STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services, WC Docket No. 13-3; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of Copper Loops by 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, RM-11358.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Commission’s assessment that “[t]here has been an indisputable 
‘societal and technological shift’ away from switched telephone service as a fixture of American life.”  
While switched access service “once dominated the landscape”, demand for the service has 
“plummet[ed]” as consumers have switched to wireless and VoIP platforms—to the extent they make 
calls at all.  Instead, consumers have voluntarily switched to a degree for some and to a considerable 
amount for others to text, email, video chat, and social networking applications to meet their 
communications needs.  
I am pleased that the Commission recognizes this and has finally issued a Declaratory Ruling 
granting USTelecom’s long-pending petition for relief from dominant carrier regulations with respect to 
switched access voice.  While I would have decided the petition on broader grounds, and provided even 
greater relief, any step to remove unnecessary regulation is a step in the right direction. 
However, I find it hard to reconcile the Commission’s findings in the Declaratory Ruling that 
consumers are “increasingly able and willing to abandon their landlines in favor of communications 
technologies that do not rely on local telephone switches” with the statement in the Second Report and 
Order that “the special and long-standing importance of voice service to consumers warrants developing 
… additional criteria for streamlined treatment during technology transitions.”  This particular technology 
transition is nearly over.  The item states that almost 75 percent of U.S. residential customers 
(approximately 88 million households) no longer receive telephone service over traditional copper 
facilities.  
If it were so important to adopt criteria to ensure consumers receive an adequate replacement, that 
train left the station years ago.  The millions of consumers that have already abandoned legacy voice 
service seem to have their own criteria in mind, and there are a plethora of options that apparently meet 
those criteria.  To the extent legacy voice service remains “special” to some consumers, the Commission 
could continue to ensure that consumers receive adequate notice of discontinuances so that they can plan 
accordingly.  But in general, the proper role for the Commission, at this stage, is to remove obstacles to 
innovation and consumer choice, not create new ones.  
When I think of a streamlined process for discontinuing legacy services, I envision fast tracking 
applications for services that are no longer widely used by consumers.  It would not entail things like 
three more prongs, network testing, cybersecurity certifications, promises to support fax machines for 
another nine years, or a “totality of the circumstances” review, whatever that means.  Only the FCC could 
create a process that imports all of the existing rules, adds some new ones, makes no assurances about 
timing, and call it “streamlined” with a straight face.  And let’s face facts that despite how it is portrayed,
this new process is going to become the sole standard for getting Commission approval on such matters.  
I am not surprised that the Commission goes to great length to stress how voluntary this process 
is because it does not actually comport with section 214 of the Act.  I do not begrudge any carrier that 
decides to take advantage of the new process.  However, I do not support the expansion of section 214 to 
implicitly regulate new services.  By effectively subjecting replacement offerings to rules originally 
adopted for legacy voice service, the Commission is further extending its regulatory overreach, and that is 
terrible precedent.  
Even worse, the Commission uses this optional process as an excuse to create cybersecurity 
requirements for replacement offerings that never applied to legacy voice services.  As I have said many 
times, the Commission has no authority to adopt cybersecurity requirements. While I certainly appreciate 
being lectured at our last meeting that somehow raising objections to illogical network protections was 
highly irresponsible, nothing changes the fact that cybersecurity is an important issue and Congress has 
assigned authority to oversee it to other agencies.  Therefore, I do not support its inclusion in this item, 
voluntary or not.
Moreover, the cybersecurity section stands in stark contrast to other parts of the item, where the 
Commission concludes “this is not the appropriate forum in which to impose new substantive 
requirements”.  Of course, the Commission falls back on the familiar refrain that the new cybersecurity 
requirements are limited to the voluntary process.  But the Commission has consistently dispelled the 
notion that its foray into cybersecurity is either limited or voluntary.  
Regarding the Order on Reconsideration, I support the common sense fix to ensure that 
competitive LECs are not potentially liable for violating our discontinuance rules for reasons entirely 
outside of their control.
In sum, I thank the Chairman and staff for working with me to come to resolution on the 
Declaratory Ruling, but I had hoped to see more progress made to remove legacy rules and barriers to 
discontinue services that most consumers no longer use.  Two and a half years ago, when the Commission 
set up a voluntary process for technology transition trials, it was so laden with conditions that there were 
almost no participants.  I am skeptical that this latest voluntary process will be any different.