for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections. In order to receive discounts on eligible services, the Commission's rules require that the applicant submit to the Administrator a completed FCC Form 470, in which the applicant sets forth the applicant's technological needs and the services for which it seeks discounts. Once the applicant has complied with the Commission's competitive bidding requirements and entered into an agreement for eligible services, it must file an FCC Form 471 application to notify the Administrator of the services that have been ordered, the carrier with whom the applicant has entered into an agreement, and an estimate of funds needed to cover the discounts to be given for eligible services. This information is generally provided in Block 5 of FCC Form 471. Among other information, Block 5 requires the applicant to indicate services requested, the name of the service provider, the type of service or product for which support is sought, and the estimated total annual pre-discount cost. Using information provided by the applicant in its FCC Form 471, the Administrator determines the amount of discounts for which the school is eligible. Approval of the application is contingent upon the filing of FCC Form 471, and funding commitment decisions are based on information provided by the school or library in this form.

3. The instant appeal arises from Kerman's Funding Year 2 application for discounted internal connections, Funding Request Number (FRN) 224368. In its FCC Form 471, filed on March 30, 1999, Kerman sought support in a single funding request for internal connections that it valued at $228,466. In its Funding Commitment Decision Letter, SLD modified the funding request to a pre-discount amount of $133,357 to reflect the eligible services identified in information provided by the applicant."

4.

Kerman filed an appeal with SLD on November 29, 1999, claiming that it did not communicate properly the nature of the equipment when first contacted by SLD's Program Integrity Assurance (PIA) unit.' In response, SLD affirmed its decision stating that the funding request was reduced to the amount supported by the documentation provided in Kerman's Form 471 and in information provided by Kerman during initial review.

8

5. In the instant appeal, Kerman seeks full funding for its request for internal connections, which it states includes the cost of labor for installation and programming. Kerman

47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 45.503.

* 47 C.F.R. § 54.504 (b)(1), (b)(3).

547 C.F.R. § 54.504(c).

6 See Funding Commitment Decision Letter at 4.

7

Letter from Larry Teixeira, Kerman Unified School District, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal

Service Administrative Company, filed November 29, 1999. The PIA reviews applications and is responsible for ensuring that the discounts sought by applicants are for eligible services and for eligible uses.

8 See Administrator's Decision on Appeal.

states that during the initial review, SLD requested a breakdown of costs for the individual hardware associated with its funding request. Kerman argues that it fully complied with SLD's request for the cost of individual hardware, i.e., it provides a description, quantity, and cost of each item of hardware associated with the funding request. Kerman states that, in reducing the request by $95,109, it appears SLD assumed that the break down of costs provided by Kerman in response to SLD's inquiry represented the entire cost of the funding request, and thus did not consider the cost of the labor to install and program the eligible services."

6.

Our review of the record reveals that SLD asked Kerman for information regarding "the cost associated with the individual hardware (i.e., cost of phones $30,000, voice mail $15,000, etc.) on FRN 224368.10 We find that SLD's request for additional information did not adequately communicate the information required to properly evaluate Kerman's funding request. Given the phrasing of SLD's request for information on individual hardware costs, we conclude that it was reasonable for Kerman to interpret SLD's inquiry as not requesting information relating to other costs, such as labor. Accordingly, we remand Kerman's application to SLD for further review."

7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 12, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Library Division to review Kerman's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision.

9 See Request for Review.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Carol E. Mattey

Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

10

See Request for Review, Exhibit B, Fax from Thomas J. McNally, Schools and Libraries Division.

11

We do not suggest that the circumstances require a decision in Kerman's favor, but find that SLD's ambiguous request for additional information requires remand.

COMMISSION SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON AT&T-MEDIAONE LICENSE TRANSFER CONDITIONS AND ESTABLISHES PLEADING CYCLE ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN

CS DOCKET NO. 99-251

Comments/Oppositions Due:

Replies to Comments/Oppositions Due:

May 11, 2001

May 25, 2001

By order dated June 6, 2000 (“June 6 Order”), the Commission granted the license transfer application of AT&T Corp. ("AT&T") and MediaOne Group, Inc. ("MediaOne") to permit AT&T's acquisition of MediaOne, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, the Commission's grant was conditioned on AT&T, by May 19, 2001, (a) divesting its interests in Time Warner Entertainment, L.P. (“TWE”), (b) terminating its involvement in video programming activities, or (c) divesting its interests in other cable systems, such that it would have attributable ownership interests in cable systems serving no more than 30% of MVPD subscribers nationwide. To ensure that AT&T took timely steps towards compliance, the June 6, 2000 Order established a series of interim compliance steps, including a deadline of March 20, 2001 at which time AT&T would state either that it would be in compliance with the May 19, 2001 deadline or that it would not be in compliance. If compliance was not to be accomplished, AT&T would be required to describe the irrevocable trust arrangement that it would be required to establish by May 19, 2001 to effectuate sale of the assets necessary to carry out its elected compliance option.

