[ Text | Word97 ]

In the Matter of Application by
SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas

Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth

In commenting on SBC's newly filed application, I hope that interested parties will address the following question: whether the requirements imposed by the Commission as a condition of granting Ameritech's application to transfer licenses and authorizations to SBC are consistent with the requirements for long-distance entry under section 271 and its underlying provisions, sections 251 and 252.1

A few comments raised this issue in the first proceeding.2 I would be very interested in a fuller explication of this matter for purposes of evaluating SBC's new application.

1. See generally Concurring Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth, In re Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications, Inc., Transferee, CC Docket No. 98-141 (rel. Oct. 6, 1999) (discussing consistency of conditions with sections 251 and 252).

2. See, e.g., Ex Parte Letter from James L. Casserly, Counsel for AT&T Corp. (filed March 3, 2000) at 4 (arguing that "[t]he central problem that SBC overlooks is that the statute requires nondiscrimination while the merger conditions permit discrimination" and that "[i]f a conflict arises between Section 251 or another statutory provision and the merger conditions, it is the law - not the merger conditions - that is paramount") (emphasis in original); Comments of AT&T Corp. at 56 n. 65 (arguing that "pursuant to the conditions to which it 'voluntarily' agreed . . . SWBT offers an additional 25% discount off the cost-based rates for a number of unbundled loops" and that SBC thus "is not offering unbundled loops at rates that comply with the provisions of Sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(2)").