Verizon Communications (VZ)

State Regulation and Local Approvals

Telephone Operations

State public utility commissions regulate our telephone operations with respect to certain telecommunications intrastate rates and services and other matters. Our competitive local exchange carrier and long distance operations are generally classified as nondominant and lightly regulated the same as other similarly situated carriers. Our incumbent local exchange operations are generally classified as dominant. These latter operations predominantly are subject to alternative forms of regulation (AFORs) in the various states, although they remain subject to rate of return regulation in a few states. Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon and Washington are rate of return regulated with various levels of pricing flexibility for competitive services. California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are under AFORs with various levels of pricing flexibility, detariffing, and service quality standards. None of the AFORs include earnings regulation. In Idaho, Verizon has made the election under a statutory amendment into a deregulatory regime that phases out all price regulation.

Video

Companies that provide cable service over a cable system are typically subject to state and/or local cable television rules and regulations. As noted above, cable operators generally must obtain a local cable franchise from each local unit of government prior to providing cable service in that local area. Some states have recently enacted legislation that enables cable operators to apply for, and obtain, a single cable franchise at the state, rather than local, level. To date, Verizon has applied for and received state-issued franchises in California, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas and the unincorporated areas of Delaware. We also have obtained authorization from the state commission in Rhode Island to provide cable service in certain areas in that state, have obtained required state commission approvals for our local franchises in New York, and will need to obtain additional state commission approvals in these states to provide cable service in additional areas. Virginia law provides us the option of entering a given franchise area using state standards if local franchise negotiations are unsuccessful.

Wireless Services

The rapid growth of the wireless industry has led to an increase in efforts by some state legislatures and state public utility commissions to regulate the industry in ways that may impose additional costs on Verizon Wireless. The Communications Act generally preempts regulation by state and local governments of the entry of, or the rates charged by, wireless carriers. Although a state may petition the FCC to allow it to impose rate regulation, no state has done so. In addition, the Communications Act does not prohibit the states from regulating the other “terms and conditions” of wireless service. While numerous state commissions do not currently have jurisdiction over wireless services, state legislatures may decide to grant them such jurisdiction, and those commissions that already have authority to impose regulations on wireless carriers may adopt new rules.

State efforts to regulate wireless services have included proposals to regulate customer billing, termination of service, trial periods for service, advertising, network outages, the use of handsets while driving, and the provision of emergency or alert services. Over the past several years, only a few states have imposed regulation in one or more of these areas, and in 2006 a federal appellate court struck down one such state statute, but Verizon Wireless expects these efforts to continue. Some states also impose their own universal service support regimes on wireless and other telecommunications carriers, and other states are considering whether to create such regimes.

Verizon Wireless (as well as AT&T (formerly Cingular) and Sprint-Nextel) is a party to an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) with 33 State Attorneys General. The AVC, which generally reflected Verizon Wireless’s practices at the time it was entered into in July 2004, obligates the company to disclose certain rates and terms during a sales transaction, to provide maps depicting coverage, and to comply with various requirements regarding advertising, billing, and other practices.

At the state and local level, wireless facilities are subject to zoning and land use regulation. Under the Communications Act, neither state nor local governments may categorically prohibit the construction of wireless facilities in any community or take actions, such as indefinite moratoria, which have the effect of prohibiting service. Nonetheless, securing state and local government approvals for new tower sites has been and is likely to continue to be a difficult, lengthy and expensive process. Finally, state and local governments continue to impose new or higher fees and taxes on wireless carriers.

38

Table of Contents

In April 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 142-3, Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets (FSP 142-3). FSP 142-3 removes the requirement under SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets to consider whether an intangible asset can be renewed without substantial cost or material modifications to the existing terms and conditions, and replaces it with a requirement that an entity consider its own historical experience in renewing similar arrangements, or a consideration of market participant assumptions in the absence of historical experience. FSP 142-3 also requires entities to disclose information that enables users of financial statements to assess the extent to which the expected future cash flows associated with the asset are affected by the entity’s intent and/or ability to renew or extend the arrangement. We are required to adopt FSP 142-3 effective January 1, 2009 on a prospective basis. We are evaluating the impact FSP 142-3 will have on our financial statements.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133, (SFAS No. 161). This statement requires additional disclosures for derivative instruments and hedging activities that include how and why an entity uses derivatives, how these instruments and the related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and related interpretations, and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect the entity’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), Business Combinations (Revised), (SFAS No. 141(R)), to replace SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting, defines the acquirer, establishes the acquisition date and broadens the scope to all transactions and other events in which one entity obtains control over one or more other businesses. This statement is effective for business combinations or transactions entered into for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We are still evaluating the impact of SFAS No. 141(R) however, the adoption of this statement is not expected to have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB No. 51, (SFAS No. 160). SFAS No. 160 establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the retained interest and gain or loss when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. This statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Upon the initial adoption of this statement, we will change the classification and presentation of Noncontrolling Interest in our financial statements, which we currently refer to as Minority Interest. We are still evaluating the impact SFAS No. 160 will have, but we do not expect a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

