********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                             July 23, 1998

               SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH

     Re:  For Consent to Transfer Control of Teleport Communications Group Inc. to AT&T
     Corp.; CC Docket No. 98-24 .  

     I support today's decision approving the proposed merger between Teleport
Communications Group and AT&T Corp.  I concur in its results and explicitly approve of the
decision not to impose any conditions on the merger.  I write separately, however, to express
my concerns with several aspects of the underlying reasoning and my unwillingness to adopt
the proposed framework for analyzing mergers.  Let me be clear, I recognize that much work
has been put into this Order by the Commission staff and I applaud their efforts.  In general, I
find that they have done an exceptional job of analyzing the competitive effects of the merger
in the relevant markets. 

     Due to what I would characterize as poor internal Commission processing, however,
this item was not formally circulated to the Commissioners until more than three months after
it had cleared Department of Justice review.  I voted for this item within 48 hours of receiving
it, and I have prepared this statement as rapidly as possible.  Under optimal circumstances, I
would prefer to discuss the merits of the framework that we use here to approve this merger. 
For example, how exactly does the Commission's definition of relevant markets and its
analysis of the competitive effects of the merger on those markets differ from the Department
of Justice's analysis?  To the extent that it is materially different, what is the Commission's
express statutory authority or unique expertise to perform such a review?  If the analysis is not
materially different, then why is it not redundant for this agency to repeat an analysis that
numerous experts at the Department of Justice already perform?  Can the Commission's
precluded competitor framework apply to a market that has already been deregulated and the
largest competitors declared non-dominant?  Under the precluded competitor framework, is
our analysis of potential competitors too speculative -- especially since we do not seem to
require the same type of evidence as the Department of Justice's merger guidelines would
require of intent to enter the market by another means?  Is there any limit on the additional
Public Interest benefits that the Commission examines to determine whether a merger is in the
public interest?  Seeing this item for the first time after such an inordinate delay, however, is
not the optimal circumstance.

     Had there been more of an opportunity for discussion, I may have been persuaded that
these questions had been adequately addressed.  Regrettably, that opportunity was not
presented until too late in the process for an application that does not appear to raise any
serious contentions.

     I do not support the Commission's use of the framework used in this item.  I hope that
we do not repeat its use in the future.
                             - FCC -