**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WC Docket No. 07-9           |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Qwest Petition for Forbearance   | ) |                              |
| Under                            | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Resale,  |   |                              |
| Unbundling and Other Incumbent   | * |                              |
| Local Exchange Requirements      | * |                              |
| Contained in Sections 251 and    | ) |                              |
| 271 of the Telecommunications    | * |                              |
| Act of 1996 in the               | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Terry, Montana Exchange          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: April 21, 2008 Released: April 21, 2008**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. background 2

A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 2

B. Prior Forbearance Relief from Incumbent LEC Obligations 4

C. Qwest's Forbearance Petition in the Terry Exchange 8

III\. discussion 10

A. Forbearance Standard 11

B. Forbearance Analysis for Section 251(c) 12

1\. Sections 251(c)(2), (5), and (6) Interconnection-Related Obligations
13

2\. Section 251(c)(3) Unbundled Access Obligations 17

3\. Section 251(c)(4) Resale Obligations 19

4\. Section 251(c)(1) Good Faith Negotiation Obligations 20

C. Forbearance Analysis for Sections 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (iv)-(vi),
(xiv) 21

D. Forbearance Analysis for Section 252 27

IV\. EFFECTIVE DATE 28

V. ORDERING CLAUSE 29

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Order, we address a petition filed by Qwest Corporation
    (Qwest) pursuant to section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (Act), seeking certain forbearance relief in the Terry,
    Montana local exchange (Terry exchange).[^1] Qwest requests that the
    Commission forbear from applying the requirements of sections 251(c)
    and 271(c) to Qwest, and from otherwise regulating Qwest as an
    incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), in the Terry exchange. This
    petition presents a unique set of facts where for the purposes of
    section 251's requirements there are two incumbent LECs competing in
    the same exchange, both with their own independent networks, and
    with no other competitors in the exchange. For the reasons set forth
    below, we grant Qwest forbearance from certain requirements of
    sections 251(c), 271(c), and 252 to the extent discussed herein.
    Qwest's petition is otherwise denied.

# background 

## Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

2.  *Sections 251(c) and 252 Requirements*. The Act includes a number of
    provisions designed to promote the development of competitive
    markets.[^2] As noted above, Qwest seeks relief from all section
    251(c) obligations,[^3] which are the duties to: negotiate in good
    faith the terms and conditions of section 251(b) and (c) agreements;
    provide interconnection to any requesting telecommunications carrier
    for the transmission and routing, at any technically feasible point,
    of telephone exchange service and exchange access service; provide
    unbundled network elements (UNEs) for the provision of
    telecommunications service; offer for resale at wholesale rates any
    telecommunications service that the carrier provides at retail;
    provide reasonable notice of network changes; and provide
    collocation.[^4] Section 252 sets forth procedures for the
    negotiation, arbitration, and approval of agreements whenever a
    requesting carrier seeks to negotiate an agreement related to
    section 251(b) or (c) with an incumbent LEC.[^5]

3.  *Section 271(c)(2)(B) Requirements*. Section 271(c)(2)(B) of the Act
    sets forth a 14-point "competitive checklist" of access,
    interconnection, and other threshold requirements that a Bell
    Operating Company (BOC) must demonstrate that it satisfies before
    that BOC can be authorized to provide in-region, interLATA
    services.[^6] After a BOC obtains section 271 authority to offer
    in-region interLATA services, these threshold requirements become
    ongoing requirements.[^7] Because Qwest is a BOC that has been
    granted the authority to provide interLATA services in its in-region
    states, including Montana, it is subject to the requirements of
    section 271(c)(2)(B).[^8]

## Prior Forbearance Relief from Incumbent LEC Obligations

4.  *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order.* On December 2, 2005, the Commission
    released an order granting in part a petition filed by Qwest seeking
    forbearance from the application of certain dominant carrier
    regulation and UNE obligations in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical
    Area (MSA).[^9] With respect to Qwest's requested forbearance from
    unbundling obligations, in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, the
    Commission held that section 251(c)(3) had been "fully implemented"
    nationwide,[^10] and it granted Qwest forbearance from section
    251(c)(3) unbundling obligations in nine of the 24 wire centers in
    the Omaha MSA. In granting this relief, the Commission relied on the
    state of competition and level of competitive facilities deployment
    in those nine wire centers, as well as certain other regulatory
    safeguards, such as continued availability of section 251(c)(4)
    resale and section 271 unbundled elements.[^11] The Commission
    concluded that, in areas served by those nine wire centers, Cox
    Communications, Inc. (Cox), the local cable operator, had built out
    "extensive facilities" and was using those facilities to provide
    service to customers in competition with Qwest.[^12] Although Cox
    leased some wholesale last-mile inputs from Qwest pursuant to
    voluntary commercial agreements, Cox provided competition to Qwest
    without accessing UNEs provided by Qwest pursuant to section
    251(c)(3).[^13] To avoid customer disruption, the Commission adopted
    a six-month transition period for customers of competitive LECs,
    other than Cox, that relied on Qwest's UNEs offered pursuant to
    section 251(c)(3).[^14]

5.  The Commission declined to grant Qwest forbearance from its section
    251(c)(3) unbundling obligations in the remaining 15 wire centers in
    the Omaha MSA where Cox's facilities deployment was less
    extensive.[^15] The Commission also denied Qwest forbearance from
    certain section 271 obligations, to which Qwest is subject as a
    BOC.[^16] Specifically, the Commission denied Qwest forbearance from
    section 271 checklist items 4, 5, and 6, which establish independent
    obligations to provide unbundled access to local loops, local
    transport, and local switching,[^17] and it relied on the continued
    availability of wholesale access to Qwest's network under section
    271 in forbearing from section 251(c)(3).[^18]

