*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 26780*
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 CONCURRING 
 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  New  Mexico,  Oregon  and  South 
 Dakota 
 I  commend  the  New  Mexico  Public  Regulation  Commission,  Oregon  Public  Utility  Commission  and  South  Dakota  Public  Utilities  Commission  for  the  steps  they 
 have  taken  to  open  the  New  Mexico,  Oregon  and  South  Dakota  local  markets  to  competition.  Qwest  also  has  made  laudable  progress  in  opening  its  markets  to 
 competition  in  these  states. 
 Two  issues  in  this  proceeding  lead  me  to  concur  today.  First,  I  am  troubled  by  the  majority’s  conclusion  that  Qwest  meets  the  statute’s  Track  A  requirement  on  the  basis  of 
 wireless  competition  in  New  Mexico.  This  situation  is  analogous  to  the  one  faced  by  the  Commission  just  yesterday  in  the  Nevada  section  271  Order.  Based  on  limited  survey 
 evidence,  the  majority  again  finds  that  a  particular  wireless  carrier’s  service  is  a  commercial  alternative  to  wireline  service.  It  strikes  me  as  premature  to  decide  on  the 
 present  record  that  wireline  and  wireless  services  are  more  than  complementary.  I  concur,  however,  because  I  believe  it  would  be  unjust  to  penalize  Qwest  for  complying 
 with  Commission  precedent  when  it  filed  its  application. 
 Second,  I  concur  for  the  same  reasons  laid  out  in  my  statements  to  the  Orders  granting  section  271  applications  for  New  Hampshire,  Delaware,  Virginia,  Maryland, 
 Washington,  D.  C.  and  West  Virginia.  As  in  those  Orders,  the  present  item  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  this  analysis.  I  believe  the  better  reading  of  the  statute  is  that  the  rate  for  each  network  element  must 
 comport  with  Congress’  pricing  directive.  As  it  turns  out,  an  analysis  of  Qwest’s  switching  and  transport  elements  demonstrates  that  they  would  independently  satisfy  a 
 benchmark  test.  I  am  disappointed  that  the  majority’s  decision  only  reflects  this  fact  in  a  footnote.  A  review  of  Qwest  pricing  that  fully  complies  with  the  statute  would  feature 
 this  fact  more  prominently  than  the  majority’s  analysis  based  on  aggregation  of  non-  loop  elements.  I  commend  Qwest,  however,  for  its  efforts  to  comply  with  the  true  letter  of  the 
 statute  when  filing  its  application  with  this  Commission. 
1