*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 60004.doc*
 CONCURRING  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  Fones4All  Corp.  Petition  for  Expedited  Forbearance  Under  47  U.  S.  C.  §  160(  c)  and  Section  1.53  from  Application  of  Rule  51.319(  d)  to  Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carriers  Using  Unbundled 
 Local  Switching  to  Provide  Single  Line  Residential  Service  to  End  Users  Eligible  for  State  or  Federal  Lifeline  Service,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  WC  Docket  No.  05-  261  (Sept.  28, 
 2006). 
 In  this  Order,  the  Commission  denies  the  petitioner’s  request  that  we  forbear  from  applying  our  rules  so  that  the  petitioner  may  use  unbundled  network  elements,  specifically  the  platform  of  elements 
 known  as  UNE-  P,  to  serve  consumers  participating  in  the  Lifeline  program.  While  I  believe  the  Commission  can  and  must  do  more  to  promote  service  to  low  income  consumers,  I  concur  in  this  Order 
 because  I  have  serious  questions  about  whether  allowing  a  default  grant  of  this  forbearance  petition  is  the  appropriate  means  to  advance  that  goal. 


 Congress  made  clear  in  Section  254  of  the  Act  that  “consumers  in  all  regions  of  the  Nation,  including  low-  income  consumers  .  .  .  should  have  access  to  telecommunications  and  information 
 services”  and  I  have  repeatedly  supported  efforts  to  expand  the  availability  of  our  Lifeline  and  Link-  Up  programs.  Access  to  basic  telephone  service  has  long  since  moved  from  the  category  of  luxury  to 
 necessity,  yet  there  remains  much  more  work  to  be  done.  As  the  Commission  recently  found,  only  approximately  one  third  of  eligible  low  income  households  actually  subscribe  to  the  Lifeline  program. 


 I  have  also  consistently  supported  efforts  to  encourage  the  development  of  competitive  choice  for  consumers  and,  in  this  case,  I  am  concerned  that  the  Commission  has  not  done  all  that  it  can  to  encourage 
 providers  to  serve  low  income  consumers.  The  prospect  of  competitive  providers  that  will  actively  market  to  Lifeline  consumers  holds  real  promise  for  increasing  telephone  penetration  among  low  income 
 consumers.  Although  I  do  not  believe  we  reach  the  optimal  outcome  and  I  have  concerns  about  the  analysis  in  this  Order,  I  cannot  support  a  default  grant  of  this  petition.  The  petition  seeks  relief  from  rules 
 that  do  not  reflect  the  balance  I  would  have  struck,  but  the  public,  the  industry,  and  this  Commission  are  far  better  served  when  we  make  decisions  through  reasoned  fact-  finding  and  analysis.  As  I  have  stated  in 
 the  past,  Section  10  forbearance  is  a  powerful  tool  and  the  Commission  must  wield  this  tool  responsibly.  For  these  reasons,  I  concur  in  this  decision. 
1