6.  *ACS UNE Forbearance Order.* On September 30, 2005, ACS filed a
    petition with the Commission seeking relief from section 251(c)(3)
    unbundling obligations similar to that granted to Qwest in the
    *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order.*[^19] On December 28, 2006, the
    Commission, in the *ACS UNE Forbearance Order*, granted in part
    ACS's petition for forbearance from section 251 unbundling. Subject
    to certain specific conditions, the Commission granted ACS
    forbearance from the obligation to provide unbundled loops and
    dedicated transport pursuant to sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) in
    certain wire centers in Anchorage based on the development of
    facilities-based competition and other factors.[^20] First, the
    Commission granted ACS relief from section 251(c)(3) unbundling
    obligations and section 252(d)(1) pricing obligations in the five of
    the 11 wire centers in the Anchorage study area where it found that
    the level of facilities-based competition by General Communication,
    Inc. (GCI), ACS's main competitor in the Anchorage study area,
    ensured that market forces would protect the interests of consumers
    and that such regulation, therefore, was unnecessary.  Second, as a
    condition of the order, the Commission required ACS to make loops
    and certain subloops available in those five wire centers, by no
    later than the end of the transition period, at the same rates,
    terms, and conditions as those negotiated between GCI and ACS in
    Fairbanks, Alaska until commercially negotiated rates are reached. 
    Third, the Commission provided for a one-year transition period
    before the forbearance grant takes effect.[^21]  Since that time,
    ACS and GCI reached an agreement governing ACS's continued provision
    of access to the specified elements in the Anchorage study area
    during the next five years.[^22]

7.  *Verizon 6 MSA Forbearance Order.* On September 6, 2006, Verizon
    sought certain forbearance relief in the Boston, New York,
    Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, and Virginia Beach MSAs. [^23]
    Specifically, Verizon sought relief from dominant carrier regulation
    of its mass market switched access services,[^24] from section
    251(c)(3) loop and transport unbundling obligations (UNE
    obligations),[^25] and from all *Computer III* obligations (*e.g.,*
    open network architecture (ONA) and comparably efficient
    interconnection (CEI) requirements).[^26] On December 5, 2007, the
    Commission denied Verizon its requested relief.[^27] First, the
    Commission denied Verizon relief from dominant carrier regulation of
    mass market switched access services in the six MSAs because its
    market shares in these MSAs indicated that competition was not
    adequate to ensure that charges, practices, classifications, or
    regulations are just and reasonable, and not unjustly or
    unreasonably discriminatory.[^28] Second, the Commission determined
    that Verizon was not subject to a sufficient level of
    facilities-based competition in these MSAs to grant relief from
    section 251(c)(3) unbundling obligations.[^29] Finally, the
    Commission denied Verizon's petition for relief from *Computer III*
    requirements because Verizon continues to possess exclusionary
    market power.[^30]

##  Qwest's Forbearance Petition in the Terry Exchange

8.  On August 31, 2006, the Commission concluded that Mid-Rivers
    Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Mid-Rivers) should be treated as an
    incumbent LEC for the purposes of section 251 in the Terry, Montana
    exchange pursuant to section 251(h)(2).[^31] In reaching this
    conclusion, the Commission found that Mid-Rivers served
    approximately 85 to 93 percent of the access lines in the Terry
    exchange, and that Mid-Rivers had completely overbuilt the Terry
    exchange.[^32] The Commission also concluded that Mid-Rivers'
    operations in the Terry exchange should remain subject to existing
    competitive LEC regulation for interstate purposes pending further
    Commission action.[^33] In addition, the Commission concluded that
    Qwest, the legacy incumbent LEC in the Terry exchange, should be
    subject to non-dominant regulation for its interstate
    telecommunications services in that exchange pending further
    action.[^34]

9.  On January 22, 2007, Qwest filed its Petition requesting that the
    Commission forbear from applying the requirements of sections 251(c)
    and 271(c) to Qwest, and from otherwise regulating Qwest as an
    incumbent LEC, in the Terry exchange.[^35] Qwest argues it should no
    longer be regulated as an incumbent LEC in the Terry exchange
    because it no longer has the only last-mile facilities in the
    exchange, the Commission has found that Mid-Rivers' facilities
    appear to be technically superior to Qwest's, and that Mid-Rivers
    serves substantially all of the customers in the Terry
    exchange.[^36] The Commission sought comment on Qwest's
    petition.[^37]

# discussion

10. In this section, we evaluate Qwest's forbearance request under the
    statutory criteria of section 10(a) of the Act.[^38] The Commission
    previously has evaluated requests for relief similar to that sought
    by Qwest in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order* and the *ACS UNE
    Forbearance Order*, and the analytical framework established in that
    precedent guides our actions here. Based on the record evidence
    filed in this proceeding, we find that granting Qwest forbearance
    from certain requirements of sections 251(c), 271(c), and 252 in the
    Terry exchange is warranted.

## Forbearance Standard 

11. The Commission is required to forbear from any statutory provision
    or regulation if it determines that: (1) enforcement of the
    regulation is not necessary to ensure that the telecommunications
    carrier's charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are
    just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably
    discriminatory; (2) enforcement of the regulation is not necessary
    to protect consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such
    provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest.[^39]
    Forbearance is warranted under section 10(a) only if all three
    elements of the forbearance criteria are satisfied.[^40] In making
    such determinations, the Commission also must consider pursuant to
    section 10(b) "whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or
    regulation will promote competitive market conditions."[^41]

## Forbearance Analysis for Section 251(c)

12. By applying Commission precedent, we determine that forbearance from
    the application of sections 251(c)(2)-(6) to Qwest in the Terry
    exchange meets the standards set forth in section 10(a) of the
    Act.[^42] Specifically, in light of the unique circumstances in the
    Terry exchange, the record evidence in this proceeding demonstrates
    that Qwest is subject to a sufficient level of facilities-based
    competition in the Terry exchange under the Commission's *Qwest
    Omaha*, *ACS UNE*, and *Verizon 6 MSA* precedent. Further, there are
    no competitors in the Terry exchange that rely on Qwest's
    interconnection, wholesale, or UNE services.[^43] Thus, we forbear
    from applying each of section 251(c)(2)-(6)'s obligations to Qwest
    in the Terry exchange. In addition, given our forbearance from
    sections 251(c)(2)-(6), we find that Qwest's section 251(c)(1) duty
    to negotiate agreements in good faith to fulfill its duties under
    section 251(c) is no longer applicable. Therefore, we need not
    address Qwest's request for forbearance regarding section 251(c)(1).

### Sections 251(c)(2), (5), and (6) Interconnection-Related Obligations 

13. We begin our analysis by examining competition in the Terry
    exchange.[^44] Given the relatively small size of the Terry
    exchange, its relative isolation from major metropolitan areas, and
    the absence of any large business customers, we conclude, based on
    our prior finding for this exchange, that there is no need to
    analyze the retail and wholesale markets separately as the
    Commission typically does in the forbearance context.[^45] With
    respect to competition, Qwest's market share in the Terry exchange
    supports the grant of forbearance from sections 251(c)(2), (5),
    and (6) of the Act. As the Commission previously found, Mid-Rivers
    serves approximately 93 percent of the access lines in the entire
    Terry exchange, has a ubiquitous network in the Terry exchange, and
    can serve the entire exchange with its own facilities.[^46] Further,
    Qwest has indicated that its retail access lines in service in the
    Terry exchange have continued to decline in number.[^47] This
    showing of competition ensures that Qwest is unable to implement
    charges, practices, classifications, or regulations that are not
    just and reasonable or that are unjustly or unreasonably
    discriminatory in this exchange.

