February 15, 2000

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH

*Re: Voicestream Wireless Corporation or Omnipoint Corporation, and
Voicestream Wireless Holding Company, Cook Inlet/VS GSM II PCS, LLC or
Cook Inlet/VS GSM II PCS, LLC, and various subsidiaries and affiliates
of Omnipoint Corporation, and Cook Inlet/VS GSM II PCS, LLC or Cook
Inlet/VS GSM III PCS, LLC Application for Consent to Transfer of Control
and Assignment of Licenses and Authorizations,*

I fully support today's decision to grant transfer of these licenses. I
write separately to express my continued disappointment with the
agency's approach to these transactions.

On the positive side, much of today's Order focuses on legitimate agency
concerns regarding the merged licensee's compliance with our existing
rules and implementing our WTO obligations vis-à-vis foreign ownership.
These analyses are properly related to the license transfers at issue.
Similarly conditions based on our spectrum aggregation rules are
appropriate if a license transfer would result in a violation of those
standards. Nonetheless, to the extent the order purports to engage in a
"market analysis," such concerns are outside the scope of our public
interest authority and duplicative of the work of other agencies.[^1] As
I have stressed repeatedly, our goal should be a license transfer
process that is efficient, transparent, predictable, and consistent.

I am also concerned about one other aspect of today's decision: the
hijacking of our license transfer authority by other government
agencies.[^2] More specifically, the FBI and Justice Department continue
to use our licensing process to extract concessions from licensees in
exchange for this agency's approval of the transfer. The DOJ and FBI
once again filed their FCC pleadings after the comment period had ended
and then engaged in lengthy closed-door negotiations that further
delayed the Commission's approval process.[^3] The subsequent agreement
once again creates a questionable FCC role in enforcement of these side
agreements. If disputes arise between the private parties and federal
law enforcement officials, the FCC will be cast in the unfortunate role
of enforcer. Our resources are most effectively deployed doing our own
job, without adding Justice Department and FBI responsibilities. In the
final analysis, I believe our processes should not be modified or
delayed to facilitate these other governmental parties. I look forward
to developing a resolution to this issue that gives other government
agencies an opportunity to comment on our licensing decisions, without
ceding our responsibility to provide fair and efficient consideration of
these applications.

For the foregoing reasons, I would have granted today's transfer
applications, but in a far more streamlined proceeding.

[^1]: I am also uncomfortable with the use of a license transfer
    proceeding to address objections based on Omnipoint's pioneer's
    preference. Those issues are not related to the actual transfer of
    these licenses and, in my view, would be better addressed in a
    separate proceeding.

[^2]: For a more detailed discussion of the concerns raised by this
    process, see Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold
    Furchtgott-Roth in AT&T Corp., British Telecommunications, plc, VLT
    Co. L.L.C., Violet License Co. LLC, and TNV \[Bahamas\] Limited
    Applications for Grant of Section 214 Authority, Modification of
    Authorizations and Assignment of Licenses in Connection with the
    Proposed Joint Venture Between AT&T Corp. and British
    Telecommunications, plc, *IB Docket No. 98-212, FCC 99-313 (rel.
    October 29, 1999);* Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold
    Furchtgott-Roth in SatCom Systems Inc., TMI Communications and
    Company, L.P. and SatCom Systems Inc., File No. 647-DSE-P/L-98 et al
    (*rel. November 30, 1999).*

[^3]: It continues to baffle me as to why the FBI and DOJ are incapable
    of meeting our filing deadlines. *See e.g.* SatCom Systems (DOJ/FBI
    Comments filed 11 months late). Such disregard for our rules
    undermines orderly decision making and inhibits other parties'
    abilities to respond to the issues raised by these pleadings.