*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 36513*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 CONCURRING 
 Re:  Section  272(  b)(  1)  ’s  “Operate  Independently  Requirement  for  Section  272  Affiliates  (WC  Docket  No.  03-  228,  CC  Docket  Nos.  96-  149,  98-  141,  01-  337) 


 In  Section  272,  Congress  required  Bell  companies  to  provide  long  distance  services  though  a  separate  affiliate.  Under  the  statute,  the  affiliate  must  maintain  separate 
 books,  records  and  accounts;  have  separate  officers,  directors  and  employees;  and  must  conduct  all  business  with  its  parent  on  an  arm’s  length  basis,  with  transactions  reduced  to 
 writing  and  available  for  public  inspection.  A  separate  affiliate  may  not  obtain  credit  under  conditions  that  permit  creditors  to  have  recourse  to  its  parent.  Bell  companies  are 
 prohibited  from  discriminating  between  their  own  affiliate  and  other  entities  in  the  provision  of  services.  This  is  a  strikingly  detailed  list  of  obligations.  Congress  required 
 every  one  of  them  in  the  Communications  Act.  None  are  negotiable.  All  must  be  vigorously  enforced. 


 Congress  also  required  that  the  separate  affiliate  “operate  independently”  from  its  Bell  company  parent.  As  the  Commission  suggested  as  far  back  as  1996,  this  phrase  is 
 more  ambiguous  than  its  counterpart  requirements  in  Section  272.  As  a  result,  the  Commission  came  up  with  two  rules  to  implement  its  meaning.  The  Commission 
 eliminates  one  of  these  rules  today—  the  requirement  that  affiliates  provide  separate  operation,  installation  and  maintenance  functions.  I  support  today’s  action  because  I  do 
 not  believe  that  the  statute  compels  this  particular  OI&  M  requirement. 
 I  limit  my  support  to  concurring  because  I  believe  that  with  the  removal  of  this  kind  of  structural  safeguard,  it  is  the  right  time  to  consider  a  non-  structural  safeguard, 
 namely,  special  access  performance  metrics.  It  was  more  than  two  years  ago  that  the  Commission  introduced  this  idea  with  unanimous  support.  Special  access  services  are 
 critical  to  the  business  telecommunications  economy.  This  proposal  could  be  a  tool  to  ensure  quality  and  nondiscriminatory  service.  Instead  it  is  gathering  dust  on  the 
 regulatory  shelf.  I  hope  the  Commission  will  undertake  a  re-  examination  of  its  special  access  policy  as  the  logical  complement  to  the  step  we  take  here. 
1