December 31, 1998

           PRESS STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL 
                               DISSENTING


     Re:  Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of
     Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended; Petitions for
     Forbearance (CC Docket No. 96-61), Memorandum Opinion and Order


     I cannot support this decision to deny reconsideration and forbearance.  While the goals of
Section 254(g) of the Communications Act may be laudable and uncontroverted as they relate to
nationwide, traditional, interstate interexchange carriers that were clearly subject to the
Commission's policy prior to being incorporated into the 1996 Telecom Act, I believe that there
are substantial questions as to whether Congress actually intended to expand the rate integration
policy to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers.  I do not think that CMRS
carriers have had fair notice and the ability to adequately address such issues.  I also question
whether Section 254(g) should be enforced against the CMRS industry, the most competitive
segment of the telecommunications industry.  And, I believe the requests for forbearance are not
being taken as seriously as Section 10 of the Act requires.  This Order, in my mind, simply
summarily denies such requests and shifts to the proponents of forbearance an impossible burden.

     Although I disagree with the analysis, or lack thereof, in this Order, I am pleased to see
that some regulatory restraint is shown by continuing the earlier stay, limiting enforcement of
254(g) to inter-MTA, separately-billed toll calls and announcing the intent to issue a Further
Notice seeking comment on specific issues relating to the application of rate integration
requirements to CMRS providers.

     I fear, however, that our failure to forbear from all enforcement of this provision will
negatively impact consumers.  I anticipate that CMRS carriers will just avoid the rate integration
rule in ways that may end up having a perverse effect of harming consumers living in rural, insular
and offshore areas by, for example, ceasing to bill separately for long distance or raising local
rates to subsidize the integrated long distance rates.

     Accordingly, I will issue a separate statement dissenting from this Order.

                                                          - FCC -