14. Further, unlike the circumstances in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance
    Order*, Mid-Rivers, Qwest's competitor in the Terry exchange, did
    not utilize section 251(c)(2) interconnection elements to enter the
    Terry market, and does not rely on access to Qwest's network in
    order to exchange telecommunications traffic.[^48] In addition, as
    we have found previously, it is unlikely that other carriers will
    enter the Terry exchange, given that Mid-Rivers has overbuilt
    Qwest's network and that Terry is a very small rural town.[^49]
    These unique competitive circumstances in the Terry exchange also
    support our determination that enforcement of sections 251(c)(2),
    (5), and (6) is not necessary to ensure that charges, practices,
    classifications, or regulations in the Terry exchange are just and
    reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. This
    is in contrast to the circumstances involved in the *Qwest Omaha
    Forbearance Order*, where the Commission found that competitive
    carriers had constructed their networks using direct interconnection
    with Qwest and collocation as a way to interconnect with all of the
    carriers in the Omaha MSA due to the ubiquity of Qwest's network and
    its direct connection obligations.[^50]

15. The second prong of section 10(a) states that the Commission shall
    consider whether "enforcement of such regulation or provision is not
    necessary for the protection of consumers."[^51] Based on the
    competitive showing above, forbearance from the requirements of
    sections 251(c)(2), (5), and (6) does not place consumers in
    jeopardy. Mid-Rivers comments that it has an interconnection
    agreement with Qwest, which permits calling between the subscribers
    of the two carriers in Terry,[^52] and customers also remain
    protected under section 251(a)(1)'s interconnection obligation.[^53]
    Further, since Mid-Rivers and Qwest compete for customers in the
    Terry exchange, we conclude that our forbearance action will not
    endanger consumers because each party has an interest in providing
    service to these consumers.

16. We also find that relieving Qwest from the section 251(c)(2), (5),
    and (6) obligations is in the public interest under section 10(a)(3)
    because Qwest now faces substantial competition in the Terry
    exchange that does not rely on Qwest's network.[^54] The Commission
    recognizes that relieving Qwest of the obligation to interconnect
    leaves Mid-Rivers, as the incumbent LEC for the purposes of section
    251, the sole party responsible for providing these services in the
    Terry exchange.[^55] However, as we found in the *Mid-Rivers Order*,
    we believe that it is unlikely that another competitor will enter
    the Terry exchange because the Terry exchange is a very small rural
    exchange that there already exist two facilities-based service
    providers in the Terry exchange.[^56]

### Section 251(c)(3) Unbundled Access Obligations 

17. As we discussed above, Mid-Rivers serves approximately 93 percent of
    the access lines in the entire Terry exchange, has a ubiquitous
    network in the Terry exchange, and can serve the entire exchange
    with its own facilities.[^57] Further, Qwest has indicated that its
    retail access lines in service in the Terry exchange have continued
    to decline in number.[^58] We find that this showing of competition
    ensures that enforcement of section 251(c)(3)'s unbundling
    obligations is no longer necessary under section 10(a)(1) to ensure
    that Qwest's charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are
    just and reasonable or not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory
    in this exchange.[^59] Further, the record reflects that Mid-Rivers
    does not rely on Qwest's unbundled network elements to provide
    service in the Terry exchange.[^60] Thus, given that the vast
    majority of consumers in the Terry exchange receive their
    telecommunications services without reliance on Qwest's network
    elements, we conclude under section 10(a)(2) that enforcement of
    section 251(c)(3) is not necessary for the protection of consumers.

18. We also find that relieving Qwest from the section 251(c)(3)
    obligations is in the public interest under section 10(a)(3) because
    Qwest now faces substantial competition in the Terry exchange that
    does not rely on Qwest's network.[^61] The Commission recognizes
    that relieving Qwest of the obligation to provide network elements
    leaves Mid-Rivers, as the incumbent LEC for the purposes of section
    251, the sole party responsible for providing these services in the
    Terry exchange.[^62] However, as we found in the *Mid-Rivers Order*,
    it is unlikely that another competitor will enter the Terry exchange
    given that it is a very small rural exchange where two
    facilities-based service providers already exist.[^63] Moreover, we
    conclude that forbearance from section 251(c)(3) obligations is in
    the public interest because the costs of unbundling obligations in
    the Terry exchange outweigh the benefits. As the Commission has
    previously found, while the costs of regulatory intervention may be
    warranted in order to foster competitive entry into local exchange
    markets where such competition would not otherwise be generated,
    these costs are unwarranted and do not serve the public interest
    once local exchange markets are sufficiently competitive.[^64] This
    is clearly the case in the Terry exchange. Thus, applying section
    10(a), we conclude that it is appropriate to forbear from applying
    section 251(c)(3) to Qwest in the Terry exchange.

### Section 251(c)(4) Resale Obligations 

19. The unique competitive circumstances in the Terry exchange support
    our determination that enforcement of Qwest's section 251(c)(4)
    resale obligations is not necessary to ensure that charges,
    practices, classification, or regulations remain just, reasonable,
    and nondiscriminatory in the Terry exchange. As discussed above,
    Mid-Rivers serves approximately 93 percent of the access lines in
    the entire Terry exchange, has a ubiquitous network in the Terry
    exchange, and can serve the entire exchange with its own facilities.
    This showing of competition ensures that Qwest is unable to
    implement charges, practices, classifications, or regulations that
    are not just and reasonable or that are unjustly or unreasonably
    discriminatory in this exchange, thus satisfying section 10(a)(1).
    Further, the record reflects that competitors in the Terry exchange
    do not depend on section 251(c)(4) wholesale services to provide
    competitive services in the Terry exchange.[^65] Based on these
    competitive factors, we conclude that forbearance from the
    requirements of section 251(c)(4) does not place consumers in
    jeopardy, and therefore meets the section 10(a)(2) requirement.
    Further, Qwest remains obligated under resale requirements in
    section 251(b)(1).[^66] Finally, we also find that relieving Qwest
    from its section 251(c)(4) resale obligations is in the public
    interest under section 10(a)(3) because Qwest faces substantial
    competition in the Terry exchange that does not rely on Qwest's
    network. Thus, we grant Qwest's petition to the extent it seeks
    forbearance from the resale obligations of section 251(c)(4) in the
    Terry exchange.