On March 2, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released its decision in Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Federal Communications Commission, 249 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The court reversed and remanded the Commission's cable horizontal ownership and channel occupancy limits, as well as certain aspects of the cable attribution rules. In order to afford the

In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, To AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 99-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order (“June 6, 2000 Order"), 15 FCC Rcd. 9816 (2000), recon. denied, FCC 01-47 (rel. March 14, 2001).

Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 9895 ¶ 186.

3 Id. at ¶¶ 187-189.

4

In the Matter of Implementation of Section 11(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Horizontal Ownership Limits, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 14462 (1998); id., Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 19980 (1999); Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, Review of the Commission's Cable Attribution

(...continued)

Commission an opportunity to determine the relationship, if any, between the court's decision and the ownership conditions adopted in this proceeding, on March 16, 2001, the Commission suspended the interim March 20, 2001 deadline and the final compliance deadline of May 19, 2001 pending further order of the Commission."

On April 13, 2001, the Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Media Access Project ("Consumers Union") filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's March 16 suspension order, which includes a contingent petition for reconsideration of the June 6 Order and the Commission's order denying reconsideration of the June 6 Order.

To assist the Commission in resolving the question of the relationship between the court's decision and the divestiture conditions adopted in this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment from interested parties regarding the effect, if any, of the court's ruling on the conditions imposed in the June 6 Order. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether to proceed with the conditions in light of the court's decision. In addition, to provide for a consolidated pleading cycle on the issues raised in this public notice and those raised by the Consumers Union's petition for reconsideration, including the contingent petition for reconsideration, we are extending the pleading cycle established by section 1.106 of the Commission's rules.'

7

Parties may file comments and oppositions to the petition for reconsideration on or before May 11, 2001 and replies to comments and oppositions on or before May 25, 2001. All filings should reference CS Docket No. 99-251.

EX PARTE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING

This proceeding has been designated as "permit but disclose" for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations will be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules applicable to non-restricted proceedings."

(...continued from previous page)

Rules, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 12990 (1998); id., Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 19014 (1999).

5

In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 99-251, Order, FCC 01-95 (rel. March 16, 2001).

6 In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 99-251, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-47 (rel. March 14, 2001).

747 C.F.R. § 1.106(g)-(h).

Public Notice, AT&T Corp. and MediaOne Group, Inc. Seek FCC Consent for a Proposed Transfer of Control, CS Docket No. 99-251, 14 FCC Rcd 11867 (1999). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-1.1216.

9

An ex parte presentation is any communication (spoken or written) directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding made to a Commissioner, a Commissioner's assistant, or other decision-making staff member, that, if written, is not served on other parties to the proceeding or, if oral, is made without an opportunity for all parties to be present. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1201.

10

Parties making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Interested parties shall file an original and one copy of each summary of an oral ex parte presentation and any written ex parte presentation with the Commission Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-B204, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties shall also serve one copy of each such filing on (1) International Transcription Service, Inc., the Commission's duplicating contractor, at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B400 Washington, D.C. 20554, telephone (202) 314-3070, TTY (202) 2938810, facsimile (202) 314-3076, e-mail: knash@fcc.gov, Internet: http://www.itsdocs.com; (2) James Bird, Office of General Counsel, 445 12th Street, S.W., 8-C818, Washington, D.C. 20554, (3) Royce Dickens Sherlock, Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., 3-A729, Washington, D.C. 20554, and (4) Linda Senecal, Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., 3-A734, Washington, D.C. 20554.

GENERAL INFORMATION

An original and 4 copies of all pleadings, in accordance with section 1.51(c) of the Commission's Rules," must be filed in CS Docket No. 99-251 with the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW-B204, Washington, D.C. 20554. One copy of each pleading also must be filed with other offices, as follows: (1) International Transcription Service, Inc., at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B400, Washington, D.C. 20554, telephone (202) 314-3070, TTY (202) 293-8810, facsimile (202) 3143076, e-mail knash@fcc.gov, Internet http://www.itsdocs.com; (2) James Bird, Office of General Counsel, 445 12th Street, S.W., 8-C818, Washington, D.C. 20554; and (3) Royce Dickens Sherlock, Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., 3-A729, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition, twelve copies of each pleading must be filed with Linda Senecal, Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., 3-A734, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing paper pleadings, parties may also file pleadings using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)." Pleadings filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form <your e-mail address>." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

10 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are also set forth in section 1.1206(b).

11

"147 C.F.R. § 1.51(c).

12 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).