Given that many consumers do not yet fully comprehend the benefits that competition can bring them, it is unlikely that they will possess the zeal for competitive telecommunications choices sufficient to warrant consideration of moving locations. A tenant should not be required to move in order to have access to telecommunications competition. In some instances, the market may provide competitive choices, but not until tenants are legally and financially able and willing to move their residence or business for the sake of competitive choices. This is unrealistic and often would require a breach of contract. Moreover, it is an unacceptably high price to pay for competitive sources of telecommunications services.
Number portability offers an analogy.
The 1996 Act's number portability requirement is premised on an analogous proposition. Congress believed that the inability to retain one's telephone number when switching carriers presented an extraordinary, often insurmountable impediment to local competition and that customers should not have to choose between their telephone number and competition. The same philosophy requires that customers should not have to choose between the benefits of local competition and maintaining their present physical location. Nationwide property managers can undermine building access requirements in a particular State. Unilaterally, these companies can deny access to competitive telecommunications carriers for large numbers of tenants at once.