Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) scholar Randolph May produced...

required for newly installed fiber or other noncopper facilities. (2) Broadband services, regardless of technology platform, should not be subject to unbundling and sharing requirements or Computer 2-type proceedings. (3) Local switching should be removed promptly from unbundling and sharing regime. (4) Interoffice transport and high-capacity loops should be removed promptly from unbundling and sharing regime and “special access” should not be reregulated. (5) Presumptive sunset regime with competitive triggers should be established for removal of copper local loops from unbundling and sharing requirements. (6) Commission should preempt states from mandating unbundling and sharing requirements that exceed scope of federal obligations. (7) Elements that have been removed from unbundling and sharing regime should not be considered on “competitive checklist” for evaluating Sec. 271 applications. May’s paper said FCC would be forced to choose between 2 competing visions of telecom regulation: (1) Static regulated competition, where communications services were provided essentially in natural monopoly environment, which is likely to be case indefinitely. Question for regulators would be how to shape regulation to guarantee competitor access to incumbent facilities. (2) Dynamic deregulation, where communication services were provided in what rapidly was becoming naturally competitive environment that encouraged more competition and innovation. Regulators would have to figure out how to transition to framework with less regulation, leaving regulation in place only where necessary for remaining “pockets of monopoly.” May said if Commission chose first vision, investment in advanced telecom facilities and equipment would be impaired. Other vision would lead to long-term sustainable competition, he said.