Federal Communications Commission   FCC 06-188
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL J. COPPS AND JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, CONCURRING
Re: Petition of ACS of Anchorage, Inc. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
Amended, for Forbearance from Sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) in the Anchorage Study Area, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 06-188, WC Docket No. 05-281 (Dec. 28, 2006).
In today’s decision, the Commission grants forbearance from certain unbundling obligations in 
parts of Anchorage, Alaska 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.1
The goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to establish a competitive and de-regulatory 
telecommunications environment. While today’s order reduces regulation by eliminating some incumbent 
obligations and demonstrates that the Commission can respond to the dynamic marketplace, it is not 
accurate to depict this as an ideally competitive market. The Commission relies on the intermodal efforts 
of a single alternative provider to conclude that sufficient competition exists.  While we agree that there is 
especially strong evidence of competition between the incumbent cable and wireline provider in parts of 
the Anchorage 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.  
We concur also because this decision does not adequately address market differentiations, as 
between residential and business, making it difficult to conclude which market segments are actually 
receiving the benefit of emerging competitive choice.
We note that the transition period before the forbearance grant takes effect is longer than in the 
Qwest Omaha Order, which we believe is appropriate given the challenges faced by providers in Alaska 
and the need to provide a reasonable transition period for business planning purposes.  Also, as in the 
Qwest Omaha Order, we believe that the facts in this case are unique and therefore this decision should 
not be considered generally applicable for future forbearance petitions involving phone providers facing 
different competitive landscapes, challenges, and market share.
  
1  See also Concurring Statement of Commissioners Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, Petition of Qwest 
Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 05-170, WC Docket No. 04-223 (rel. Dec. 2, 2005) (Qwest Omaha Order).