**DISSENTING STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: *Petition for Forbearance of the Verizon Telephone Companies
Pursuant to 47*

*U.S.C. § 160(c), SBC Communications Inc.'s Petition for Forbearance
Under 47*

*U.S.C. § 160(c), Qwest Communications International Inc. Petition for*

*Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c), BellSouth Telecommunications,
Inc.*

*Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c),* Memorandum Opinion
and

Order (WC Docket Nos. 01-338, 03-235, 03-260 & 04-48)

The mismatch between the Commission's broadband rhetoric and reality
reaches new heights with today's decision. The reality is that the
International Telecommunications Union reports that the United States is
now ***thirteenth*** in the world in broadband penetration. This is a
fall even from our sobering perch at eleven that the Commission reported
just a few months ago. It's an ominous trend when we recall that just
two-and-a-half years ago the Commission reported that the United States
ranked number four in the world in broadband penetration.

While the country experiences broadband freefall, the Commission has
embarked on a policy of closing off competitive access to last mile
bottleneck facilities. In the *Triennial Review*, the majority
restricted access to fiber-to-the-home loops. Last summer, the majority
extended this exemption from competition to facilities serving
"primarily residential" buildings, an action that clouded the line
between mass market and small business customers. The result: millions
of small businesses located in buildings where there are also
residential units are shut off from the benefits of having competitive
broadband options. Last week brought another onslaught when the majority
insulated fiber-to-the-curb architectures from competition. This action
further restricted broadband choice for residential consumers and
further tightened the noose on small businesses seeking competitive
broadband services.

Today, the majority pounds another nail into the coffin it is building
for competition. In all prior decisions, the majority used Section 251
to restrict access to last mile facilities. But to ensure at least the
possibility of access and the possibility of competition---even though
it might be at higher prices---the Commission unanimously required
continued access to these facilities under the less stringent
requirements of Section 271. In *USTA II*, the D.C. Circuit upheld this
approach. But in today's decision, the majority casts aside the court's
holding and moves on to slash even the residual bare requirements of
Section 271 access. As a result, there is now absolutely no obligation
to provide competitive access to any broadband facilities---from
fiber-to-the-home to fiber-to-the curb to packetized functions of hybrid
loops to packetized switching capabilities---at just and reasonable
rates. The majority accomplishes this final feat using the Commission's
Section 10 forbearance authority to shut off any obligation to provide
fair access to last mile bottleneck facilities. In doing so, they
replace their will for that of Congress, finding that competition is not
required for just and reasonable charges or for the protection of
consumers. They conclude that the public interest is served by
retreating to a policy of non-competition and last mile monopoly
control. I cannot support such conclusions nor the underlying analysis.

The majority attempts to assure us that today's action is part of an
effort to promote local competition. They contend that in the broadband
market preconditions for dominance are not present because promising
technologies are flooding the marketplace. But broad rhetoric about the
power of competition does not make it happen. And choosing to ignore the
Commission's own data does not help the weak analytical structure on
which this decision is built.

The facts are clear. This Commission's most recent report on high-speed
services shows that the residential and small business market is a
duopoly. Our data show that new satellite and wireless
technologies---exciting though they are---together serve only 1.3
percent of this market. Broadband over powerline does not yet even
register. Yet the majority chooses to ignore the Commission's
statistics, preferring instead sweeping rhetoric about regulatory relief
and broadband competition.

One problem here is that the majority gets so carried away with its
vision of the country's telecom future that they act like it is already
here, that competition is everywhere flourishing, and that intermodal
competition is already ubiquitous reality. But their cheerful blindness
to stubborn market reality actually pushes farther into the future the
kind of competitive telecom world they say they want.

The lack of analysis in this proceeding---and in the Commission's
approach to broadband generally---amounts to a regulatory policy of
crossing our fingers and hoping competition will somehow magically burst
forth. With the international economy increasingly dependent on
broadband facilities, faith-based approaches to advanced
telecommunications are insufficient. We cannot afford to wait. As
*Business Week* recently made clear: "If the U.S. is not to lose out in
the global race of the next-generation Internet and the new businesses
it can spawn, change is needed. The country must create vigorous
competition to drive the low prices and high speeds that can usher in a
prosperous broadband economy." I agree. There may not be a
"one-sized-fits-all" competition policy out there, but if we want to
enter the brave new world of broadband, we need to move away from our
current course. The facts show we are headed in the wrong direction at
warp speed. I dissent.