*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 53181.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 184 Because, in practice, such stratagems can mean filtering technologies that restrict use of Internet- calling services or that make it difficult to watch videos or listen to music over the web. The conditions we adopt today speak directly to this issue— before increased concentration of last mile facilities and the Internet backbone make it intractable. This is why stand- alone DSL, enforceable net neutrality principles, and peering in the Internet backbone are so vital. I also am pleased that these conditions now express a measure of concern for the effects of these mergers on competitive wireline providers. Competitive carriers will benefit from the reforms we put in place for special access and UNEs. This will provide at least some latitude for competitive players trying to crack open an increasingly concentrated marketplace. We need active and engaged competitive carriers to keep rates low. This is especially important for small business customers. In addition, this Order takes a cautious view of the impact of these mergers on rural America. We share a concern that the mergers not be allowed to jeopardize interconnection for small and rural providers. To this end, the Commission commits to monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis. This is important because the wrong policies here could actually put rural America at further disadvantage compared to the rest of the country. I, for one, will be vigilant in making sure this never happens. Looking beyond the transaction before us, it is obvious that the whole telecommunications landscape continues to change dramatically. But despite all of the advances in technology and efficiency over the last decade, local phone rates have failed to decline. Household phone penetration is at the lowest rate in 17 years. Surely being 16 th in the world in broadband penetration is nothing to crow to about. And, yes, we still have enormous digital gaps from the inner city to the rural village, and there is a real threat that current policies may widen rather than close those gaps. So there are already ample warning signs something is not right. And it is long past time for the Commission to pay heed. It may be that we can address all these concerns in a big carrier environment. Conversely, it may be that we are tacking back in time toward an era when concentrated power dictated what limited services we could and could not have and we had no recourse but to accept what was offered. In any case, I am mindful that there are large and portentous questions here— and that their ultimate resolutions often range beyond the boundaries of FCC jurisdiction. The Commission— important as its work is— does not design the legal landscape for telecommunications. Congress is looking at these issues and will hopefully be updating our telecommunications statute in the months or year ahead— and there is no substitute for that kind of guidance. I also believe we need some real national dialogue on these issues regarding consumer rights, Internet openness, broadband deployment and many more. I think we will find the American people more than happy to engage such a discussion. They understand that how these issues are decided is important to them. The bottom line here is that these issues are vitally important to the future of our country. Telecommunications are going to be a major driver of our economy in this new century. We just have to get the legal and regulatory landscape right. If we get it wrong, American consumers will pay and so will American technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. No less than our global competitiveness in the new information age is at stake. Above all, we must have some humility about what we do. There are honest disagreements over these issues and I don’t believe that any one of us has it all figured out. So we have to be always open to new facts and always follow up on the real- world consequences of our actions. If rates go up for residential and business users as a result of our decision today, if our broadband penetration rates fall further in comparison with what other countries with different policies are experiencing, and if consumers find that their Internet freedom is being shackled by monopoly or duopoly control, then we have a clear and pressing duty to revisit what we have done. So we need to put as much or more effort and resources into monitoring the consequences of our actions as we do in bringing them forward for a vote. I have worked in this proceeding to protect against injurious consequences, as best I can under the 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 184 circumstances, and while I would have liked more, I will concur in these Orders and pledge my close attention to their unfolding consequences. We at this table are all indebted to the work of the Bureau and to the tireless dedication of our personal staffs as these items matured and particularly their often heroic efforts over the past week. For my part I want to extend my appreciation and admiration to Jessica Rosenworcel. Her tenacity and creativity through all of this have been an inspiration. 4