*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - Copps-Adelstein statement.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  309 
 JOINT  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS  AND  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 


 Re:  Application  by  Qwest  Communications  International  Inc.  for  Authorization  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Arizona  (WC  Docket  No.  03-  194) 
 Today’s  decision  is  one  for  the  history  books.  By  granting  Qwest  authority  to  provide  in-region,  long-  distance  service  in  Arizona,  we  complete  a  cycle  of  state-  by-  state  review  of  local 
 competition  that  was  set  in  motion  by  Congress  in  the  1996  Act.  We  commend  Qwest  for  its  efforts  and  also  thank  the  Arizona  Corporation  Commission  and  the  Wireline  Competition 
 Bureau.  Without  the  hard  work  of  all  three,  we  would  not  reach  this  milestone  in  the  Section  271  process. 


 But  this  is  in  no  way  the  end  of  the  Section  271  process—  at  least  it  shouldn’t  be.  The  real  challenge  is  only  beginning.  We  must  put  in  place  a  rigorous  and  sustained  monitoring 
 process  to  ensure  continued  compliance.  Congress  set  up  the  parameters  for  this  process  in  Section  271.  If  at  any  time  the  Commission  determines  that  a  Bell  Operating  Company  has 
 ceased  to  satisfy  the  market-  opening  conditions  required  for  Section  271  approval,  the  statute  compels  us  to  order  corrections,  impose  penalties,  or  suspend  or  revoke  approval.  Competition 
 is  not  guaranteed  forever  by  Section  271—  it  is,  at  best,  only  enabled. 
 We  need  to  take  our  enforcement  duty  more  seriously.  We  have  taken  a  step  in  the  right  direction  by  establishing  a  formal  Section  271  Compliance  Review  Program.  Yet  our  practice 
 has  been  little  more  than  requiring  Bell  Operating  Companies  to  provide  the  Commission  with  performance  data  for  the  first  year  following  long-  distance  authorization.  This  strikes  us  as  a  lax 
 way  to  go  about  ensuring  continued  compliance.  A  more  credible  process  would  include  this  kind  of  oversight  beyond  just  the  first  year  following  approval.  Instead,  we  have  stuck  our  head 
 in  the  sand,  willfully  blind  to  the  possibility  that  problems  may  arise  after  the  first  year  of  long-distance  entry.  Competitors  always  are  free  to  file  complaints,  but  we  believe  the  statute 
 compels  us  to  do  more  here  at  the  Commission.  Without  effective  monitoring,  we  may  find  that  the  old  monopoly  forces  that  led  to  the  breakup  of  Ma  Bell  will  just  piece  themselves  back 
 together  again. 
 Through  the  Section  271  process,  we  have  unleashed  a  new  era  of  competition,  choice  and  innovation  for  American  consumers.  For  consumers  to  continue  to  reap  these  benefits,  the 
 Commission  will  need  to  fortify  its  enforcement  process  to  ensure  local  markets  remain  fully  and  irreversibly  open  to  competition.  We  look  forward  to  working  cooperatively  with  our  colleagues 
 and  our  counterparts  in  the  States  to  ensure  that  this  becomes  a  reality. 
1