Other Factors That May Affect Future Results

Recent Developments

Telephone Access Lines

As we have stated in the past, Verizon continually evaluates its assets and properties for strategic fit and financial performance. In connection with this analysis, discussions have taken place regarding the possible sale of telephone access lines in Hawaii and upstate New York. However, no sale is pending at this time.

Environmental Matters

During 2003, under a government-approved plan, remediation of the site of a former facility in Hicksville, New York that processed nuclear fuel rods in the 1950s and 1960s commenced. Remediation beyond original expectations proved to be necessary and a reassessment of the anticipated remediation costs was conducted. In addition, a reassessment of costs related to remediation efforts at several other former facilities was undertaken. As a result, an additional environmental remediation expense of $240 million was recorded in Selling, General and Administrative Expense in the consolidated statements of income in the fourth quarter of 2003.

New York Recovery Funding

In August 2002, President Bush signed the Supplemental Appropriations bill which included $5.5 billion in New York recovery funding. Of that amount, approximately $750 million has been allocated to cover the uninsured losses of businesses (including the restoration of utility infrastructure) as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks. These funds will be distributed through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation following an application process.

On October 31, 2003, Verizon applied for reimbursement of $33 million. We received $11 million in December 2003. We are awaiting an audit for the remaining funds. Once the audit is complete, we will apply for additional funds.

Regulatory and Competitive Trends

Competition and the Telecommunications Act of 1996

We face increasing competition in all areas of our business. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), regulatory and judicial actions and the development of new technologies, products and services have created opportunities for alternative telecommunication service providers, many of which are subject to fewer regulatory constraints. Current and potential competitors in telecommunications services include long distance companies, other local telephone companies, cable companies, wireless service providers, foreign telecommunications providers, electric utilities, Internet service providers and other companies that offer network services. 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.

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 resulting from the 1996 Act and technological advances.

In-Region Long Distance

Under the 1996 Act, our ability to offer in-region long distance services in the regions where the former Bell Atlantic telephone subsidiaries operate as local exchange carriers was largely dependent on satisfying specified requirements. These requirements included a 14-point “competitive checklist” of steps which we must take to help competitors offer local services through resale, through purchase of UNEs, or by interconnecting their own networks to ours. We were required to demonstrate to the FCC that our entry into the in-region long distance market would be in the public interest.

We now have authority from the FCC to offer in-region long distance service in all 14 of the former Bell Atlantic jurisdictions. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the Massachusetts order to the FCC for further explanation on one issue, but left our long distance authority in effect. The FCC’s orders for the remaining jurisdictions were upheld on appeal or no appeal was filed.

FCC Regulation and Interstate Rates

Our telephone operations are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC with respect to interstate services and related matters.

Access Charges and Universal Service

On May 31, 2000, the FCC adopted the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Services (CALLS) plan as a comprehensive five-year plan for regulation of interstate access charges. The CALLS plan has three main components. First, it establishes a portable interstate access universal service support of $650 million for the industry. This explicit support replaces implicit support 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 in a manner that will not undermine comparable and affordable universal service. Third, the plan sets 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. The annual reductions leading to the target rate, as well as annual reductions for the subset of special access services that remain subject to price cap regulation was set at 6.5% per year.

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 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. Approximately 55% of special access revenues are now removed from price regulation.

In November 1999, the FCC adopted a new mechanism for providing universal service support to high-cost areas served by large local telephone companies. This funding mechanism provides additional support for local telephone services in several states served by our telephone operations. This system has been supplemented by the new FCC access charge plan described above. On October 16, 2003, in response to a previous court decision, the FCC announced a decision providing additional justification for its non-rural high-cost universal support mechanism and modifying it in part. 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 must make and that would have to be collected from customers.

Unbundling of Network Elements

On February 20, 2003, the FCC announced a decision adopting new rules defining the obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers to provide competing carriers with access to UNEs. The decision was the culmination of an FCC rulemaking referred to as its triennial review of its UNE rules, and also was in response to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had overturned the FCC’s previous unbundling rules on the grounds that the FCC did not adequately consider the limitations of the “necessary and impair” standards of the 1996 Act when it chose national rules for unbundling and that it failed to consider the relevance of competition from other types of service providers, including cable and satellite.

The text of the order and accompanying rules was released on August 21, 2003. With respect to broadband facilities, such as mass market fiber to the premises loops and packet switching, that order generally removed unbundling obligations under Section 251 of the 1996 Act. With respect to narrowband services, the order generally left unbundling obligations in place, with certain limited exceptions, and delegated to state regulatory proceedings a further review. The order also provided a new set of criteria relating to when carriers may purchase a combination of unbundled loops and transport elements known as enhanced extended loops (EELs).

The FCC’s order significantly increases arbitrage opportunities by making it easier for carriers to use EELs for non-local service at regulated prices set using the pricing formula that applies to UNEs rather than competitive special access prices. In addition, the FCC’s order eliminates important safeguards that protected against this kind of arbitrage, including the FCC’s previous rule against co-mingling unbundled elements and other services. As a result, we estimate the impact on earnings related to this portion of the FCC’s order to be potentially 4 cents to 6 cents per diluted share in 2004.

Multiple parties, including Verizon, appealed various aspects of the decision. Multiple parties also have asked the FCC to clarify or reconsider various aspects of its order, and Verizon has petitioned the FCC to make clear that any broadband facilities that do not have to be unbundled under Section 251 of the 1996 Act also do not have to be unbundled under another provision of the 1996 Act. On March 2, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order upholding the FCC in part, and overturning its order in part. The court upheld the FCC with respect to broadband facilities. On the narrowband unbundling requirements and on the EELs rules, the court reversed key aspects of the FCC decision. The court’s reversal of the FCC will not go into effect for 60 days following the ruling or until a petition for rehearing is denied or granted.

Intercarrier Compensation

On April 27, 2001, the FCC released an order addressing intercarrier compensation for dial-up connections for Internet-bound traffic. The FCC found that Internet-bound traffic is interstate and subject to the FCC’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the FCC again found that Internet-bound traffic is not subject to reciprocal compensation under Section 251(b)(5) of the 1996 Act. Instead, the FCC established federal rates per minute for this traffic that decline from $.0015 to $.0007 over a three-year period. The FCC order also sets caps on the total minutes of this traffic that may be subject to any intercarrier compensation and requires that incumbent local exchange carriers must 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. On May 3, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected part of the FCC’s rationale for its April 27, 2001 order, 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.

More generally, the FCC has an ongoing rulemaking that could fundamentally restructure the regulatory regime for intercarrier compensation, including, but not limited to, access charges, compensation for Internet traffic, and reciprocal compensation for local traffic. The FCC also is considering multiple petitions asking it to declare whether, and under what circumstances, services that employ Internet protocol are subject to access charges under current law, or asking it to forbear from any requirement to pay access charges on some such services. The FCC also has announced that it intends to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address the regulation of voice over Internet protocol services generally.

Broadband Services

The FCC has several ongoing rulemakings considering the regulatory treatment of broadband services. Among the questions at issue are whether to require local telephone companies like Verizon to offer such services as a common carrier or whether such services may be offered under a potentially less regulated private carriage arrangement, and whether to declare broadband services offered by local telephone companies as non-dominant and what the effect should be of any such classification.