*Pages 1--5 from Microsoft Word - 32876* Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 October 31, 2003 REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Via Facsimile Gary M. Epstein Counsel for General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation Latham & Watkins LLP 555 11 th Street, N. W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 William M. Wiltshire Counsel for The News Corporation Limited Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 1200 18 th Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20036 Re: Consolidated Application for Authority to Transfer Control MB Docket No. 03- 124____________________________________ Dear Mr. Epstein and Mr. Wiltshire: In order for the Commission to review the application of General Motors Corporation, Hughes Electronics Corporation and The News Corporation to transfer control of various Commission licenses and authorizations and make the necessary public interest findings under section 310( d) of the Communications Act, 1 we require additional information and clarification of certain matters discussed in the application. Accordingly, pursuant to section 308( b) of the Act, 2 we request that you provide written responses and supporting documentation for the questions set forth in the attached Third Information and Document Request. We also seek copies of those documents we have specifically identified on the attached list, which will be redacted from the public copy of this letter. We would appreciate receiving your response to each inquiry no later than November 14, 2003. 1 Id. § 310( d). 2 Id. § 308( b); see also 47 C. F. R. § 1.65. 1 2 Your responses should be filed with Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, under reference number MB Docket No. 03- 124. In addition, the Public Notice 3 and the Protective Orders 4 require the submission of multiple copies of all Ex Parte and other filings submitted in this proceeding. The Media Bureau also should receive, at a minimum, two copies of all paper filings, including both documents marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” and documents marked “For Public Inspection.” 5 These copies are intended for, respectively, Marcia Glauberman and Linda Senecal. For any electronic filings made using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (“ ECFS”), parties also should serve the documents via e- mail to Marcia Glauberman, Marcia. Glauberman@ fcc. gov and to Linda Senecal, Linda. Senecal@ fcc. gov. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Marcia Glauberman, Media Bureau, at 202- 418- 7046. Sincerely, W. Kenneth Ferree Chief, Media Bureau Attachments 3 See General Motors Corporation, Hughes Electronics Corporation, and The News Corporation Limited Seek Approval To Transfer Control of FCC Authorizations and Licenses Held by Hughes Electronics Corporation to The News Corporation Limited, MB Docket 03- 124, Public Notice DA 03- 1725 (rel. May 16, 2003) (“ Public Notice”). 4 See News Corporation, General Motors Corporation, and Hughes Electronics Corporation, Order Adopting Protective Order, MB Docket No 03- 124, DA 03- 1761 (rel. May 22, 2003) (“ Protective Order”); Order, MB Docket No. 03- 124, DA 03- 2376 (rel. July 21, 2003) (“ Second Protective Order”). 5 See Public Notice, pp. 4- 5; Protective Order ¶ 3; Second Protective Order ¶ 4. 2 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 October 31, 2003 ATTACHMENT 1 THIRD INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT REQUEST OCTOBER 31, 2003 1. Does News Corporation retain the right to negotiate retransmission consent agreements on behalf of any independently owned broadcast television station affiliated with the Fox Broadcasting Network? 2. Has News Corporation ever negotiated retransmission consent agreements on behalf of an independently owned broadcast television station? If so, provide a copy of each negotiated retransmission consent agreement. 3. Has the News Corporation ever solicited or required independently owned broadcast television stations affiliated with the Fox Broadcasting Network to request or require carriage of News Corporation's non- broadcast programming by a MVPD as compensation for the granting of retransmission consent of the broadcast station to the MVPD? If so, for each instance indicate: a. The broadcast station's call sign and Nielsen DMA b. The MVPD requesting retransmission consent c. The non- broadcast programming that was requested or required as compensation for the granting of retransmission consent d. Any consideration, whether pecuniary or otherwise, News Corporation offered or gave to the broadcast station in return for requesting or requiring carriage of the News Corporation non- broadcast programming by the MVPD. 4. REDACTED FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD 5. Hughes’s response to interrogatory 2 of the Commission’s second information and document request describes a Rapid Response Promotion in effect from May 4, 2000 to May 14, 2000. Identify the number of customers activated under this promotion for each DMA in which the promotion was available. Definitions 3 2 For purposes of responding to these requests, 1. The term “Hughes” means Hughes Electronics Corporation, its subsidiaries and any affiliate in which it or a subsidiary owns a 10% or greater interest. 2. The phrase “News Corporation” means The News Corporation Limited, its subsidiaries and any affiliate in which it or a subsidiary owns a 10% or greater interest, together with any entity in which Mr. K. Rupert Murdoch or members of his immediate family own a de jure or de facto controlling interest 3. The term “MVPD” means: a. the local distribution of video programming through terrestrial- based cable transmission facilities by a cable operator or broadband service provider, b. direct broadcast satellite and direct- to- home services that transmit video programming directly from one or more satellites to subscribers, c. The local distribution or provision of video programming through any other means including, but not limited to MMDS, SMATV, OVS, and facilities of common carrier telephone companies or their affiliates. 4 ATTACHMENT 2 REDACTED FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD 5