*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 28983*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  155 
 JOINT  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN  AND 
 COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS,  DISSENTNG 


 Re:  Section  272(  f)  Sunset  of  the  BOC  Separate  Affiliate  and  Related  Requirements,  WC  Docket  No.  02-  112. 
 Today  the  Commission  releases  a  Public  Notice  announcing  the  sunset  of  the  separate  affiliate  requirement  in  section  272  for  SBC  in  Texas.  We  are  troubled  that  the  Commission 
 reaches  this  result  without  providing  any  analysis  and  that  it  does  so  despite  the  clear  reservations  of  our  state  colleagues  at  the  Texas  Public  Utility  Commission. 


 In  section  272,  Congress  required  Bell  companies  to  provide  long  distance  and  manufacturing  services  through  a  separate  affiliate.  In  implementing  these  requirements,  the 
 Commission  concluded  that  Congress  adopted  these  safeguards  because  it  recognized  that  Bell  companies  might  still  exercise  market  power  at  the  time  they  enter  long-  distance  markets. 
 Congress  provided  that  these  requirements  would  continue  for  three  years,  but  could  be  extended  by  the  Commission  by  rule  or  order. 


 Congress  clearly  gave  the  Commission  the  charge  to  determine  whether  these  structural,  accounting  and  auditing  safeguards  remain  necessary  to  prevent  anticompetitive  discrimination 
 in  the  market.  Yet  the  Commission  has  neglected  to  analyze  the  market  in  Texas  and  determine  whether  there  is  a  continuing  need  for  these  or  alternative  safeguards. 


 We  have  been  here  before.  Last  December,  the  Commission  allowed  the  separate  affiliate  requirements  in  section  272  to  sunset  for  Verizon  in  New  York  without  the  review  we 
 believe  is  required  and  at  a  time  when  the  New  York  Public  Service  Commission  found  that  elimination  of  these  requirements  would  be  premature.  Just  as  we  did  last  year,  we  give  short 
 shrift  to  the  opinion  of  our  state  colleagues  here. 
 Only  last  week  the  Commission  noted  in  its  Qwest  Minnesota  271  Order  that,  “compliance  with  section  272  is  of  ‘crucial  importance’  because  the  structural,  transactional,  and 
 nondiscrimination  safeguards  of  section  272  seek  to  ensure  that  [Bell  companies]  compete  on  a  level  playing  field.”  Just  last  month,  the  Commission  sought  comment  in  a  second  proceeding 
 involving  issues  related  to  the  continuing  need  for  section  272  affiliates.  We  are  left  to  wonder  how  the  Commission  can  justify  sunset  while  it  seeks  comment  on  these  related  matters  and 
 leaves  stalled  on  the  side  development  of  alternative  safeguards  in  its  performance  measurements  docket. 


 Against  this  background,  the  Commission  fails  to  address  arguments  raised  in  the  record  in  the  instant  proceeding  and  does  not  provide  any  analysis  supporting  its  action  in  today’s 
 Public  Notice.  For  these  reasons,  we  believe  the  Commission  has  fallen  short  of  fulfilling  its  statutorily  mandated  responsibilities. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  155 
 2 
2