NEWSReport No. CC 95-64   COMMON CARRIER ACTION             October 23, 1995

                   FCC AFFIRMS AT&T/McCAW TRANSFER ORDER
                  DENIES PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

     The FCC has affirmed its earlier decisions in the AT&T/McCaw Transfer Order and
revised and clarified its ruling with respect to the price floor established in that Order.  The
Commission denied petitions for reconsideration filed by Allnet and jointly by NYNEX and
Bell Atlantic  In the AT&T/McCaw Transfer Order, the Commission permitted: AT&T's
cellular and interexchange affiliates to bundle cellular and interexchange services, subject to a
price floor;  and AT&T's cellular affiliates to access customer proprietary network
information (CPNI) obtained by its interexchange affiliate, subject to the CPNI rules that
apply to AT&T's marketing of enhanced services and customer premises equipment (CPE).  
The Order also neither had imposed a structural separation requirement on AT&T's cellular
and interexchange affiliates nor required AT&T's cellular affiliates to provide equal access.

     In the AT&T/McCaw Transfer Order, which was upheld on all points by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission approved the transfer of radio
licenses from McCaw to AT&T subject to certain conditions.  Bell Atlantic and NYNEX
sought reconsideration with respect to AT&T's use of CPNI.  Allnet sought reconsideration
or clarification with respect to structural separation, equal access, and the bundling of
cellular and interexchange service, including the price floor.

     On reconsideration, the Commission reaffirmed its previous finding, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that application of these CPNI rules to AT&T's marketing
of cellular service will benefit the public interest by increasing competition in the cellular
marketplace and should result in lower prices and improved service for consumers.

     Further, the Commission explained that, in light of AT&T's voluntary commitment to
provide equal access, it need not require equal access as a condition of its approval of the
license transfer.   The Commission also reaffirmed its previous finding that it acted lawfully
by deferring to a rulemaking the question of whether an equal access obligation should be
imposed on the cellular industry as a whole, a decision that was also affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.  Similarly, the Commission found that it acted appropriately in not mandating
structural separation between AT&T's interexchange and cellular affiliates.

                              (over)
                                   - 2- 


     Finally, the Commission recognized that there was some confusion over its price floor
and that the price floor was susceptible to different interpretations.  Therefore, the
Commission revised and clarified the price floor to state that the end-to-end rate for bundled
interexchange and cellular service could not be so low as to be predatory under a civil
antitrust standard.  The Commission also stated that it does not believe that offering bundled
services at rates that reflect discounts from a retail schedule of rates for services purchased
separately were unlawful; nor does it believe that short-term promotional rates offered to the
public that reflect discounts from the prices AT&T and its affiliates charge each other for the
component services are unlawful.  The Commission further stated that Section 202(a) of the
Communications Act and its resale policies require that the same terms and conditions that
apply to the sale of the component services among AT&T and its affiliates and to bundled
service offered to the public must also be made available to other customers, including
unaffiliated resellers.

     Action by the Commission October 11, 1995 by (FCC 95-425). Chairman Hundt, 
Commissioners Quello, Barrett and Chong.

                                  - FCC -

News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet at (202) 418-1500.
Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Adrien R. Auger and John B. Adams at (202) 418-0960.