Federal Communications Commission	"FCC  XX-XXX"


STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR

Re: 	Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) to Accelerate Investment in Broadband and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141; 2000 Biennial Review Separate Affiliate Requirements of Section 64.1903 of the Commission’s Rules, CC Docket No. 00-175.
If I had to describe the FCC’s wireline regulations, the words “modern” or “adaptable” are not the first ones that would roll off my tongue.  Arcane, maybe.  Reticulated, perhaps.  But if I’m feeling generous, “nostalgic” could work.  
In fact, today’s wireline decision does bring back some fond memories for me.  Sixteen years ago, when I was in law school, I interned at the FCC for Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy.  One of the projects I worked on back then was the FCC order that granted the final Section 271 application.  I knew right then that telecom was for me—that I had found my calling.
Now, for those that aren’t steeped in the arcana of Section 271, Congress put the provision in place to provide the Bell Operating Companies with a path to providing in-region long-distance service.  And Congress included other safeguards to ensure that a single provider would not dominate the market for long-distance communications.  A lot has changed in the intervening years.  The reason for these rules and their regulatory costs no longer make sense in today’s marketplace.  So,we now eliminate some of the requirements that lived on beyond that last FCC decision in 2003.  This will help free up capital that can be put into deploying more broadband infrastructure.
I want to thank the Wireline Competition Bureau for its work on this item.  It has my support.



2