Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-168
DISSENTING JOINT STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
AND
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re:  Qwest Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Title II and Computer 
Inquiry Rules with Respect to Broadband Services WC Docket No. 06-125
The Commission continues down its ill-considered road of granting far-reaching forbearance to 
petitioners seeking relief from Title II and Computer Inquiry obligations associated with certain 
broadband enterprise services. As was the case in last year’s AT&T Title II and Computer 
Inquiry Forbearance Order addressing largely the same issues raised by Qwest here, there is 
insufficient evidence to support forbearance in this case.
The concerns we originally raised in our Joint Statement in the AT&T Title II and Computer 
Inquiry Forbearance Order are equally applicable today, so we need only briefly repeat our 
concerns here. First, the Order reaffirms the notion of a special class of “broadband enterprise 
services” deserving of forbearance. Yet, the Commission has previously treated these services as 
special access services. The Commission’s pending rulemaking on this very topic is of course 
long overdue. Clearly, we should not be granting forbearance for rules covering special access 
services without first completing an industry-wide analysis of competition for these services. The 
Order also lacks any rigorous analysis of the impact on small and medium size business 
customers as well communications providers who use these services to provide both residential 
and enterprise services. Moreover, the Commission again relies on a nationwide market analysis. 
We have repeatedly argued that rampant deregulation and a blind eye towards a competitive 
analysis are no substitutes for a national strategy for deploying broadband services. 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.
The Order retains key interconnection, universal service, privacy, disabilities access, and other 
Congressionally-mandated provisions -- forbearance from which would have been devastating for 
consumers and competition. While we appreciate the decision to retain these essential 
responsibilities, we cannot support this Order’s decision to forbear from rules that provide critical 
pricing protection.
It remains abundantly clear that the Commission is bent on continuing its headlong rush to 
eliminate large swaths of its rules under the guise of forbearance and absent the kind of industry-
wide reviews that would enable us to assess the marketplace as a whole. We believe this is an 
egregious mistake. 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. Moreover, as a result of 
this approach, the Commission finds itself inundated with company-specific requests for “me-
too” relief that divert attention from the many other critical priorities before us.
For these reasons, we dissent from today’s Order.