### Section 251(c)(1) Good Faith Negotiation Obligations 

20. We need not address Qwest's request for forbearance regarding
    section 251(c)(1). That provision imposes on incumbent LECs the duty
    to negotiate in good faith, in accordance with section 252, terms
    and conditions of agreements to fulfill the section 251(b) and (c)
    duties.[^67] Given that we grant Qwest forbearance from its
    obligations under sections 251(c)(2)-(6), above, section 251(c)(1)'s
    duty to negotiate in good faith agreements to fulfill duties under
    section 251(c) is no longer applicable.[^68] Qwest, however, retains
    its duties and obligations under section 251(c)(1) to negotiate in
    good faith the terms and conditions for agreements to fulfill
    Qwest's obligations under section 251(b).

## Forbearance Analysis for Sections 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (iv)-(vi), (xiv) 

21. For the reasons discussed below, pursuant to section 10(a), we
    forbear from certain requirements of section 271(c)(2)(B) as they
    apply to Qwest in the Terry exchange.[^69] Qwest seeks forbearance
    from 6 of the 14 competitive checklist items contained in section
    271(c)(2)(B), namely checklist items 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 14.[^70]
    For our analysis, we group these requirements into two categories.
    The first category consists of checklist items 1, 2, and 14, which
    each incorporate obligations of section 251(c) by reference.[^71]
    The second category consists of checklist items 4 through 6, which
    are independent obligations under the Act. In contrast to checklist
    items 1, 2, and 14, which incorporate by reference other provisions
    of the Act, checklist items 4 through 6 establish independent and
    ongoing obligations for BOCs to provide wholesale access to loops,
    transport, and switching, irrespective of any impairment analysis
    under section 251 to provide unbundled access to such elements.[^72]
    We conclude with respect to both the first and second categories
    that forbearance is warranted based on the current record.

### Section 10(a)(1) -- Charges, Practices, Classifications, and Regulations 

22. ***Section 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (xiv) (Checklist items 1, 2,
    and 14).*** We conclude that Qwest has demonstrated that it is
    entitled to forbearance from its obligations to provide
    interconnection, UNEs, and resale pursuant to section
    271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (xiv) (*i.e.*, checklist items 1, 2,
    and 14) to the same extent that it has demonstrated that it is
    entitled to forbearance from the requirements of sections
    251(c)(2)-(4). The scope of the requirements of checklist items 1,
    2, and 14 is coextensive with specific requirements set forth in
    section 251(c) and section 252(d). Specifically, under checklist
    items 1, 2, and 14, a BOC must provide interconnection, UNEs, and
    resale "in accordance with the requirements of" the relevant
    subsections of 251(c) and 252(d).[^73] As a result, as the
    Commission and reviewing courts previously have stated, if a BOC
    must provide interconnection, UNEs, or resale pursuant to sections
    251(c)(2)-(4), it must also provide interconnection, UNEs or resale
    pursuant to checklist items 1, 2, and 14 of section
    271(c)(2)(B).[^74] Thus, just as it would not make sense for the
    Commission to forbear from sections 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (xiv)
    while the obligations of sections 251(c)(2)-(4) remain in effect, it
    similarly would not make sense for the Commission to deny
    forbearance from sections 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (xiv) if a
    carrier has no corresponding obligations under sections
    251(c)(2)-(4). As such, we find that it is appropriate for us to
    forbear from the obligations of checklist items 1, 2, and 14, having
    already forborne from sections 251(c)(2)-(4).[^75]

23. Given this relationship between the statutory provisions, the
    analysis underlying our decision to forbear from section
    251(c)(2)-(4) also supports our decision regarding sections
    271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (xiv). Namely, we conclude that in light
    of the unique circumstances in the Terry exchange of a complete
    overbuild by a carrier now considered an incumbent LEC for the
    purposes of section 251 and our finding that the Terry exchange is a
    very small rural exchange, Qwest has demonstrated that sufficient
    facilities-based competition exists in the Terry exchange to justify
    forbearance.[^76] In the evidence of sufficient competition, we find
    that access to interconnection, UNEs, and resale options ensures
    that enforcement of sections 271(c)(2)(B)(i),(ii), and (xiv)
    (*i.e.,* checklist items 1, 2, and 14) is not necessary to ensure
    that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are
    just and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.

24. ***Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) (Checklist items 4-6)***. Based on
    the same competitive showing, we find that enforcement of sections
    271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) (*i.e.*, checklist items 4-6) is not necessary
    to ensure that telecommunications services available to customers
    can be offered on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. The
    competitive circumstances present in the Terry exchange are
    distinguishable from those under consideration in the *Qwest Omaha
    Forbearance Order*. In the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, the
    Commission found that competitors in the Omaha MSA continued to need
    access to Qwest's facilities to provide service to many
    locations.[^77] As such, the Commission denied Qwest forbearance
    from its obligations under checklist items 4, 5, and 6 because there
    did not exist "sufficient facilities-based competition" in the Omaha
    MSA.[^78] Further, the Commission justified its decision in the
    *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order* to forbear from section 251(c)(3) in
    part because of the retail competition that depended on Qwest's
    wholesale offerings as well as the potential competition facilitated
    by the Commission's other rules, including the section 271
    checklist.[^79] In contrast, Mid-Rivers serves approximately 93
    percent of the access lines in the entire Terry exchange, has a
    ubiquitous network in the Terry exchange, and can serve the entire
    exchange with its own facilities.[^80] Thus, Qwest's primary
    competitor in the Terry exchange is not dependent on Qwest services
    or facilities to offer its services.[^81] Further, it is unlikely
    that other carriers will enter the Terry exchange, given that
    Mid-Rivers has completely overbuilt Qwest's network and that Terry
    is a very small rural town. Therefore, based on the unique
    competitive circumstances of the Terry exchange, we conclude that
    enforcement of the requirements of sections 271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) to
    provide interconnection, UNEs, and resale, and to provide wholesale
    access to Qwest's loops, switching, and transport elements is not
    necessary to ensure that telecommunications services can be offered
    on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms.

