Opinion ID: 185358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MSA-Wide Deregulation

Text: 49 Petitioners contend that the FCC was arbitrary and capricious and abdicated its statutory obligations by authorizing MSA-wide relief upon a showing of collocation in only a portion of the MSA. According to petitioners, due to this provision of the Pricing Flexibility Order the FCC cannot ensure that interstate access service prices will be just and reasonable, and therefore the collocation triggers are unlawful. According to petitioners, the FCC's previous orders establish that in analyzing competitive issues, the proper geographic market aggregates those consumers with similar choices regarding a particular good or service in the same geographical area. NYNEX Corp., 12 F.C.C.R. 19,985 p 54 (1997). With the Pricing Flexibility Order, however, the FCC lumped together customers that do not have similar competitive alternatives into larger geographic markets-MSAs--for the purpose of regulatory relief. As a result, petitioners contend, LECs will gain regulatory relief while maintaining substantial bottlenecks and market power. 50 The FCC considered this objection in devising its Order and nonetheless concluded that pricing flexibility should be granted on an MSA-wide basis. The FCC defined the geographic area that it should use for purposes of reviewing requests for pricing flexibility ... narrowly enough so that the competitive conditions within each area are reasonably similar, yet broadly enough to be administratively workable. Order p 71. Commenters proposed both larger and smaller relief areas. The FCC settled upon MSAs because, in the FCC's expert view, they best reflect the scope of competitive entry. Id. p 72. Upon review, the FCC decided that smaller geographic areas would require incumbent LECs to file too many pricing flexibility petitions to achieve meaningful relief--a conclusion petitioners do not dislodge with any evidence to the contrary. 51 At bottom, petitioners' objection to the FCC's decision to offer pricing flexibility on an MSA-wide basis amounts to a difference in policy preferences. This is not a sufficient basis upon which to upset the FCC's determination. See Time Warner Entm't, 56 F.3d at 163. The FCC considered alternatives to MSA-wide relief and determined that, on balance, these alternatives would be less beneficial to consumers and regulated entities. As the FCC provided an adequate explanation for this conclusion, we uphold the Commission's conclusion.