*Pages 1--5 from Microsoft Word - 52745.doc* STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS, CONCURRING Re: SBC Communications Inc. and AT& T Corp. Applicants for Approval of Transfer of Control, Memorandum Opinion and Order (WC Docket No. 05- 65) Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, Memorandum Opinion and Order (WC Docket No. 05- 75) The mergers before us are about more than the union of this country’s largest telecommunications carriers. They are about consumers’ phone bills, the availability of competitive broadband options and the future of the Internet. But in a sense, these mergers can also be seen as an epitaph for the competition that many of us thought we would enjoy as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That legislation, I am convinced, envisioned a vastly different communications landscape than the one we find ourselves living in today. If you seek the reason why we haven’t arrived at that happy valley of competition rife with consumer benefits, you can start with the misdirected policies of the FCC over the last several years. On too many fronts, the Commission put the spear to the pro-competitive policies of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It put intra- modal competition for the residential market pretty much beyond reach for new entrant carriers and then proceeded to inhibit enterprise competition, too. We turned our eyes away when enforcement was needed to keep bottleneck facilities open. And all the while we kept singing confidently “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”— inter- modal competition is going to save us with all its new options. Maybe, but then again maybe not— we’re still waiting. I think we ought to be concerned. Thanks in part to our actions, the wireline market became increasingly the province of the few. More than half of the wireless market came under the control of incumbent wireline providers. New services like VoIP have been held back by the high cost of broadband in this country. And now the Internet backbone seems headed in the same direction of control by a favored few. This state of affairs is not of my making or choosing. The record shows that I objected vociferously to many of these changes. I would have chosen a very different path than the one we travel today. But in the end, we are charged with considering these mergers in the context of the world that is, not the one that might have been. In this environment, I believe my responsibility is to identify and fight for what we can preserve, so that American consumers can still enjoy some competition in telecom services; that business customers, too, can benefit from competitive rates and innovative service choices and lower prices; and that, when it comes to the Internet, we can all go where we want to go and do what we want to do with this dynamic tool that is so critical to our nation’s future. These things are all clearly in the public interest. 1 4 monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis. This is important because the wrong policies here could actually put rural America at further disadvantage compared to the rest of the country. I, for one, will be vigilant in making sure this never happens. Looking beyond the transaction before us, it is obvious that the whole telecommunications landscape continues to change dramatically. But despite all of the advances in technology and efficiency over the last decade, local phone rates have failed to decline. Household phone penetration is at the lowest rate in 17 years. Surely being 16 th in the world in broadband penetration is nothing to crow to about. And, yes, we still have enormous digital gaps from the inner city to the rural village, and there is a real threat that current policies may widen rather than close those gaps. So there are already ample warning signs something is not right. And it is long past time for the Commission to pay heed. It may be that we can address all these concerns in a big carrier environment. Conversely, it may be that we are tacking back in time toward an era when concentrated power dictated what limited services we could and could not have and we had no recourse but to accept what was offered. In any case, I am mindful that there are large and portentous questions here— and that their ultimate resolutions often range beyond the boundaries of FCC jurisdiction. The Commission— important as its work is— does not design the legal landscape for telecommunications. Congress is looking at these issues and will hopefully be updating our telecommunications statute in the months or year ahead— and there is no substitute for that kind of guidance. I also believe we need some real national dialogue on these issues regarding consumer rights, Internet openness, broadband deployment and many more. I think we will find the American people more than happy to engage such a discussion. They understand that how these issues are decided is important to them. The bottom line here is that these issues are vitally important to the future of our country. Telecommunications are going to be a major driver of our economy in this new century. We just have to get the legal and regulatory landscape right. If we get it wrong, American consumers will pay and so will American technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. No less than our global competitiveness in the new information age is at stake. Above all, we must have some humility about what we do. There are honest disagreements over these issues and I don’t believe that any one of us has it all figured out. So we have to be always open to new facts and always follow up on the real- world consequences of our actions. If rates go up for residential and business users as a result of our decision today, if our broadband penetration rates fall further in comparison with what other countries with different policies are experiencing, and if consumers find that their Internet freedom is being shackled by monopoly or duopoly control, then we have a clear and pressing duty to revisit what we have done. So we need to put as much or more effort and resources into monitoring the consequences of our actions as we do in bringing them forward for a vote. I have worked in this proceeding to protect against injurious consequences, as best I can under the circumstances, and while I would have liked more, I will concur in these Orders and pledge my close attention to their unfolding consequences. 4 5 We at this table are all indebted to the work of the Bureau and to the tireless dedication of our personal staffs as these items matured and particularly their often heroic efforts over the past week. For my part I want to extend my appreciation and admiration to Jessica Rosenworcel. Her tenacity and creativity through all of this have been an inspiration. 5