JOINT STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS AND
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN,
DISSENTING
Re:  Petition of AT&T Inc. for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Title II 
and Computer Inquiry Rules with Respect to Its Broadband Services; Petition of 
BellSouth Corporation for Forbearance Under Section 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from 
Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules with Respect to Its Broadband Services; WC 
Docket No. 06-125, Memorandum Opinion and Order (October 11, 2007).
Let us start by noting what may already be obvious to many – dealing with the 
multitude of forbearance petitions before us is a risky and messy business. There are no 
requirements on the parties to be explicit in their requests or detailed in the data they 
provide. It is left to the Commission to sort through and if we don’t, we hand over the 
writing of these rules to industry. With this as a backdrop, today’s Order addresses two 
far-reaching forbearance petitions seeking relief from Title II and Computer Inquiry 
obligations based on the apparent belief that the broadband enterprise services at issue 
exist in a competitive marketplace. We find the evidence to support forbearance here 
altogether underwhelming.
First, the definition of the product market to which we should apply forbearance 
remains in dispute. Merely calling services “broadband enterprise services” does not 
negate the fact that they are tariffed as special access services and have been identified as 
such in previous orders. As our colleagues know, there is substantial data available in 
this and other proceedings to indicate that the special access market is anything but 
competitive. In fact, the Commission has committed to completing our long-pending 
rulemaking on this very topic. We should not be granting forbearance for rules covering 
special access services without a rigorous analysis of competition for these services – an 
analysis wanting in today’s decision.
The Order suggests that forbearance will only impact the largest, most 
sophisticated business customers, but the record makes clear that services targeted to 
small, medium, and large businesses are all on the line.  Moreover, these services are 
used as critical inputs by other communications providers, including wireless, satellite, 
and long distance providers that serve both residential and business customers.  For that 
reason, business users of all sizes, competitive providers, and the Small Business 
Administration’s Office of Advocacy have asked the Commission to conduct a careful 
analysis before forbearing from the rules in question. We don’t see such an analysis here.
With regard to the appropriate geographic market, petitioners argue that a national 
analysis of the services being considered is applicable here. We have repeatedly argued 
that deregulating broadband is no national strategy for deploying these services, and we 
believe that today’s Order is a missed opportunity for the Commission to critically review 
whether a national framework for the market specific services before us is appropriate. 
Particularly distressing is the fact that more than 13 months into this 15 month 
forbearance process the Bureau requested market data from petitioners to enable a local 
market analysis. Not only does this suggest that petitioners did not make their case in 
this regard, but it is apparent that little if any additional data was provided because the 
majority concluded it was unnecessary. The Order regrettably concludes that the 
Commission does not “find it essential to have such detailed information.” Also 
troublesome is the fact that the Order finds that “potential” competition is sufficient to 
protect consumers. In places where substantial competition does not demonstrably exist, 
it seems that forbearance actually can make the problem worse as “potential” competitors 
will have even less ability to successfully compete to provide a check on any anti-
competitive behavior.
We have repeatedly proffered that these kinds of decisions are too important to be 
made without the in-depth market analysis that might support them. Recent 
Congressional hearings have demonstrated a growing impatience with policymaking via 
analysis-poor forbearance decisions. Here the Commission clearly has chosen not to 
chart a different course. The lack of data concerning the specific product and geographic 
markets at issue and this Order’s lack of analysis cause us great concern about both the 
substance and the process by which the Commission grants forbearance from our rules. 
While we certainly appreciate the Order’s decision to implement an expedited 
complaint process and to retain key interconnection, universal service, privacy, 
disabilities access, and other Congressionally-mandated provisions -- forbearance from 
which would have been devastating for consumers and competition -- we cannot support 
this Order’s decision to forbear from rules that provide critical pricing protection.
For these reasons, we dissent from today’s Order.