********************************************************    
                         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.

*****************************************************************


       Statement of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth,
           Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part
                                
                                
          In the Matter of Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications
     Markets (WT Docket No. 99-217); Implementation of the Local Competition
     Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98); Wireless
     Communications Association International, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking to Amend
     Section 1.4000 of the Commission's Rules to Preempt Restrictions on Subscriber
     Premises Reception or Transmission Antennas Designed To Provide Fixed Wireless
     Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Petition for Rule
     Making and Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Preempt State and Local
     Imposition of Discriminatory And/Or Excessive Taxes and Assessments


     Today's decision initiating a proceeding to promote the establishment of competitive
networks in local telecommunications networks has a number of laudable aspects.  In particular, I
applaud our efforts to develop a record to assist us in determining the precise contours of Section
224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  224, which requires that utilities owning or controlling poles, ducts,
conduits and rights of way provide access on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to cable
television systems and telecommunications carriers (other than incumbent local exchange
carriers).  I urge this Commission to take prompt action on this issue so that fixed wireless and
other providers attempting to enter the local market have certainty as to the boundaries of that
provision.

     I am deeply troubled, however, by two aspects of this proceeding.  First, the Commission
decides today to seek comment on whether building owners permitting access to any
telecommunications provider must make comparable access available to all such providers under
nondiscriminatory terms and conditions.  As authority for such action, today's decision posits that
most slender of reeds:  the Commission's ancillary jurisdiction under Sections 4(i) and Sections
303(r) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r).  But as Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3rd 1441 (D.C.
Cir. 1994) instructs, this Commission must be vigilant in overstepping its authority where private
property rights are implicated, being careful not to regulate where it does not have specific
statutory authority -- regardless of whether such regulation constitutes commendable public
policy.  I fear that today's proposal, if ultimately adopted by the Commission, may stray outside
this agency's jurisdictional boundaries.

     The second area which causes me great concern is the Commission's apparent inclination
to deal piecemeal with the Supreme Court's recent remand of our rules implementing Section 251
of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  251.  The Commission recently issued a further notice of proposed
rulemaking to deal with the issues raised by the remand.  Yet, in this proceeding, the Commission
requests comment on whether unbundled access to riser cable and wiring within multiple tenant
environments meets the requirements of Section 251.  Although we do state that we will apply
our decisions in the remand proceeding to the issue of riser cable and wiring in multiple tenant
environments presented here, the better course of action in my judgment would be to consider all
issues pertaining to unbundled network elements in one proceeding.