Separate Statement of 
Commissioner Michael J. Copps,
Approving in Part, Concurring in Part


Re:	Application by Verizon New England, Inc., Verizon Delaware, Inc., Bell Atlantic 
Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance 
Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks, Inc., 
and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization to Provide In-Region 
InterLATA Services in New Hampshire and Delaware (WC Docket No. 02-157)

      I write separately to explain the reasons that I concur in part in this Order granting 
Verizon's application to provide long-distance services in New Hampshire and Delaware.  
Verizon has done a great deal to open its local markets to competition in these states.  I 
also commend the New Hampshire and Delaware Commissions for their significant 
efforts to ensure competition.  
      
      The major issue in this proceeding has been the pricing of network elements, and 
in particular, the rates for unbundled switching.  In the New Hampshire application, the 
majority concludes that the statute permits Bell companies in all instances to demonstrate 
compliance with the checklist by aggregating the non-loop elements.  I disagree with the 
majority's analysis.  Section 271 requires a BOC to provide "nondiscriminatory access to 
network elements in accordance with sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)."  Section 
252(d)(1) in turn provides that the just and reasonable rate for network elements shall be 
based on the cost of providing the network element.  I believe the better reading of the 
statute is that the rate for each network element must comport with Congress' pricing 
directive.  Indeed, in previous applications in which the Commission has conducted a 
bottom-up analysis of the forward-looking rates, it has examined the switching element 
independent of transport.
      
      Notwithstanding my concern with the legal reasoning, I agree that we should 
grant Verizon's application.  The Commission has recognized that states may reach 
different decisions on the optimal network configuration when they set rates.  These 
differences could result in trade-offs among rates for elements when compared in our 
benchmark analysis.  That may well be the case in this instance.  Here, our benchmark 
model indicates that rates for transport could be significantly higher in New Hampshire 
than in New York, but the actual transport rates in New Hampshire are 35 percent lower.  
On the other hand, the switching rates in New Hampshire are approximately 10 percent 
higher than the benchmark would allow.  I concur in this decision, because the record 
indicates that the commercial reality in New Hampshire is that competitors are only 
purchasing switching with transport.  In another situation in which competitors were 
purchasing unbundled switching or another network element on its own, we would need 
to scrutinize more closely the trade-offs among the element rates.  In that instance, the 
statute could well compel a different result.