********************************************************    
                         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 W. Furchtgott-Roth
                        Concurring in Part

     Re:  Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information
     and Other Information; Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards Of
     Section 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended.  CC
     Docket Nos. 96-45 and 96-149.


     I support today's Order to the extent that it provides the relief requested by the petitioners. 
I question, however, the approach that the Commission has taken with respect to certain of the
forbearance petitions.  While I concur in the result reached in today's Order, I would have
preferred reaching it through action taken on these petitions.

     I am troubled that the Commission has decided to provide regulatory relief through
reconsideration and then use that proceeding as part of the justification for denying full regulatory
forbearance as requested.  The Commission has determined that the simplest method of dealing
with these petitions is to deny the forbearance relief at issue while at the same time providing
relief in a separate proceeding.  In particular, I am troubled by the approach that the Commission
has taken with respect to carriers' use of customer proprietary network information (CPNI) to
market customer premises equipment (CPE) and information services.  In this respect, I agree
with the well-reasoned statement of my colleague, Commissioner Tristani, to the extent that she
believes that the Commission's reading of section 222(c)(1)(B) of the Act is "contrary to the plain
language of what the Commission previously found to be a 'clear and ambiguous' provision."  I
only differ from Commissioner Tristani in that I would have reached the same conclusion as the
Commission by granting the forbearance petitions on this issue.  I do not understand why the
Commission chooses to reach this outcome through a strained interpretation of the statute when
the same relief is warranted, and more justifiable, through the forbearance mechanism.

     Finally, I write to repeat my position that it is the Commission that may, by the express
terms of the statute, extend the initial one-year period for acting on a petition for forbearance by
an additional 90 days if it finds that an extension is necessary to meet the requirements of section
10.  I regret that, in the present matter, it was the Bureau and not the Commission that issued the
order extending the deadline.  Contrary to previous occasions, however, the Common Carrier
Bureau, in this instance, consulted with the Commission prior to extending the deadline. 
Although I continue to believe that the Commission is charged with adopting an order extending
the section 10 deadline, I refrain from dissenting on this ground, because in this case, the Bureau
received a signal from a majority of the "Commission" that an extension of time is warranted
under these particular circumstances. 


                          * * * * * * *