Competition and Regulation
Technological, regulatory and market changes have provided Verizon both new opportunities and challenges. These changes have allowed Verizon to offer new types of services in this increasingly competitive market. At the same time, they have allowed other service providers to broaden the scope of their own competitive offerings. Current and potential competitors for network services include other telephone companies, cable companies, wireless service providers, foreign telecommunications providers, satellite providers, electric utilities, Internet service providers, providers of voice over the Internet, or VoIP services, and other companies that offer network services using a variety of technologies. Many of these companies have a strong market presence, brand recognition and existing customer relationships, all of which contribute to intensifying competition and may affect our future revenue growth. Many of our competitors also remain subject to fewer regulatory constraints than Verizon.

We are unable to predict definitively the impact that the ongoing changes in the telecommunications industry will ultimately have on our business, results of operations or financial condition. The financial impact will depend on several factors, including the timing, extent and success of competition in our markets, the timing and outcome of various regulatory proceedings and any appeals, and the timing, extent and success of our pursuit of new opportunities.

Broadband
The FCC has adopted a series of orders that recognize the competitive nature of the broadband market, and impose lesser regulatory requirements to broadband services and facilities than apply to narrowband. With respect to facilities, the FCC has determined that certain unbundling requirements that apply to narrowband facilities do not apply to broadband facilities such as fiber to the premise loops and packet switches. With respect to services, the FCC has concluded that broadband Internet access services offered by telephone companies and their affiliates qualify as largely deregulated information services. The same order also concluded that telephone companies may offer the underlying broadband transmission services that are used as an input to Internet access services through private carriage arrangements on negotiated commercial terms. The FCC’s order addressing the appropriate regulatory treatment of broadband Internet access services is the subject of a pending appeal.

Video
The FCC has a body of rules that apply to cable operators under Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, and these rules also generally apply to telephone companies that provide cable services over their networks. In addition, companies that provide cable service over a cable system generally must obtain a local cable franchise. The FCC currently is conducting a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether the local franchising process is serving as a barrier to entry for new providers of video services, like Verizon. In this proceeding, the FCC is evaluating the scope of its authority over the local franchise process and is considering adopting rules under Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure that the local franchising process does not undermine competitive entry.

Interstate Access Charges and Intercarrier Compensation
The current framework for interstate access rates was established in the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Services (CALLS) plan, which the FCC adopted on May 31, 2000. The CALLS plan has three main components. First, it establishes portable interstate access universal service support of $650 million for the industry that replaces implicit support previously embedded in interstate access charges. Second, the plan simplifies the patchwork of common line charges into one subscriber line charge (SLC) and provides for de-averaging of the SLC by zones and class of customers. Third, the plan set into place a mechanism to transition to a set target of $.0055 per minute for switched access services. Once that target rate is reached, local exchange carriers are no longer required to make further annual price cap reductions to their switched access prices. As a result of tariff adjustments which became effective in July 2003, virtually all of our switched access lines reached the $.0055 benchmark.

The FCC currently is conducting a broad rulemaking proceeding to consider new rules governing intercarrier compensation including, but not limited to, access charges, compensation for Internet traffic, and reciprocal compensation for local traffic. The notice seeks comments about intercarrier compensation in general, and requests input on seven specific reform proposals.

The FCC also has pending before it issues relating to intercarrier compensation for dial-up Internet-bound traffic. The FCC previously found this traffic is not subject to reciprocal compensation under Section 251(b)(5) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead, the FCC established federal rates per minute for this traffic that declined from $.0015 to $.0007 over a three-year period, established caps on the total minutes of this traffic subject to compensation in a state, and required incumbent local exchange carriers to offer to both bill and pay reciprocal compensation for local traffic at the same rate as they are required to pay on Internet-bound traffic. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected part of the FCC’s rationale, but declined to vacate the order while it is on remand. As a result, pending further action by the FCC, the FCC’s underlying order remains in effect. The FCC subsequently denied a petition to discontinue the $.0007 rate cap on this traffic, but removed the caps on the total minutes of Internet-bound traffic subject to compensation. That decision is the subject of an appeal by several parties. Disputes also remain pending in a number of forums relating to the appropriate compensation for Internet-bound traffic during previous periods under the terms of our interconnection agreements with other carriers.

