*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 26742*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  80 
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 CONCURRING 
 Re:  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Nevada  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  for  Authorization  to  Provide 
 In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Nevada 
 I  write  separately  to  explain  the  reason  that  I  concur  in  this  Order  granting  SBC’s  application  to  provide  long-  distance  service  in  Nevada. 


 Let  me  begin  by  noting  that  SBC  has  made  significant  progress  in  opening  local  business  markets  in  Nevada  to  competition.  The  Nevada  Public  Utilities  Commission 
 also  has  worked  hard  to  promote  competition  in  the  state.  I  commend  both  SBC  and  the  Nevada  Public  Utilities  Commission  for  their  efforts. 


 The  key  issue  in  this  proceeding  has  been  compliance  with  the  Track  A  requirement  of  section  271.  There  appears  to  be  little,  if  any,  facilities-  based  wireline 
 competition  for  residential  subscribers  in  Nevada.  Nonetheless,  the  majority  finds  that  SBC  meets  Track  A’s  presence  of  a  facilities-  based  competitor  requirement  on  the  basis 
 of  wireless  competition.  The  majority  goes  even  further  when  they  suggest  that  a  particular  wireless  carrier’s  service  is  a  substitute  for  local  wireline  service.  I  am 
 troubled  by  this  aspect  of  the  decision.  I  question  whether  such  a  far-  reaching  conclusion  properly  is  based  on  the  very  limited  survey  evidence  presented  in  this  application. 
 When  we  conclude  that  wireless  service  is  a  commercial  alternative  to  wireline  service  in  the  instant  context  we  may  impact  Commission  efforts  to  define  competitive  markets  in 
 other  contexts.  These  include,  but  are  by  no  means  limited  to,  merger  reviews,  unbundling  analyses  and  determinations  of  dominant  carrier  status. 


 Furthermore,  it  strikes  me  as  premature  to  decide  that  wireline  and  wireless  services  are  more  than  complementary.  Important  differences  exist  in  service  quality, 
 ubiquity,  truth-  in-  billing  rules  and  number  portability  practices.  A  determination  that  the  services  should  be  treated  as  commercial  alternatives  has  large  implications  for  both  the 
 wireless  and  wireline  industries,  and  I  am  not  yet  ready  to  make  the  judgment  that  the  majority  makes  herein. 


 Today’s  Order,  however,  is  not  written  on  a  blank  slate.  SBC  reasonably  relied  on  Commission  precedent  when  it  presented  evidence  of  wireless  competition  to  support 
 its  Track  A  showing  in  Nevada.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  would  be  unfair  to  penalize  the  applicant  in  the  present  proceeding  for  difficulties  I  have  with  the  majority’s 
 application  of  the  Commission’s  prior  decisions.  For  this  reason,  I  concur. 
1