JOINT STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS AND  
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN ADELSTEIN,
CONCURRING

Re:  	SBC’s petition for forbearance from application of dominant carrier status to its 
provision of advanced services 
      
	We concur, with both reluctance and disappointment, in this Order to forbear 
from requiring SBC’s separate affiliate to file tariffs or cost support for its provision of 
certain broadband services.  We support this Order, not because it is the optimal outcome, 
or even a good one, but because it is significantly superior to the option presented to us of 
no decision from the Commission and the resultant forbearance from such Commission 
inaction.  A failure to reach agreement would have resulted, under the Communications 
Act, in an automatic grant of SBC’s entire request for forbearance, a result that we find 
incomprehensible in light of the record before us.  

      Previously, the Commission concluded that a separate affiliate providing 
advanced services is not a successor or assign of the Bell company and therefore, unlike 
the Bell company, would be nondominant.  The D.C. Circuit overturned the 
Commission’s decision, thereby eliminating the basis for the Commission’s 
determination that the affiliate does not exercise market power.  Thus, in the absence of a 
finding of nondominance, we must presume that SBC’s affiliate exercises market power 
in its provision of advanced services. 
      
      We do not believe the forbearance criteria are met to detariff and eliminate cost 
support for a dominant carrier.  In previous orders forbearing from tariff requirements, 
the Commission has rested its decision on its conclusion that carriers lacking market 
power could not successfully charge rates that violate the Communications Act.  In 
today’s Order, we extend that conclusion to a provider with market power.  Some may 
read this Order to prejudge our decision in the broader proceeding in which we are 
examining whether incumbents are dominant in their provision of broadband.  We want 
to express explictly that this Order does not support such a conclusion.  
      
      We believe that a vastly preferable approach would have been for the 
Commission to conduct the requisite market analysis first.  We could then detariff SBC 
or its affiliate only in those markets in which we had first determined the carrier does not 
exercise market power.  But in the absence of an economic market analysis, we do not 
see how we can conclude that the forbearance criteria are met. Therefore, we would have 
preferred to deny SBC’s request for forbearance and required it to maintain its tariffs and 
cost support until the Commission completes its examination of dominance in the 
broadband market.  
      
      We recognize that the Commission has been operating under tight deadlines 
which require difficult resource allocation decisions.  Nonetheless, we believe that  as a 
result of the Commission’s having not completed its work in this proceeding in a timely 
fashion, and in order to avoid more far-reaching forbearance through Commission 
inaction, we are left only with the option to concur in the Order.