### Section 10(a)(2) -- Protection of Consumers

25. In order to forbear from applying to Qwest the section 271(c)(2)(B)
    obligations to provide interconnection, UNEs, and resale pursuant to
    section 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (xiv) and to provide access to
    loops, transport, and switching pursuant to section
    271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) in the Terry exchange, section 10(a)(2)
    requires us to analyze whether such application is necessary to
    ensure the protection of consumers.[^82] For the same reasons that
    persuade us that Qwest has demonstrated that these requirements as
    applied to its legacy elements are not necessary under section
    10(a)(1), namely, the unique competitive circumstances present in
    the Terry exchange and the complete overbuild by a carrier now
    considered an incumbent LEC for the purposes of section 251, we also
    conclude that Qwest has demonstrated that these requirements are
    unnecessary for the protection of consumers under section 10(a)(2).
    Because we have explained these reasons above, we do not repeat that
    discussion here.[^83]

### Section 10(a)(3) -- Public Interest

26. Finally, Qwest has shown that it satisfies the requirements of
    section 10(a)(3) with regard to the two categories of checklist
    items.[^84] Specifically, we must consider whether forbearance from
    the application to Qwest of its obligations under checklist items 1,
    2, 4 through 6, and 14 is consistent with the public interest. In
    the Terry exchange, where competition is not based on the use of
    Qwest's facilities, eliminating the requirements to provide
    interconnection, UNEs, and resale, and to provide wholesale access
    to Qwest's loops, switching, and transport elements is not likely to
    result in a reduction in competition. Further, as discussed above,
    we believe it is unlikely that another competitor will enter the
    Terry exchange because Terry is a very small rural exchange and
    there already exist two facilities-based service providers in the
    exchange.[^85] Thus, while we recognize that forbearing from these
    requirements may not enhance competition in the Terry exchange, we
    find that eliminating certain section 271 access obligations for
    legacy facilities is consistent with the public interest. Qwest
    already faces substantial competition in the Terry exchange that
    does not rely on Qwest's network, and there are unlikely to be any
    new competitors that will rely on Qwest's facilities. As such, we
    conclude that granting Qwest's petition is consistent with the pubic
    interest.

## Forbearance Analysis for Section 252

27. We conclude that section 10(a) is satisfied with respect to
    forbearance from regulating Qwest as an incumbent LEC for purposes
    of section 252 in the Terry exchange. We find that regulating Qwest
    as an incumbent LEC under section 252 is not necessary to ensure
    just and reasonable charges and practices in Terry for largely the
    same reasons that we find forbearance is appropriate for relief from
    section 251(c).[^86] As we explain above, Mid-Rivers has
    substantially replaced Qwest in the Terry exchange, servicing at
    least 93 percent of retail access lines. Because of the unique
    circumstances in Terry, where there has been a near complete
    overbuild of facilities, we believe that Qwest no longer has the
    market power and bargaining advantage that were thought to
    necessitate section 252. As such, because of the competitive
    circumstances in Terry, we believe it is no longer necessary to
    impose section 252's market opening procedures on Qwest. For largely
    the same reasons, sections 10(a)(2) and 10(a)(3) are satisfied as
    well. If Qwest attempted to use relief from incumbent LEC regulation
    under section 252 to harm consumers, those consumers would simply
    leave Qwest. As such, we find that regulation of Qwest as an
    incumbent LEC under section 252 in the Terry exchange is no longer
    necessary to protect consumers. Furthermore, we find that the public
    interest will be advanced by eliminating economic distortions caused
    by the imposition of extensive regulation on Qwest, which is only a
    small provider in the Terry exchange. Thus, consistent with our
    findings above regarding section 251(c), we find that it is
    appropriate to forbear from regulating Qwest as an incumbent LEC for
    purposes of section 252 in the Terry exchange. We note that Qwest
    remains obligated under those provisions of section 252 that may
    apply to all LECs, and retains its duty to negotiate in good faith
    agreements pertaining to its section 251(b) obligations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE 

28. Consistent with section 10 of the Act and our rules, the
    Commission's forbearance decision shall be effective on April 21,
    2008.[^87] The time for appeal shall run from the release date of
    this Order.

# ORDERING CLAUSE

29. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 10(c) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 160(c), that the
    Qwest Corporation's Petition for Forbearance in Terry, Montana,
    filed January 22, 2007, IS GRANTED to the extent described herein
    and otherwise IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

[^1]: Qwest Petition for Forbearance under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from
    Resale, Unbundling and Other Incumbent Local Exchange Requirements
    Contained in Sections 251 and 271 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996 in the Terry, Montana Exchange (filed Jan. 22, 2007) (Qwest
    Petition or Petition).

[^2]: *See, e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. § 251.

[^3]: Qwest seeks forbearance relief from section 251(c)(1) only to the
    extent that it requests relief from the other section 251(c)
    obligations. Qwest does not seek relief from the obligations of
    section 251(c)(1) as it applies to Qwest's section 251(b) duties.
    *See* Qwest Petition at 5.

[^4]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b), and 251(c)(1)-(6); *see also* 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 51.301 (implementing section 251(c)(1)), 51.305 (implementing
    section 251(c)(2)), 51.301-.319, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing
    section 251(c)(3)), 51.601-.617 (implementing section 251(c)(4)),
    51.325-.335 (implementing section 251(c)(5)), and 51.323
    (implementing section 251(c)(6)). The UNE obligations were described
    in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, so we do not repeat that
    summary here. *See Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance
    Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical
    Area*, WC Docket No. 04-223, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC
    Rcd 19415, 19417-22, paras. 3-11 (2005) (*Qwest Omaha Forbearance
    Order*), *aff'd*, *Qwest Corp. v. FCC*, 482 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir.
    2007).

[^5]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 252.

