*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 26035.doc*
 Statement  of  Commissioner  Michael  J.  Copps, 
 Approving  in  Part,  Concurring  in  Part 
 Re:  Application  by  Verizon  Maryland  Inc.,  Verizon  Washington,  D.  C.  Inc.,  Verizon  West  Virginia,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic  Communications,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Enterprise 
 Solutions),  Verizon  Global  Networks,  Inc.,  and  Verizon  Select  Services  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region  InterLATA  Services  in  Maryland, 
 Washington,  D.  C.,  and  West  Virginia 
 With  today’s  grant  of  its  application  to  provide  long-  distance  services  in  Maryland,  Washington,  D.  C.,  and  West  Virginia,  Verizon  has  now  obtained  long-distance 
 authorization  for  all  of  its  States  and  Washington,  D.  C.  I  commend  Verizon  for  this  achievement  and  the  State  and  D.  C.  Commissions  in  that  region  for  their  significant 
 efforts  to  promote  competition. 
 I  concur  in  part  rather  than  approve  this  decision  for  the  same  reasons  laid  out  in  my  statements  to  the  Orders  granting  Verizon’s  applications  for  New  Hampshire, 
 Delaware,  and  Virginia.  As  in  those  Orders,  the  majority  concludes  that  the  statute  permits  Bell  companies  in  all  instances  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  checklist  by 
 aggregating  the  rates  for  non-  loop  elements.  I  disagree  with  the  majority’s  analysis.  I  believe  the  better  reading  of  the  statute  is  that  the  rate  for  each  network  element  must 
 comport  with  Congress’  pricing  directive.  We  are  faced  with  an  analogous  situation  here. 
 Now  that  Verizon  has  the  authority  to  provide  long-  distance  services  nationwide,  the  real  challenge  begins.  The  Commission  looks  closely  at  a  Bell  company’s 
 performance  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  statute  at  the  time  we  consider  a  Section  271  application.  We  do  not,  however,  always  accord  the  same  vigilance  towards  ensuring 
 continued  compliance.  We  must  institute  better  follow-  up  on  what  happens  following  a  successful  application.  Competition  is  not  the  result  of  some  frantic  one-  time  dash  to 
 check-  list  approval.  It  is  a  process  over  time.  It  is  about  --  or  should  be  about  --  creating  and  then  sustaining  the  reality  of  competition.  Our  present  data  on  whether  competition 
 is  taking  hold  is  sketchy  and  non-  integrated.  We  need  better  data  to  evaluate  whether  and  how  approved  carriers  are  complying  with  their  obligations  after  grant  of  the  application, 
 as  Congress  required. 


 In  this  effort,  we  must  work  closely  with  the  State  Commissions.  Our  expectation  is  that  Verizon  will  work  cooperatively  with  other  carriers  to  resolve  any  issues  that 
 develop.  To  the  extent  that  Verizon  does  not  adequately  address  problems  that  occur,  the  Commission  and  the  State  Commissions  have  a  shared  obligation  to  enforce  swiftly  and 
 effectively  the  market-  opening  obligations  of  the  Act.  Now  that  we  will  no  longer  examine  Verizon’s  performance  as  part  of  a  Section  271  application,  we  must  be 
 especially  proactive  and  vigilant  as  we  monitor  and  enforce  all  facets  of  Section  271  compliance.  By  taking  this  responsibility  seriously,  we  can  ensure  that  consumers 
 continue  to  reap  the  benefits  of  enduring  competition  as  envisioned  by  Congress  in  the  1996  Act  --  greater  choice,  lower  prices,  and  better  services. 
1