*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 40945*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 DISSENTING 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  for  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers,  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the 
 Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability  (CC  Docket  Nos.  01-  338,  96-  98, 
 98-  147) 
 I  believe  this  decision  puts  competitive  telecommunications  services  out  of  reach  for  many  small  business  and  residential  consumers.  No  matter  how  this  decision  is 
 dressed  up  in  the  sheep’s  clothing  of  broadband  relief,  the  wolf  beneath  means  less  choice  and  less  price  competition  for  anyone  who  lives  and  works  in  a  multi-  tenant 
 building.  This  outcome  is  inconsistent  with  the  pro-  competitive,  market-  opening  legislation  that  Congress  put  in  place  in  the  1996  Telecommunications  Act.  It  is  an 
 overbroad  and  ill-  conceived  expansion  of  the  Commission’s  exemption  for  fiber  facility  unbundling  in  the  Triennial  Review.  I  do  not  support  it. 


 Small  business  is  the  engine  that  drives  America’s  economy.  We  know  that  small  businesses  generate  between  two-  thirds  and  three-  quarters  of  all  new  jobs  in  this  country. 
 They  represent  way  over  90  percent  of  all  employers,  and  they  produce  over  half  of  the  nation’s  private  sector  output.  Yet  today’s  decision  is  fundamentally  at  odds  with  the 
 telecommunications  needs  of  so  many  small  business  consumers,  not  to  mention  tens  of  thousands  of  Americans  who  live  in  the  apartment  buildings  that  are  being  reclassified.  I 
 found  the  Commission’s  anti-  competitive  broadband  policies  bad  enough  when  they  were  rolled  out  in  the  Triennial  Review  decision.  Today  stretches  them  way  beyond  that,  and  it 
 does  so  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  court  found  no  need  for  us  to  do  this. 
 The  Small  Business  Administration  tells  us  that  in  metropolitan  areas  where  most  multi-  tenant  buildings  are  located,  competitive  carriers  serve  29  percent  of  small 
 businesses.  Small  business  likes  competition.  It  has  voted  with  its  pocketbook  for  competition.  That  is  because  small  business  has  been  a  chief  beneficiary  of  the  enhanced 
 services  and  lower  prices  that  competition  brings  to  market. 
 But  today’s  decision  means  that  small  businesses  located  in  buildings  that  also  have  residential  apartments  will  henceforth  be  unable  to  enjoy  the  full  panoply  of 
 competitive  voice  and  data  services.  In  most  cases,  small  businesses  in  multi-  tenant  units  that  are  “primarily  residential”  will  be  left  with  one  service  option—  the  incumbent 
 carrier.  By  sweeping  into  today’s  decision  law  offices,  doctor’s  offices,  copy  shops,  stock  brokers,  real  estate  offices,  dry  cleaners,  coffee  shops,  dentists’  offices,  grocery 
 stores  and  other  small  retail  and  service  businesses  located  on  the  ground  floor  of  so  many  apartment  buildings,  the  majority  denies  them  the  opportunities  for  cost  savings 
 and  innovative  services  that  come  with  having  a  competitive  array  of  carriers  to  choose  from.  In  cities  like  New  York  and  Chicago  and  Washington,  where  residential  buildings 
1
 2 
 routinely  include  ground  floor  commercial  tenants,  whole  swaths  of  downtown  small  businesses  will  find  themselves  ineligible  for  competitive  wireline  services. 
 This  decision  also  reduces  choice  for  people  who  make  their  homes  in  apartment  buildings.  As  long  as  the  incumbent  carrier  brings  fiber  facilities  to  the  basement, 
 competitive  carriers  will  be  restricted  from  offering  services  to  residents  on  the  floors  above.  When  it  comes  to  broadband,  the  best  scenario  these  residents  can  hope  for  is  a 
 choice  between  the  cable  and  DSL  duopoly.  Otherwise,  they’ll  have  no  choice  at  all. 
 Why  are  we  restricting  broadband  competition  for  these  businesses  and  apartment  dwellers?  Where  is  the  evidence  that  broadband  deployment  to  multi-  tenant  facilities  is 
 dragging  comparatively  behind,  or  that  apartment  dwellers  are  at  higher  risk  of  being  left  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  digital  divide?  To  the  contrary,  it  strikes  me  that  the  economies 
 of  scale  that  come  with  serving  a  single  building  with  many—  even  hundreds—  of  residential  units  would  put  such  facilities  first  on  the  list  of  economically  viable 
 broadband  deployments. 
 Finally,  I  believe  this  decision  is  a  prescription  for  administrative  headache.  It  saddles  every  state  commission  in  this  country  with  the  task  of  determining  just  what 
 buildings  in  their  state  fit  the  blurry  parameters  of  “primarily  residential.”  Some  people  were  worried  before  about  the  ability  of  fifty  jurisdictions  to  characterize  the  state  of 
 switching  competition  within  their  borders.  What  we  have  here  is  exponentially  more  complex.  Every  building,  in  every  city  and  every  town,  in  every  state,  from  brownfield 
 to  greenfield,  will  need  to  be  tagged  as  eligible  or  not  eligible  for  the  full  scope  of  competitive  carrier  services.  This  fails  to  provide  small  business  consumers,  residential 
 consumers,  carriers,  investors  or  our  hard-  working  state  counterparts  with  the  regulatory  clarity  they  need.  For  these  reasons,  I  respectfully  dissent. 
2