[^6]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B). The Commission previously granted
    all of the BOCs, including Qwest, forbearance from section 271
    unbundling obligations for the broadband elements that the
    Commission, on a national basis, relieved from section 251(c)(3)
    unbundling in the *Triennial Review Order*, and subsequent
    reconsideration orders. *See Review of the Section 251 Unbundling
    Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of
    the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996; Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability*, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98,
    98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 16978 (2003) (*Triennial Review
    Order*) (subsequent history omitted); *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)*, WC Docket Nos. 01-338, 03-235, 03-260, 04-48, 19 FCC Rcd
    21496, 21504, para. 19 (2004) (*Section 271 Broadband Forbearance
    Order*), *aff'd sub nom.* *Earthlink, Inc. v. FCC*, 462 F.3d 1 (D.C.
    Cir. 2006). These elements include fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) loops,
    fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) loops, the packetized functionality of
    hybrid loops, and packet switching. *See* *Section 271 Broadband
    Forbearance Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 21504, para. 19. Subsequent to the
    issuance of the *Triennial Review Order*, the Commission further
    developed its analysis of FTTH loops, for which the Commission had
    found no unbundling obligation for new construction and for
    overbuild situations where the incumbent LEC does not retire
    existing copper loops. *See Triennial Review Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    17142, para. 273. In the *MDU Reconsideration Order*, the Commission
    determined that the section 706 considerations that partly justified
    the *Triennial Review Order*'s FTTH unbundling relief should be
    extended to encompass FTTH loops serving predominantly residential
    multiple dwelling units (MDUs). *See Review of the [Section
    251](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS251&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.08)
    Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers;
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Services
    Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability*, CC Docket Nos.
    01-338, 96-98, 98-147, Order on Reconsideration, [19 FCC Rcd 15856,
    15858, paras. 7‑9
    (2004)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=4493&SerialNum=2004843135&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.08)
    (*MDU Reconsideration Order*). Subsequently, in the *FTTC
    Reconsideration Order*, the Commission found that the FTTH analysis
    also applies to FTTC loops -- which are loops that bring fiber from
    the central office to a location near the customer's premises -- and
    granted the same unbundling relief to FTTC as applied to FTTH. *See
    Review of the [Section
    251](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS251&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.08)
    Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers;
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Services
    Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability*, CC Docket Nos.
    01-338, 96-98, 98-147, Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 20293,
    20297-20303, paras. 9-19 (2004) (*FTTC Reconsideration Order*); *see
    also id*. at 20293, para. 1 n.1. To the extent Qwest seeks identical
    relief in its present petition, we dismiss its request as moot.

[^7]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). The section 272(c)(2)(B) checklist
    obligations were described in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*,
    so we do not repeat that summary here. *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance
    Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19419-21, paras. 7-9.

[^8]: *See Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc. for
    Authorization to Provide In-region, InterLATA Services in the
    Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah,
    Washington and Wyoming*, WC Docket No. 02-314, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 26303 (2002) (*Qwest MT 271 Order*).

[^9]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 19417, para. 2.

[^10]: *Id.* at 19440, para. 53 (concluding that section 251(c) is
    "fully implemented" because the Commission has issued rules
    implementing section 251(c) and those rules have gone into effect).

[^11]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19447, para.
    64; *see also* 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(c)(4) (resale obligation),
    271(c)(2)(B) (competitive checklist).

[^12]: *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19444, para. 59;
    *see also Wireline Competition Bureau Discloses Cable Coverage
    Threshold in Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Qwest Corporation
    Forbearance Relief in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area,* WC
    Docket 04-223, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 13561 (2007) (*Qwest
    Coverage Public Notice*) (disclosing, after receiving Cox's consent
    to disclose the coverage threshold in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance
    Order*, that Qwest was granted unbundling relief in those wire
    center service areas where, among other things, Cox's voice-enabled
    cable plant covered more than 75 percent of the end-user locations
    that were accessible from those wire centers).

[^13]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19450, para.
    69 n.186 (stating that "Cox does not itself rely on Qwest's UNEs to
    compete").

[^14]: *See id.* at 19452-53, paras. 73-74.

[^15]: *See id.* at 19444-45, para. 60.

[^16]: *See id.* at 19460, para. 90; *see also* 47 U.S.C. § 153(4)
    (defining "Bell operating company").

[^17]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19465, para.
    100; 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi).

[^18]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19446-47,
    19449-50, 19452, 19455, paras. 62, 64, 67-68, 71, 80.

[^19]: *See* Petition of ACS of Anchorage, Inc. Pursuant to Section 10
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, for Forbearance from
    Sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) in the Anchorage Study Area, WC
    Docket No. 05-281 (filed Sept. 30, 2005).

[^20]: *See Petition of ACS of Anchorage, Inc. Pursuant to Section 10 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, for Forbearance from
    Sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) in the Anchorage Study Area*, WC
    Docket No. 05-281, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1958,
    1971, para. 22 (2007) (*ACS UNE Forbearance Order*), *appeals
    dismissed*, *Covad Communications Group, Inc. v. FCC*, Nos.
    07-70898, 07-71076, 07-71222 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing appeals for
    lack of standing); *see also Wireline Competition Bureau Discloses
    Cable Coverage Threshold in Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting
    ACS of Anchorage, Inc. Forbearance Relief in the Anchorage, Alaska
    Study Area*, WC Docket No. 05-281, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 11962
    (2007) (*ACS Coverage Public Notice*) (disclosing, after receiving
    GCI's consent to disclose the coverage threshold in the *ACS UNE
    Forbearance Order*, that ACS was granted unbundling relief in those
    wire center service areas where, among other things, GCI's
    voice-enabled cable plant covered more than 75 percent of the
    end-user locations that were accessible from those wire centers).

[^21]: *See ACS UNE Forbearance Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 1960, para. 2.

[^22]: *See* Letter from Karen Brinkmann, Counsel for ACS of Anchorage,
    Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 06-109 at
    2 (filed May 24, 2007); *see also* Letter from Karen Brinkmann *et
    al.*, Counsel for ACS of Anchorage, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 06-109 at 2 (filed June 29, 2007).

[^23]: *Petition of Verizon* *Telephone Companies for Forbearance
    Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(C) in the Boston, New York,
    Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence and Virginia Beach Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas, Inc.*, WC Docket No. 06-172, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 21293, 21924-25, paras. 1-2 (2007) (*Verizon 6
    MSA Order*); *pet. for review pending*, No. 08-1012 (D.C. Cir. filed
    Jan. 14, 2008).

[^24]: Verizon sought forbearance from the following: tariffing
    requirements, price cap regulation, and dominant carrier
    requirements concerning the processes for acquiring lines,
    discontinuing services, assignment or transfers of control, and
    acquiring affiliations. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.41-.49,
    61.58, 61.59, 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-.66. *See Verizon 6 MSA Order*, 22
    FCC Rcd at 21924, para. 1.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a), (b), (e).

[^26]: *Verizon 6 MSA Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 21307-11, paras. 27-34.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id.* at 21307-08, para. 27.

[^29]: *Id.* at 21312, para. 36.

[^30]: *Id.* at 21318-19, para. 45.

[^31]: *See Petition of Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Order
    Declaring it to be an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier in Terry,
    Montana Pursuant to Section 251(h)(2)*, WC Docket No. 02-78, Report
    and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11506 (2006) (*Mid-Rivers Order*).

