Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps - Top Story

I have generally not oppos asking questions, as the Commission has initiated several broad Notices of Propos Rulemaking above the past few months. on the other hand when the Commission proposes conclusions that strike me as at unevens with current statutory and regulatory requirements, and doesn't analyze the filled implications of its decision, I must dissent.

Of course, we ne to ask questions to make intelligent decisions. I would therefore have been unclose to a balanced notice that recognized the in every one's mouth statutory and regulatory structure and that sought to examine our dominions in light of technology evolution and the increasing gradual approach of services, technologies, and markets. Our interpretations of telecommunications, telecommunications services and information services ne to be direct the eyeed at in the context of the times and the pace of technological tendency to meet But before we commit ourselves, smooth "tentatively," to specific and potentially drastic changes to our antecedent that carry with them enormous impacts in the market, we should better understand the implications of our conclusions. We have not done in like manner here, and I fear we are out-driving the range of our headlights.

The majority frames this Notice as an exploration of the statutory classification of telecommunications, telecommunications services, and information services. on the contrary what we are really deciding is whether the transmission constituent for broadband services, including for Internet access, should be presented outside of the statutory framework that applies to telecommunications carriers. This is an enormously far-reaching decision and I, for individual am nowhere near ready to make progress there, even tentatively.

Our responsibility is to implement the statute as Congres intended. however in reaching its tentative conclusions, the majority fails to analyze our previous determinations that reached a contrary result' through doing so, some may assume the Commission has made up its mind and proce to basing their guidance on these tentative conclusions.

Moreover, taken to its logical extreme point the majority's reading of the statute appears to lead to the strange conclusion that Congres intended to dislodge these services from the numerous competition, universal service, and consumer protection provisions that Congres imposed upon common carriers providing telecommunications services. I'm not ready to number Congress that either -- not tentatively nor smooth conjecturally. For example, the majority notes that incumbents must provide unbundl uncompounded bodys to competitors for the drift of providing a telecommunications service. Does this mean that beneath the majority's proposal competitors would not be able to obtain network simple bodys to provide broadband Internet access? Would the majority's conclusion undermine access for the millions of Americans with disabilities, as Congres required in Section 255? Would carriers be excused from Congress' privacy directions thereby allowing carriers to put up to sale and use customer information with impunity? The list goe upon and on. Would slamming protections beneath Section 258 be lost for these services? Would the rate averaging and rate integration requirements that are in like manner important to rural consumers be threatened? These and numerous other protections in the Act hinge upon the provision of a telecommunications service. Do we really ne to go on so far down the road with this notice as the majority proposes? U-turn are almost always dangerous, and tentative U-turn can sometimes be the greatest in quantity collision-inducing.

I don't affect to have all of the answers to the troubling questions raised by the agency of the Notice. Nor do I sham to have all of the questions that ne to be asked. on the other hand I have enough of them to glance at that we're not ready to proceed so far as this notice takes us.

I will be combined in one section of this Notice, simply to render certain that the universal service questions have sufficient support to be raised. The Notice does look for comment on the impact of its decision upon a critical component of the public interest -- in what manner to preserve and advance universal service as Congres directed. While I disagree with the words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following in which the questions are raised, I would not want to diocese this Notice go forward without raising questions that would not otherwise be raised about the impact of the Commission's proposal and by what means we can continue to fit the statutory goals of universal service. As the Commission put in motions forward with all of the proceedings initiated in the past month we must be careful that our commitment to universal service not ever wavers.

Moreover, as we address these questions, we ne to work closely with our state colleagues and the Joint Board in particular. It is time we recognize completely that the states are partners in our efforts to advance universal service.

Setting competition policy is the jurisdiction of Congres I confidence that as we move forward, we will be focused upon the Congressional directive to assist competition. I fear that the Commission's tentative conclusions today may be read by dint of some as leading down a different road.