STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
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
With this partial grant of AT&T’s forbearance petition, the Commission is striking a 
thoughtful balance between de-regulation and consumer protection.  Today we are setting 
up a de-regulatory framework for AT&T’s business broadband services, while also 
ensuring that longstanding consumer protection and competition promotion measures 
remain in place. 
Upon the expiration of the voluntary merger conditions agreed to by AT&T as the result 
of its merger with BellSouth, after December 29, 2010, AT&T will be relieved from
existing tariffing, price freeze and facilities discontinuance requirements for non-TDM-
based business broadband services.  While the Order grants relief to AT&T, it does not 
forbear from existing regulation of DS-0, DS-1 or DS-3 type special access services most 
heavily relied upon by many enterprise users, wireless carriers and competitive local 
exchange carriers.
In the spirit of Section 10’s mandate to promote both competition and the public interest, 
however, today’s action preserves Title II jurisdiction over business broadband services.
Maintaining common carrier treatment of these services is significant because our Order 
gives both competitors and consumers protections against discriminatory conduct and 
unjust and unreasonable rates, terms and conditions as mandated by Sections 201 and 202 
of the Communications Act.  
Furthermore, the Commission is creating a procedure whereby complaints filed relating 
to services covered by this Order must be adjudicated by the Commission within five 
months and would be subject to broad and aggressive discovery procedures.  Such a swift 
and certain complaint process, combined with strong discovery rules, should provide the 
parties with greater incentives to reach mutually beneficial agreements before litigating 
disputes.
As competition in the broadband market continues to grow, especially through the 
deployment of new wireless technologies, less regulation should be required.  However, 
many parties allege that competition in the special access market is uneven and is limited 
to certain urban areas, thus creating supply bottlenecks that favor incumbent local 
exchange carriers in the business broadband and wireless markets. Despite requests for 
better data to help us resolve disputes of these material facts, the Commission still has 
inadequate information to determine whether allegations that competition is scarce in 
certain segments of the special access market have merit. I will continue to work to 
ensure that these questions are explored further in the Special Access proceeding after a 
more granular record has been established through detailed mapping of business 
broadband facilities.
In the interim, the Commission is taking another step toward streamlining its regulation 
of the broadband market in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2005 Brand X1 decision 
which declared that broadband services provided over cable facilities are information 
services.  Recent history has shown that thoughtful de-regulation combined with 
appropriate consumer protections can help spur competition and investment in new 
facilities.  As a result, a virtuous cycle of competition, investment, innovation and lower 
prices can result.  Today’s Order is intended to produce just such a positive environment 
for American consumers.
  
1 National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005).