[^32]: *See id*. at 11511, para. 12 n.34.

[^33]: *See id.* at 11521-22, para. 35. The Commission did not address
    the appropriate long-term regulatory treatment of Mid-Rivers in the
    Terry exchange, and left that issue to be addressed in Mid-Rivers'
    future study area boundary waiver request. *See id*. On March 14,
    2008, Mid-Rivers filed a study area boundary waiver request for the
    Terry exchange. *See* Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
    Petition for Waiver of the Definition of "Study Area" of the
    Appendix-Glossary of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules; Petition for
    Waiver of Section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket
    No. 96-45 (filed Mar. 14, 2008). The Wireline Competition Bureau has
    sought comment on Mid-Rivers' petition. *See* *Comment Sought on the
    Petition of Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Waive the
    Study Area Boundary Freeze, as Codified in Part 36, and Section
    69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's Rules*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Public
    Notice, DA 08-779 (rel. Apr. 3, 2008).

[^34]: *See id.* at 11519-21, paras. 29-34. The Commission stated that
    it would consider removal of additional regulatory obligations in
    the Terry exchange if Qwest filed a formal petition requesting such
    relief. *See id*. at 11520-21, para. 34.

[^35]: *See* Qwest Petition at 1, 4 ("Specifically, Qwest seeks
    forbearance from regulation as an incumbent under Sections 224, 251,
    252, 259, 271 and 275, and any regulations enacted pursuant to those
    provisions."). Qwest later withdrew its request for forbearance from
    sections 224, 259, 275, and 271(c)(2)(B)(iii). *See* Letter from
    Daphne E. Butler, Corporate Counsel, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-9 (filed Mar. 28, 2008); Letter
    from Daphne E. Butler, Corporate Counsel, Qwest, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-9 (filed Mar. 31, 2008)
    (Qwest Mar. 31, 2008 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^36]: *See id.* at 3; *see also* Letter from Daphne E. Butler, Senior
    Attorney, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No.
    07-9 at 1 (filed Feb. 5, 2008) (Qwest Feb. 5, 2008 *Ex Parte*
    Letter).

[^37]: *See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Qwest
    Corporation's Petition for Forbearance under 47 U.S.C. § 160 from
    Sections 251(c) and 271(c) and from Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
    Treatment in the Terry, Montana Local Exchange*, WC Docket No. 07-9,
    Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 2173 (2007). Mid-Rivers was the only party
    to file comments in response to the Public Notice. In its comments,
    Mid-Rivers states that it does not oppose the petition and "remains
    indifferent to Qwest's regulatory status because it is not dependent
    on Qwest services or facilities to offer its services." Mid-Rivers
    Comments at 1-2.

[^38]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

[^39]: *See id*.

[^40]: *See Cellular Telecomms. & Internet Ass'n v. FCC*, 330 F.3d 502,
    509 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explaining that the three prongs of section
    10(a) are conjunctive and that the Commission could properly deny a
    petition for failure to meet any one prong); *see also* *Petition of
    Core Communications, Inc. for Forbearance from Sections 251(g) and
    254(g) of the Communications Act and Implementing Rules*, WC Docket
    No. 06-100, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 14118, 14125,
    para. 12 (2007).

[^41]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(b). We note that section 10(d) provides that the
    Commission may not forbear from applying the requirements of section
    271 or section 251(c) unless it determines that those requirements
    are "fully implemented." 47 U.S.C. § 160(d). In the *Qwest Omaha
    Forbearance Order*, the Commission determined that, for purposes of
    section 10(d), the requirements of section 251(c) are fully
    implemented nationwide and may be subject to forbearance. *See Qwest
    Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19439-42, paras. 51, 53-56;
    *see also Qwest MT 271 Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 26303 (concluding that
    Qwest had taken the statutorily required steps in section 271 to
    open its local exchange markets in Montana, among other states, to
    competition).

[^42]: *See supra* Section A (outlining the obligations of section
    251(c)).

[^43]: *See* Qwest Petition at 7-8.

[^44]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19447, para.
    65; *ACS UNE Forbearance Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 1974, para. 27.

[^45]: *See Mid-Rivers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 11511, para. 12 n.31
    (finding that there is no need to analyze mass market and business
    markets separately in the Terry exchange for the purposes of
    determining whether Mid-Rivers' market position is comparable to
    that of a legacy incumbent LEC). Terry, Montana, the county seat of
    Prairie County, is located in a county with a population of fewer
    than 2,000. There are only a few hundred access lines in Terry,
    Montana and the nearest city is approximately 200 miles away. *See*
    Mid-Rivers Comments at 2; *see also*
    <http://www.city-data.com/county/Prairie_County-MT.html> (visited
    Jan. 16, 2008); <http://www.prairie.mt.gov/> (visited Jan. 16,
    2008).

[^46]: *See Mid-Rivers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 11506-07, para. 2 n.3; *see
    also* Mid-Rivers Comments at 1; Qwest Feb. 5, 2008 *Ex Parte* Letter
    at 1.

[^47]: *See* Qwest Feb. 5, 2008 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1.

[^48]: *Compare Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19457,
    para. 85 (stating that "all" of Qwest's competitors in the Omaha MSA
    rely "extensively" on access to Qwest's network in order to exchange
    telecommunications traffic) *with* Mid-Rivers Comments at 1-2
    (stating that Mid-Rivers remains indifferent to Qwest's regulatory
    status because it does not depend on Qwest services or facilities to
    offer its services).

[^49]: *See Mid-Rivers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 11515, para. 19 n.56.

[^50]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19457-58,
    para. 86. The Commission found that forbearing from section
    251(c)(2) interconnection and related section 251(c) requirements
    such as collocation likely would give Qwest, which was the "only
    carrier in the Omaha MSA to have a ubiquitous network," the ability
    to exercise market power over interconnection in the Omaha MSA. *See
    id.*

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(2).

[^52]: *See* Mid-Rivers Comments at 2.

[^53]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1).

[^54]: 47 U.S.C § 160(a)(3).

[^55]: As the Commission noted in the *Mid-Rivers Order*, Mid-Rivers is
    subject to the section 251(f) rural exemption for these requirements
    until Mid-Rivers receives a *bona fide* request for interconnection,
    services, or network elements and the state commission determines
    that such a request is not unduly economically burdensome, is
    technically feasible, and is consistent with section 254. *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 251(f).

