PUBLIC NOTICE

     Federal Communications Commission
     1919 M St., N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20554

                                                                  
                                  DA 97-1340          
     June 25, 1997
                                
    INTERNATIONAL BUREAU RESPONDS TO OMNIPOINT'S REQUEST FOR
 RULING TO PERMIT INCREASED FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IN PCS LICENSEES
             FROM INVESTORS IN WTO MEMBER COUNTRIES

     On June 23, 1997, the International Bureau released a letter from Peter F. Cowhey, Chief,
International Bureau, declining to issue a broad ruling that would permit increased indirect
foreign ownership in all broadband PCS licensees in the interim period until the Commission
adopts new rules to implement the WTO agreement.  The bureau, however, noted that
applications for a waiver on a case-by-case basis would be considered.  The Bureau  noted that 
current Commission precedent requires that an applicant may not exceed the statutory benchmark
"absent . . . [an] explicit notification and an express finding by the Commission that allowing the
applicant to exceed the benchmark is in the public interest. . . ." Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8452, 8475 (1995) recon. denied 11 FCC Rcd
7773 (1996). The letter noted, however, that the Bureau cited the WTO Basic Telecom
Agreement as an important public interest factor recently in granting the requests of two CMRS
licensees to increase their foreign ownership in excess of 25 percent. See APC PCS d/b/a
American Personal Communications, Declaratory Ruling and Order, File No.ISP-97-001 (IB,
released May 16, 1997); MAP, Mobile Communications, Inc., Order, File No. ISP-96-008 (IB,
released May 16, 1997).  

     The Bureau's letter and the request from Mark J. Tauber and Mark J. O'Connor, Counsel
for Omnipoint Corporation, to Peter F. Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau (dated June 3, 1997)
are attached. 

     For further information, contact Robert Calaff at (202) 418-0420 or Sherille Ismail at
(202) 418-2792.


 -- FCC--

                                 
  June 19, 1997

Mark J. Tauber
Mark J. O'Connor
Counsel for Omnipoint Corporation
Piper & Marbury, L.L.P.
1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20036-2430

Dear Mr. Tauber and Mr. O'Connor:

  This letter responds to your request to the International Bureau for a ruling that would
permit increased indirect foreign ownership in all broadband PCS licensees in the interim period
until the Commission adopts new rules to implement the WTO agreement.  Specifically, you
urge the Bureau to declare that any non-controlling foreign investment in a PCS licensee of no
more than 35 percent by investors from WTO member countries is consistent with the public
interest under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act.  

  We decline to issue the broad ruling you seek.  Current Commission precedent requires
that an applicant may not exceed the statutory benchmark "absent . . . [an] explicit notification
and an express finding by the Commission that allowing the applicant to exceed the benchmark
is in the public interest. . . ."  We note, however, that the Bureau cited the WTO Basic Telecom
Agreement as an important public interest factor recently in granting the requests of two CMRS
licensees to increase their foreign ownership in excess of 25 percent.  

  In the APC and MAP decisions, the Bureau recently permitted two CMRS licensees to
increase their foreign ownership above the statutory benchmark of 25 percent.  Our public
interest analysis in each case was based on several factors.  In both cases, we found that, with
respect to wireless telecommunications carriers, the foreign investors' home markets  (Germany
and Australia) satisfied the requirements of our "effective competitive opportunities" (ECO) test
concerning the absence of legal or de facto barriers to foreign investment, or would do so in  the
near future.  We stated that increased foreign investment benefits the public interest by
"providing capital that can fuel investment in state-of-the-art infrastructure that lead to economic
growth and job formation in the U.S. economy and facilitates competition among U.S. carriers
both at home and abroad."  In addition, we noted that both countries had made commitments in
the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement which required them, by January 1, 1998, to open their
markets to foreign investment, establish an independent regulator, and adopt fair rules of
competition.  We concluded that these countries' WTO commitments "constitute[s] an important
public interest factor" in permitting the increased foreign investment at this time.

  Although the International Bureau applied an ECO analysis in APC and MAP consistent
with current FCC rules, the Bureau also made clear that the WTO agreement was a significant
public interest factor in these cases.  Recently, the Commission proposed to eliminate the ECO
analysis as a public interest factor under Section 310(b)(4) after the WTO agreement is effective. 
Until the Commission adopts final rules to implement the WTO agreement, however, we will
continue to apply the current public interest analysis as part of our Section 310(b)(4) review. 
Our public interest analysis also includes any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy,
and trade concerns raised by the Executive Branch.  

  Finally, we note that the WTO Notice tentatively concludes that foreign investment from
WTO member countries will promote competition in the United States.  The WTO Notice also
states that eliminating the ECO test "will speed foreign investment into U.S. wireless markets
and relieve applicants and this Commission of unnecessary regulatory burdens."  

  Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.  Please feel free to contact Robert
Calaff at 418-0420 or Sherille Ismail at (202) 418-2792 if you have any questions.

  Sincerely,


  Peter F. Cowhey
  Chief
  International Bureau