39

Table of Contents

In this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q we have made forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our estimates and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include the information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations. Forward-looking statements also include those preceded or followed by the words “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “hopes” or similar expressions. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The following important factors, along with those discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, could affect future results and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:

40

Table of Contents

State Regulation and Local Approvals

Telephone Operations

State public utility commissions regulate our telephone operations with respect to certain telecommunications intrastate rates and services and other matters. Our competitive local exchange carrier and long distance operations are generally classified as nondominant and lightly regulated the same as other similarly situated carriers. Our incumbent local exchange operations are generally classified as dominant. These latter operations predominantly are subject to alternative forms of regulation (AFORs) in the various states, although they remain subject to rate of return regulation in a few states. Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon and Washington are rate of return regulated with various levels of pricing flexibility for competitive services. California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are under AFORs with various levels of pricing flexibility, detariffing, and service quality standards. None of the AFORs include earnings regulation. In Idaho, Verizon has made the election under a recent statutory amendment into a deregulatory regime that phases out all price regulation.

Video

Companies that provide cable service over a cable system are typically subject to state and/or local cable television rules and regulations. As noted above, cable operators generally must obtain a local cable franchise from each local unit of government prior to providing cable service in that local area. Some states have recently enacted legislation that enables cable operators to apply for, and obtain, a single cable franchise at the state, rather than local, level. To date, Verizon has applied for and received state-issued franchises in California, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas and the unincorporated areas of Delaware. We also have obtained authorization from the state commission in Rhode Island to provide cable service in certain areas in that state, have obtained required state commission approvals for our local franchises in New York, and will need to obtain additional state commission approvals in these states to provide cable service in additional areas. Virginia law provides us the option of entering a given franchise area using state standards if local franchise negotiations are unsuccessful.

Wireless Services

The rapid growth of the wireless industry has led to an increase in efforts by some state legislatures and state public utility commissions to regulate the industry in ways that may impose additional costs on Verizon Wireless. The Communications Act generally preempts regulation by state and local governments of the entry of, or the rates charged by, wireless carriers. Although a state may petition the FCC to allow it to impose rate regulation, no state has done so. In addition, the Communications Act does not prohibit the states from regulating the other “terms and conditions” of wireless service. While numerous state commissions do not currently have jurisdiction over wireless services, state legislatures may decide to grant them such jurisdiction, and those commissions that already have authority to impose regulations on wireless carriers may adopt new rules.

State efforts to regulate wireless services have included proposals to regulate customer billing, termination of service, trial periods for service, advertising, network outages, the use of handsets while driving, and the provision of emergency or alert services. Over the past several years, only a few states have imposed regulation in one or more of these areas, and in 2006 a federal appellate court struck down one such state statute, but Verizon Wireless expects these efforts to continue. Some states also impose their own universal service support regimes on wireless and other telecommunications carriers, and other states are considering whether to create such regimes.

Verizon Wireless (as well as AT&T (formerly Cingular) and Sprint-Nextel) is a party to an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with 33 State Attorneys General. The AVC, which generally reflected Verizon Wireless’s practices at the time it was entered into in July 2004, obligates the company to disclose certain rates and terms during a sales transaction, to provide maps depicting coverage, and to comply with various requirements regarding advertising, billing, and other practices.

At the state and local level, wireless facilities are subject to zoning and land use regulation. Under the Communications Act, neither state nor local governments may categorically prohibit the construction of wireless facilities in any community or take actions, such as indefinite moratoria, which have the effect of prohibiting service. Nonetheless, securing state and local government approvals for new tower sites has been and is likely to continue to be a difficult, lengthy and expensive process. Finally, state and local governments continue to impose new or higher fees and taxes on wireless carriers.

