawn their objections and approved the transaction. Six franchise authorities approved the transfer subject to specific forced access provisions. The applicants have appealed each of these rulings. As a result of the MA appeal, the MA Department of Telecommunications and Energy determined that franchise authorities have no authority under Massachusetts regulations to impose access conditions as part of a transfer of control. The Department therefore struck those provisions from the North Andover, MA and Quincy, MA approvals. In addition, a federal court in Virginia has ruled that the forced access provisions imposed by the authorities in Henrico County, VA were invalid under both federal and state law. Appeals are still pending as to decisions rendered in Madera County, CA (2 franchises) and Culver City, CA, both of which are located in jurisdictions governed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two copies of this Notice are being submitted to the Secretary of the FCC in accordance with Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules. Sincerely, Joan Marsh cc: T. Truong R. Dickens L. Senecal