**DISSENTING** **JOINT STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**AND**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

 

*Re:*       *Qwest Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c)
from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules with Respect to Broadband
Services* WC Docket No. 06-125

 

The Commission continues down its ill-considered road of granting
far-reaching forbearance to petitioners seeking relief from Title II and
*Computer Inquiry* obligations associated with certain broadband
enterprise services.  As was the case in last year's *AT&T Title II and
Computer Inquiry Forbearance Order* addressing largely the same issues
raised by Qwest here, there is insufficient evidence to support
forbearance in this case.

 

The concerns we originally raised in our Joint Statement in the *AT&T
Title II and Computer Inquiry Forbearance Order* are equally applicable
today, so we need only briefly repeat our concerns here.  First, the
Order reaffirms the notion of a special class of "broadband enterprise
services" deserving of forbearance. Yet, the Commission has previously
treated these services as special access services.  The Commission's
pending rulemaking on this very topic is of course long overdue.
Clearly, we should not be granting forbearance for rules covering
special access services without first completing an industry-wide
analysis of competition for these services.  The Order also lacks any
rigorous analysis of the impact on small and medium size business
customers as well communications providers who use these services to
provide both residential and enterprise services.  Moreover, the
Commission again relies on a nationwide market analysis. We have
repeatedly argued that rampant deregulation and a blind eye towards a
competitive analysis are no substitutes for a national strategy for
deploying broadband services.  Today's Order is a missed opportunity for
the Commission to critically review whether a national framework for the
market specific services before us is appropriate. 

 

The Order retains key interconnection, universal service, privacy,
disabilities access, and other Congressionally-mandated provisions \--
forbearance from which would have been devastating for consumers and
competition.  While we appreciate the decision to retain these essential
responsibilities, we cannot support this Order's decision to forbear
from rules that provide critical pricing protection. 

 

It remains abundantly clear that the Commission is bent on continuing
its headlong rush to eliminate large swaths of its rules under the guise
of forbearance and absent the kind of industry-wide reviews that would
enable us to assess the marketplace as a whole. We believe this is an
egregious mistake. The lack of data concerning the specific product and
geographic markets at issue and this Order's lack of analysis cause us
great concern about both the substance and the process by which the
Commission grants forbearance from our rules.  Moreover, as a result of
this approach, the Commission finds itself inundated with
company-specific requests for "me-too" relief that divert attention from
the many other critical priorities before us.

 

For these reasons, we dissent from today's Order.