forth by opposing Parties that cable telephony is not universally available throughout each wire center. As noted the OCA contends that in a supra, each and every customer wire center must have access to cable telephony before the wire center is determined to be competitive. We disagree. As Verizon observed, in a competitive market, such as the one that we find to exist in the wire centers in Area, pricing and Verizon’s Petition service quality are set at the margin and not on the circumstances of an individual customer. Therefore, even without personal access to cable service, all customers in wire centers benefit from the competitive pressures created by the widespread availability of cable and wireless service. We are of the opinion that the discipline afforded by competition, coupled with continued commitment to maintaining its COLR Verizon’s obligation, helps ensure that all consumers located in the wire centers subject to the Petition will have access to affordable basic local exchange service. Additionally, businesses such as cable companies, that have no COLR obligation, build out their networks based upon an analysis of whether such deployment is profitable. Consequently, we are reluctant to use a one hundred percent standard because we believe it holds the competitive determination hostage to the cable proprietary deployment plans. We also acknowledge that it has become companies’ increasingly difficult to identify, with precision, the alternative service providers that are present in Pennsylvania, including providers of cable telephony. This is especially true when attempting to identify competitors at the wire center level. Verizon St. 1.0 at Accordingly, we reject the argument that cable service must be one hundred percent available in a wire center for this wire center to be declared competitive. Notwithstanding the above, we also acknowledge the need to be as granular as reasonably possible when determining a cable telephony coverage standard, given the evidence indicating that cable telephony is the primary facilities-based competitor of basic local exchange service for residential customers in many of the wire centers in Petition Area. Therefore, we will consider cable telephony as sufficiently Verizon’s
forth by opposing Parties that cable telephony is not universally available throughout each wire center. As noted supra, the OCA contends that each and every customer in a wire center must have access to cable telephony before the wire center is determined to be competitive. We disagree. As Verizon observed, in a competitive market, such as the one that we find to exist in the wire centers in Verizon’s Petition Area, pricing and service quality are set at the margin and not on the circumstances of an individual customer. Therefore, even without personal access to cable service, all customers in wire centers benefit from the competitive pressures created by the widespread availability of cable and wireless service. We are of the opinion that the discipline afforded by competition, coupled with Verizon’s continued commitment to maintaining its COLR obligation, helps ensure that all consumers located in the wire centers subject to the Petition will have access to affordable basic local exchange service. Additionally, businesses such as cable companies, that have no COLR obligation, build out their networks based upon an analysis of whether such deployment is profitable. Consequently, we are reluctant to use a one hundred percent standard because we believe it holds the competitive determination hostage to the cable companies’ proprietary deployment plans. We also acknowledge that it has become increasingly difficult to identify, with precision, the alternative service providers that are present in Pennsylvania, including providers of cable telephony. This is especially true when attempting to identify competitors at the wire center level. Verizon St. 1.0 at Accordingly, we reject the argument that cable service must be one hundred percent available in a wire center for this wire center to be declared competitive. Notwithstanding the above, we also acknowledge the need to be as granular as reasonably possible when determining a cable telephony coverage standard, given the evidence indicating that cable telephony is the primary facilities-based competitor of basic local exchange service for residential customers in many of the wire centers in Verizon’s Petition Area. Therefore, we will consider cable telephony as sufficiently
1348740.docx