*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 53492.doc*
 CONCURRING  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS  AND  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  Petition  of  Qwest  Corporation  for  Forbearance  Pursuant  to  47  U.  S.  C.  §  160(  c)  in  the  Omaha  Metropolitan  Statistical  Area,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order 
 (WC  Docket  No.  04-  223) 
 In  today’s  decision,  the  Commission  grants  forbearance  from  certain  unbundling  and  dominant  carrier  obligations  in  areas  of  the  Omaha  MSA  where  a  facilities-  based  carrier  has 
 extensively  built  out  its  network  and  taken  significant  market  share  from  the  incumbent  wireline  provider.  While  we  support  the  outcome  in  this  Order  and  believe  it  is  clearly  superior  to  an 
 automatic  grant  of  the  underlying  petition,  we  have  concerns  with  the  analysis  in  this  decision.  As  a  result,  we  choose  to  concur. 


 The  goal  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  is  to  establish  a  “pro-  competitive,  de-regulatory  national  policy  framework.”  Today’s  decision  lives  up  to  this  charge  only  in  part. 
 This  item  certainly  reduces  regulation  by  eliminating  some  incumbent  obligations  and  demonstrates  that  the  Commission  can  respond  to  the  dynamic  marketplace.  But  we  fall  short 
 when  it  comes  to  promoting  competition.  The  Commission  relies  on  the  intermodal  efforts  of  a  single  alternative  provider—  a  provider  with  substantially  greater  resources  than  other 
 competitors—  to  conclude  that  the  Omaha  MSA  is  fully  competitive  and  to  carve  away  both  retail  and  wholesale  obligations.  While  we  agree  that  there  is  especially  strong  evidence  of  competition 
 between  the  incumbent  cable  and  wireline  providers  in  this  market,  we  believe  the  statute  contemplates  more  than  just  competition  between  a  wireline  and  cable  provider—  and  that  both 
 residential  and  business  consumers  deserve  more. 
1