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

This document was converted from
Word97 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, itallic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the orginal 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, Word97, or Adobe Acrobat versions, if available.

The path and name of the WordPerfect, Word97, and Acrobat files
 will be the same as the ASCII Text file except that they  will 
end with the letters wp, doc, or pdf  respectively, 
instead of the letters txt.

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


			
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
DISSENTING IN PART 

 Re:	Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service:  Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved 
and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, CC Docket 96-45.

	I support many of the worthwhile goals of today's Order.  Although I write separately to express limited 
concerns about this item, I commend my colleagues and the members of the Commission staff who have worked so 
diligently on this important action.

	First, I object to the item's apparent invention of a new classification described as "underserved areas."  
This classification does not appear in the Communications Act.  In fact, the Act specifically refers to a category of 
"unserved areas" for which Congress directed the Commission and the States to take specific action. See Section 
214(e)(3).  Congress, however, did not create a category of "underserved areas," and the Commission has no 
authority to create one on its own motion.  I believe the Commission can achieve the goals set forth in this item 
without inventing new terms and, as a result, placing at risk the goals we seek to serve in this item.

	Section 214(e)(6) directs the Commission to designate a common carrier as an eligible telecommunications 
carrier for purposes of receiving universal service support when, inter alia, the common carrier is not subject to the 
jurisdiction of a State commission.  Although the goals of today's Order are worthwhile, meeting these goals should 
not result in overbroad results.  I thus object to the tentative conclusion that this section should be interpreted such 
that the determination of whether a carrier is subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission depends on the 
geographic area in which the service is being provided (e.g. tribal lands) or the nature of the service provided (e.g. 
satellite or terrestrial wireless).  Supra. at par. 78.  I am concerned that such a conclusion will ultimately lead to the 
federal government designating satellite and terrestrial wireless carriers as eligible telecommunications carriers 
outside of tribal areas.  I dissent from this tentative conclusion, because I do not believe that this outcome is 
supported by section 214(e)(6).

	Finally, I question the decision to solicit comment regarding whether the Commission should establish 
national guidelines by which states must make the determination of which carriers are best able to provide services 
to unserved areas.  Supra. at par. 93.  The Fifth Circuit only last month reversed a Commission order interpreting a 
very similar statutory provision in which the Commission attempted to prohibit States from developing their own 
requirements when designating carriers as eligible for federal universal service support pursuant to section 
214(e)(2).   When the Commission solicits comment on a topic, it encourages members of the public to expend 
resources responding to that solicitation.  I believe it is irresponsible to encourage such a use of resources when 
Commission action is unlikely because a federal appeals court has called into significant doubt the legality of the 
proposal at issue. 

  	Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al., v. FCC, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 
97-60421, rel. July 30, 1999.
	Federal Communications Commission 	FCC 99-204	
	



2