[^56]: *See Mid-Rivers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 11515, para. 19 n.56.

[^57]: *See supra* para. 13.

[^58]: *See* Qwest Feb. 5, 2008 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1.

[^59]: We distinguish our finding here from the Commission's
    determination in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order* that its grant
    of forbearance from certain section 251(c)(3) obligations relied in
    part on Qwest's continuing resale, interconnection, and section
    271(c) obligations in the Omaha MSA. *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance
    Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19447, para. 64. As we conclude, *infra*, the
    enforcement of these obligations in the Terry exchange is no longer
    necessary for the protection of consumers or to ensure that charges,
    practices, classification, or regulations are just and reasonable or
    not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. We further conclude
    that forbearance from these obligations is consistent with the
    public interest, in accordance with section 10(a)(3). Thus, because
    we conclude that these resale, interconnection, and section 271
    obligations are no longer necessary in the Terry exchange, we need
    not condition our forbearance from section 251(c)(3)'s unbundling
    obligations on their enforcement.

[^60]: *See* Mid-Rivers Comments at 1-2 & n.3.

[^61]: 47 U.S.C § 160(a)(3).

[^62]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^63]: *See Mid-Rivers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 11515, para. 19 n.56.

[^64]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19454, para.
    77.

[^65]: *See* Mid-Rivers Comments at 1-2.

[^66]: We also note that, despite our forbearance from the wholesale
    requirements of section 251(c)(4), the very high levels of
    competition that do not rely on Qwest's facilities in the Terry
    exchange provide Qwest with the incentive to make attractive
    wholesale offerings available so that it will derive more revenue
    indirectly from customers who choose a retail provider other than
    Qwest. *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19449,
    para. 67.

[^67]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1).

[^68]: We note that we do not have the same reciprocity concerns here
    that we did in the *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*. In the *Qwest
    Omaha Forbearance Order*, the Commission largely denied Qwest's
    petition for forbearance from the obligations of section 251(c),
    preserving Qwest's obligations under sections 251(c)(2), (4)-(6).
    *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19458, para. 87.
    Because Qwest retained these obligations, requesting
    telecommunications carriers had a reciprocal duty to negotiate
    agreements for these services in good faith under section 251(c)(1).
    The Commission found that it would not be in the public interest to
    grant Qwest relief from its duty to negotiate in good faith, when
    the requesting telecommunications carriers would remain subject to
    these obligations. *See id.* Here, we do not have those same
    concerns because we forbear from applying sections 251(c)(2)-(6) to
    Qwest in the Terry exchange.

[^69]: *See supra* Section A (discussing the obligations of section
    271(c)(2)(B)).

[^70]: *See* Qwest Petition at 1-6; *see also* Qwest Mar. 31, 2008 *Ex
    Parte* Letter.

[^71]: Checklist item 1 requires Qwest to provide "\[i\]nterconnection
    in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and
    252(d)(1)." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). Checklist item 2 requires
    Qwest to provide "nondiscriminatory access to network elements in
    accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and
    252(d)(1)." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). Checklist item 14 requires
    Qwest to make "telecommunications services . . . available for
    resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and
    252(d)(3)." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv); *see also Application of
    Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon
    Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks, Inc., and Verizon
    Select Services Inc. for Authorization to Provide In-region,
    InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania*, 16 FCC Rcd 17419, 17519-30,
    17542, paras. 17-44, 67 (2001) (*Verizon Pennsylvania Section 271
    Order*).

[^72]: *See Triennial Review Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 17384, para. 653.
    Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act requires that a BOC provide
    "\[l\]ocal loop transmission from the central office to the
    customer's premises, unbundled from local switching or other
    services." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv). Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v)
    requires a BOC to provide "\[l\]ocal transport from the trunk side
    of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching
    or other services." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Section
    271(c)(2)(B)(vi) requires a BOC to provide "\[l\]ocal switching
    unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other
    services." 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vi); *see also Verizon
    Pennsylvania Section 271 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 17532-536, paras.
    48-56.

[^73]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (xiv).

[^74]: *See* *Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime*, CC
    Docket No. 01-92, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
    4685, 4742, n.374 (2005) (seeking comment on whether the statutory
    language regarding the duty to interconnect directly or indirectly
    under section 251(a) should be read to encompass an obligation to
    provide transit service and stating that "a determination that
    incumbent LECs have a transiting obligation pursuant to section
    251(c)(2) would also trigger an obligation to provide such a service
    under section 271(c)(2)(B)(i)"); *see also Sprint Communications Co.
    L.P. v. FCC*, 274 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (stating that some of
    the section 271(c)(2)(B) "requirements are simply incorporations by
    reference of obligations independently imposed on the BOCs by §§
    251-52 of the Act").

[^75]: *See supra* Part 1 (discussing forbearance from section
    251(c)(2), (5), and (6) interconnection obligations); 2 (discussing
    forbearance from section 251(c)(3) UNE obligations); 3 (discussing
    forbearance from section 251(c)(4) resale obligations).

[^76]: *See supra* Parts III.B.1, III.B.2, III.B.3. For the sake of
    brevity, we do not restate our section 10(a) analysis in full here.

[^77]: *See Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19470, para.
    110.

[^78]: *See* *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19466, para.
    103.

[^79]: *See* *supra* paras. 4-5, n.Error: Reference source not found;
    *Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19467-68, para. 105.

[^80]: *See supra* para. 13.

[^81]: *See* Mid-Rivers Comments at 1-2 (stating that Mid-Rivers is not
    dependent on Qwest services or facilities to offer its services).

[^82]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(2).

[^83]: *See supra* paras. 22-24.

[^84]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(3).

[^85]: *See* *supra* para. 13.

[^86]: Section 251(c)(1), which we discuss in Part 4, above,
    incorporates certain of Qwest's obligations under section 252 by
    reference. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1) (imposing on incumbent LECs
    the "duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with section 252
    the particular terms and conditions of agreements to fulfill the
    duties described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b) and
    this subsection"). Thus, we note that our decision to forbear from
    regulating Qwest as an incumbent LEC under section 252 in Terry
    exchange is consistent with our finding that portions of section
    251(c)(1) no longer apply to Qwest in the Terry exchange.

[^87]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) (deeming the petition granted as of the
    forbearance deadline if the Commission does not deny the petition
    within the time period specified in the statute); 47 C.F.R. §
    1.103(a) ("The Commission may, on its own motion or on motion by any
    party, designate an effective date that is either earlier or later
    in time than the date of public notice of such action.").