The FCC also is conducting a rulemaking proceeding to address the regulation of services that use Internet protocol, including whether access charges should apply to voice or other Internet protocol services. The FCC also considered several petitions asking whether, and under what circumstances, services that employ Internet protocol are subject to access charges. The FCC previously has held that one provider’s peer-to-peer Internet protocol service that does not use the public switched network is an interstate information service and is not subject to access charges, while a service that utilizes Internet protocol for only one intermediate part of a call’s transmission is a telecommunications service that is subject to access charges. Another petition asking the FCC to forbear from applying access charges to voice over Internet protocol services that are terminated on switched local exchange networks was withdrawn by the carrier that filed that petition. The FCC also declared the services offered by one provider of a voice over Internet protocol service to be jurisdictionally interstate on the grounds that it was impossible to separate that carrier’s Internet protocol service into interstate and intrastate components. The FCC also stated that its conclusion would apply to other services with similar characteristics. That order has been appealed.

The FCC also has adopted rules for special access services that provide for pricing flexibility and ultimately the removal of services from price regulation when prescribed competitive thresholds are met. More than half of special access revenues are now removed from price regulation. The FCC currently has a rulemaking proceeding underway to evaluate experience under its pricing flexibility rules, and to determine whether any changes to those rules are warranted.

Universal Service
The FCC also has a body of rules implementing the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including rules governing support to rural and non-rural high-cost areas, support for low income subscribers, and support for schools, libraries and rural health care. The FCC’s current rules for support to high-cost areas served by larger “non-rural” local telephone companies were previously remanded by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which had found that the FCC had not adequately justified these rules. The FCC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding in response to the court’s remand, but its rules remain in effect pending the results of the rulemaking. The FCC also has proceedings underway to evaluate possible changes to its current rules for assessing contributions to the universal service fund. Any change in the current assessment mechanism could result in a change in the contribution that local telephone companies, wireless carriers or others must make and that would have to be collected from customers.

Unbundling of Network Elements
Under section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, incumbent local exchange carriers were required to provide competing carriers with access to components of their network on an unbundled basis, known as UNEs, where certain statutory standards are satisfied. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 also adopted a cost-based pricing standard for these UNEs, which the FCC interpreted as allowing it to impose a pricing standard known as “total element long run incremental cost” or “TELRIC.” The FCC’s rules defining the unbundled network elements that must be made available at TELRIC prices have been overturned on multiple occasions by the courts. In its most recent order issued in response to these court decisions, the FCC eliminated the requirement to unbundle mass market local switching on a nationwide basis, with the obligation to accept new orders ending as of the effective date of the order (March 11, 2005). The FCC also established a one year transition for existing UNE switching arrangements. For high capacity transmission facilities, the FCC established criteria for determining whether high capacity loops, transport or dark fiber transport must be unbundled in individual wire centers, and stated that these standards were only expected to affect a small number of wire centers. The FCC also eliminated the obligation to provide dark fiber loops and found that there is no obligation to provide UNEs exclusively for wireless or long distance service. In any instance where a particular high capacity facility no longer has to be made available as a UNE, the FCC established a similar one year transition for any existing high capacity loop or transport UNEs, and an 18 month transition for any existing dark fiber UNEs. Verizon and other parties have challenged various aspects of the new FCC rules on appeal.

As noted above, the FCC has concluded that the requirement under Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide unbundled network elements at TELRIC prices generally does not apply with respect to broadband facilities, such as fiber to the premises loops, the packet-switched capabilities of hybrid loops and packet switching. The FCC also has held that any separate unbundling obligations that may be imposed by Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 do not apply to these same facilities. The decision with respect to Section 271 is the subject of an ongoing appeal.