*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 26781*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KEVIN  J.  MARTIN  Approving  in  Part,  Concurring  in  Part 
 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International,  Inc.  for  Authorization  To  Provide  In-Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  New  Mexico,  Oregon  and  South  Dakota  (WC  Docket  No.  03- 
 11) 


 Today  we  grant  Qwest  authority  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  service  originating  in  the  States  of  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  and  South  Dakota.  I  commend  the  New  Mexico 
 Public  Regulation  Commission,  the  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Oregon,  and  the  South  Dakota  Public  Utilities  Commission  for  their  hard  work. 


 The  Commission  approves  Qwest’s  application  in  New  Mexico  based  on  the  Commission’s  precedent  in  the  BellSouth  Second  Louisiana  Order  1  Under  that  decision,  a 
 BOC  can  satisfy  its  market-  opening  requirements  by  showing  that  consumers  are  using  broadband  PCS  as  a  substitute  for  wireline  telephone  service.  This  showing  can  be 
 demonstrated  in  the  form  of:  (i)  surveys  identifying  customers  that  had  used  broadband  PCS  in  lieu  of  wireline  service;  and  (ii)  evidence  of  marketing  efforts  by  broadband  PCS 
 providers  designed  to  induce  replacement  of  wireline  service  with  broadband  PCS  service. 


 I  have  some  trepidation  with  the  Commission’s  decision  and  our  precedent  in  the  BellSouth  Second  Louisiana  Order.  2  First,  I  would  prefer  a  more  comprehensive  study  that 
 does  not  require  multiple  attempts  to  determine  whether  consumers  actually  use  wireless  service  at  home  as  a  substitute  for  wireline  service.  Moreover,  our  finding  of  Track  A 
 compliance  relies  solely  on  the  presence  of  just  one  PCS  provider.  Given  that  this  provider  has  just  filed  for  Chapter  11  bankruptcy  protection,  I  have  some  concerns  with 
 the  long-  term  health  of  competition  in  New  Mexico.  At  this  point,  however,  no  evidence  exists  indicating  that  the  PCS  provider  has  stopped  offering  or  providing 
 service  in  the  state. 
 I  must  concur,  however,  with  the  decision  to  determine  checklist  compliance  of  UNE  TELRIC  rates  based  on  a  benchmark  analysis  of  aggregated  non-  loop  rate  elements.  As 
 I  have  stated  in  the  past,  Section  252(  d)  1  sets  forth  the  pricing  standard  used  for 


 1  See  Application  by  BellSouth  Corporation,  et  al.,  Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of 
 1934,  as  Amended,  To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Louisiana,  CC  Docket  98-  121,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  20599,  20633-  35  (1998)(  BellSouth  Second  Louisiana 


 Order).  2  See  Statement  of  Commissioner  Kevin  J.  Martin,  Application  by  SBC  Communications,  Inc.  for 
 Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide-  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  Nevada,  (April  14,  2003). 
1
 determining  compliance  in  Section  271  applications.  3  I  continue  to  believe  that  this  standard  requires  that  we  examine  UNE  rates  by  each  individual  “network  element.” 
 3  See  e.  g.,  Statement  of  Commissioner  Kevin  J.  Martin,  Approving  in  Part  and  Concurring  in  Part, 
 Application  by  Verizon  Maryland  Inc.,  Verizon  Washington,  D.  C.  Inc.,  Verizon  West  Virginia  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic  Communications,  Inc.  (d/  b/  a  Verizon  Long  Distance)  NYNEX  Long  Distance  Company  (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 
 (WC  Docket  No.  02-  384). 
2