*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 57807.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  84 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 


 RE:  In  the  Matter  of  Applications  of  Nextel  Partners,  Inc.,  Transferor,  and  Nextel  WIP  Corp.  and  Sprint  Nextel  Corporation,  Transferees,  For  Consent  To  Transfer  Control  of  Licenses  and 
 Authorizations;  File  Nos.  0002444650  et  al 
 I  support  today’s  item  because  I  believe  that  the  questions  SouthernLINC  raises  about  roaming  agreements  are  not  directly  related  to  this  merger  and  consequently  should  be  dealt  with  in  our  ongoing, 
 comprehensive  roaming  docket.  But  I  do  want  to  emphasize  how  important  I  think  that  rulemaking  is.  Wireless  consumers  benefit  from  full  and  fair  competition  among  wireless  carriers.  It  is  critically 
 important  that  carriers  not  use  roaming  negotiations  as  a  way  to  stifle  competition.  I  hope  we  can  move  quickly  to  address  this  issue. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  84 
 2 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  In  the  Matter  of  Applications  of  Nextel  Partners,  Inc.,  Transferor,  and  Nextel  WIP  Corp.  and  Sprint  Nextel  Corporation,  Transferees,  For  Consent  To  Transfer  Control  of 
 Licenses  and  Authorizations;  File  Nos.  0002444650  et  al 
 While  I  support  this  transfer  of  control,  I  am  troubled  by  some  of  the  specific  allegations  raised  in  the  proceeding  regarding  the  apparent  reluctance  of  the  merger  parties  to  enter  into 
 reasonable  and  nondiscriminatory  automatic  roaming  relationships.  Consistent  with  my  position  in  other  recent  merger  proceedings,  though,  I  believe  that  the  discussion  of  roaming  issues  are 
 most  appropriate  in  the  context  of  the  comprehensive,  industry-  wide,  proceeding  that  we  launched  in  August  2005.  I  look  forward  to  a  timely  resolution  of  this  important  inquiry. 


 Pending  our  next  step  in  the  roaming  proceeding,  however,  I  do  think  it  is  important  to  remind  all  CMRS  providers  that  they  are  subject  to  certain  common  carrier  provisions  of  Title  II 
 of  the  Act,  in  particular  Sections  201  and  202.  I  remain  supportive  of  our  request  for  comment  on  whether  existing  remedies  under  these  provisions  of  the  law  have  been  sufficient  to  ensure  the 
 continued  development  of  automatic  roaming  services,  particularly  in  light  of  recent  industry  consolidation. 
2