August 27, 1999

Re:

Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-1, Interexchange Carrier Purchases of Switched Access Services Offered by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Petition of U S West Communications, Inc. for Forbearance from Regulation as a Dominant Carrier in the Phoenix, Arizona MSA, CC Docket No. 98-157.

It is very difficult to rationalize any occasion where the government stands between consumers and lower prices. Thus I support much of the regulatory relief contemplated in this item. As a result of the relief made possible by today's Order, the Commission will begin to release its regulatory hold on certain carriers operating in competitive markets. I respectfully dissent from portions of this item posing the mere suggestion of regulating competitive carriers in these same markets.

I fully support the immediate regulatory relief granted in this item. In my view, any reduction of unnecessary regulatory burdens is beneficial. The Commission should streamline its procedures wherever possible to lessen the administrative burden imposed by regulation.

Today's Order establishes triggering mechanisms that will open the door to a degree of regulatory relief that will, in turn, provide lower prices to consumers. While I support the relief made possible by these triggering mechanisms, I remain concerned that these tests may be more cumbersome than necessary. Although the goal of identifying competitive conditions in order to provide regulatory relief is commendable, I would have preferred a simpler approach. I am particularly concerned that the "trigger" for providing relief to providers of switched access services could prove extraordinarily cumbersome in its execution. Notwithstanding these concerns, however, I wholeheartedly support the idea of letting prices fall as a result of competitive forces, and accordingly, I concur with this section of the Order to the extent it makes this regulatory relief possible.

Although the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking details additional deregulatory proposals that I can support, I object to the mere suggestion of adopting new regulatory approaches to CLEC terminating access. On numerous occasions, I have made clear my opposition to any suggestion that the Commission may return, despite the presence of competition, to old habits of regulating carriers.⁽¹⁾ Any such proposal has a chilling effect on industry participants. Moreover, the mere suggestion of regulating a competitive market is antithetical to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I also note that I am troubled by the suggestion to deaverage the Subscriber Line Charge and the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge based on geographic zones within a state, as I am not sure that it is appropriate for the federal government to set different rate elements for similar customers within a state.