*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 31306*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 APPROVING  IN  PART  AND  DISSENTING  IN  PART 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Commission’s  Rules  Regarding  the  Pricing  of  Unbundled  Network  Elements  and  the  Resale  of  Service  by  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers 
 (WC  Docket  No.  03-  173) 
 Seven  years  ago,  the  Commission  adopted  a  forward-  looking  economic  cost  policy  for  pricing  unbundled  network  elements.  We  did  the  right  thing.  The  Supreme 
 Court  blessed  our  action—  pretty  heady  stuff  for  a  Commission  not  always  accustomed  to  such  approbations  from  above.  So  we’re  building  on  solid  ground  here,  with  no  judicial 
 charge  to  start  all  over  or  to  perform  drastic  reconstruction.  It’s  clear  to  me  that  from  time  to  time  we  should  review  and  recalibrate  our  policy,  known  as  Total  Element  Long 
 Run  Incremental  Cost,  or  TELRIC.  We  have  a  duty  to  adjust  it  over  time  to  ensure  that,  as  Congress  intended,  incumbents  are  justly  compensated  for  their  network  costs  plus  a 
 reasonable  profit.  At  the  same  time,  we  need  to  ensure  that  competitors  pay  prices  that  induce  efficient  market  entry.  There  is  also  the  need  to  adjust  our  policy  to  reflect  the 
 new  realities  of  the  recent  Triennial  Review. 
 To  a  significant  extent  we  initiate  a  proceeding  today  that  lays  the  groundwork  for  accomplishing  these  objectives.  There  is  much  in  this  item  that  I  am  pleased  to  support. 
 I  regret,  however,  that  I  cannot  support  today’s  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  en  toto.  I  just  don’t  believe  the  record  at  hand  justifies  the  making  of  important,  even  if  tentative, 
 conclusions.  Such  tentative  conclusions  often  have  a  curious  way  of  becoming  final.  On  the  basis  of  little  or  no  prior  record,  the  majority  today  adopts  a  tentative  conclusion 
 concerning  so-  called  real-  world  network  attributes  that  I  believe  is  confusing  and  inconsistent  with  basic  premises  of  TELRIC  that  were  upheld  as  a  reasonable 
 interpretation  of  Section  252(  d)(  1)  by  the  Supreme  Court.  For  a  Commission  striving  to  provide  clarity  to  an  industry,  this  is  a  strange  way  to  do  it. 


 Moreover,  some  of  the  questions  that  flow  from  this  tentative  conclusion  come  close  to  saying  that  the  assumptions  that  undergird  our  TELRIC  policy  are  misdirected 
 and  flawed.  Again,  these  are  the  same  assumptions  that  passed  muster  with  the  highest  court  in  the  land.  I  have  no  objection  to  asking  probing  questions;  I  just  think  that  a 
 tentative  conclusion  here  is  unnecessary  and  probably  unwise. 
 Despite  this  reservation,  I  appreciate  my  colleagues’  willingness  to  engage  in  a  dialogue  and  their  efforts  to  accommodate  some  of  my  concerns.  I  think  this  is  a  stronger 
 item  as  a  result.  I  look  forward  to  our  continuing  work  together  on  this. 
 Finally,  I  hope—  I  really  hope—  that  we  can  encourage  all  the  parties  interested  in  TELRIC  to  sit  together  and  discuss  the  issues  attending  it  in  something  approaching 
 candor  and  maybe  even  a  little  cooperation.  I  think  all  the  company  CEOs  and  others  directly  impacted  have  heard  my  plea  on  this  over  the  past  two  years  since  I  came  here. 
 Frankly,  it  was  easier  to  get  the  Russians  and  the  Chinese  to  sit  down  with  us  during  the 
1
 2 
 latter  days  of  the  Cold  War  than  it  is  to  convene  a  TELRIC  dialogue.  It’s  not  that  I  expect  everyone  to  come  to  a  joyous  outcome  on  this,  but  rather  just  a  hope  that  there 
 might  be  one  or  two  or  maybe  even  three  facts  we  could  agree  on  and  then  see  if  from  a  small  patch  of  common  ground  we  can’t  do  some  building  out.  I’d  like  to  see  everyone  a 
 part  of  this—  incumbents  and  competitors,  our  Commission  and  the  State  Commissions,  traditional  and  non-  traditional  stakeholders.  Crafting  appropriate  rules  for  our  unbundled 
 network  element  pricing  policy  will  be  a  daunting  task.  We  cannot  get  it  done  without  less  rhetoric  and  more  dialogue  among  all  the  players.  Toward  that  end,  Mr.  Chairman 
 and  my  colleagues,  I  would  very  much  like  to  see  us  hold  some  hearings  or  a  forum  to  bring  the  players  together,  or  perhaps  even  commence  a  Joint  Conference  to  jumpstart 
 discussion  and  engage  our  counterparts  in  the  States  on  this  important  topic.  I  think  this  would  be  an  excellent  way  to  follow  through  on  the  work  this  proceeding  today 
 commences. 
2