35

Table of Contents

In April 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 142-3, Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets (FSP 142-3). FSP 142-3 removes the requirement under SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets to consider whether an intangible asset can be renewed without substantial cost or material modifications to the existing terms and conditions, and replaces it with a requirement that an entity consider its own historical experience in renewing similar arrangements, or a consideration of market participant assumptions in the absence of historical experience. FSP 142-3 also requires entities to disclose information that enables users of financial statements to assess the extent to which the expected future cash flows associated with the asset are affected by the entity’s intent and/or ability to renew or extend the arrangement. We are required to adopt FSP 142-3 effective January 1, 2009 on a prospective basis. We are evaluating the impact FSP 142-3 will have on our financial statements.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133, (SFAS No. 161). This statement requires additional disclosures for derivative instruments and hedging activities that include how and why an entity uses derivatives, how these instruments and the related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and related interpretations, and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect the entity’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), Business Combinations (Revised), (SFAS No. 141(R)), to replace SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting, defines the acquirer, establishes the acquisition date and broadens the scope to all transactions and other events in which one entity obtains control over one or more other businesses. This statement is effective for business combinations or transactions entered into for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We are still evaluating the impact of SFAS No. 141(R), however, the adoption of this statement is not expected to have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB No. 51, (SFAS No. 160). SFAS No. 160 establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the retained interest and gain or loss when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. This statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Upon the initial adoption of this statement we will change the classification and presentation of Noncontrolling Interest in our financial statements, which we currently refer to as Minority Interest. We are still evaluating the impact SFAS No. 160 will have, but we do not expect a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

36

Table of Contents

In this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q we have made forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our estimates and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include the information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations. Forward-looking statements also include those preceded or followed by the words “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “hopes” or similar expressions. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The following important factors, along with those discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, could affect future results and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:

37

Table of Contents

State Regulation and Local Approvals

Telephone Operations

State public utility commissions regulate our telephone operations with respect to certain telecommunications intrastate rates and services and other matters. Our competitive local exchange carrier and long distance operations are generally classified as nondominant and lightly regulated the same as other similarly situated carriers. Our incumbent local exchange operations are generally classified as dominant. These latter operations predominantly are subject to alternative forms of regulation (AFORs) in the various states, although they remain subject to rate of return regulation in a few states. Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon and Washington are rate of return regulated with various levels of pricing flexibility for competitive services. California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are under AFORs with various levels of pricing flexibility, detariffing, and service quality standards. None of the AFORs include earnings regulation. In Idaho, Verizon has made the election under a recent statutory amendment into a deregulatory regime that phases out all price regulation.

31

Video

Companies that provide cable service over a cable system are typically subject to state and/or local cable television rules and regulations. As noted above, cable operators generally must obtain a local cable franchise from each local unit of government prior to providing cable service in that local area. Some states have recently enacted legislation that enables cable operators to apply for, and obtain, a single cable franchise at the state, rather than local, level. To date, Verizon has applied for and received state-issued franchises in California, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas and the unincorporated areas of Delaware. We also have obtained authorization from the state commission in Rhode Island to provide cable service in certain areas in that state, have obtained required state commission approvals for our local franchises in New York, and will need to obtain additional state commission approvals in these states to provide cable service in additional areas. Virginia law provides us the option of entering a given franchise area using state standards if local franchise negotiations are unsuccessful.

Wireless Services

The rapid growth of the wireless industry has led to an increase in efforts by some state legislatures and state public utility commissions to regulate the industry in ways that may impose additional costs on Verizon Wireless. The Communications Act generally preempts regulation by state and local governments of the entry of, or the rates charged by, wireless carriers. Although a state may petition the FCC to allow it to impose rate regulation, no state has done so. In addition, the Communications Act does not prohibit the states from regulating the other “terms and conditions” of wireless service. While numerous state commissions do not currently have jurisdiction over wireless services, state legislatures may decide to grant them such jurisdiction, and those commissions that already have authority to impose regulations on wireless carriers may adopt new rules.

State efforts to regulate wireless services have included proposals to regulate customer billing, termination of service, trial periods for service, advertising, network outages, the use of handsets while driving, and the provision of emergency or alert services. Over the past several years, only a few states have imposed regulation in one or more of these areas, and in 2006 a federal appellate court struck down one such state statute, but Verizon Wireless expects these efforts to continue. Some states also impose their own universal service support regimes on wireless and other telecommunications carriers, and other states are considering whether to create such regimes.

Verizon Wireless (as well as AT&T (formerly Cingular) and Sprint-Nextel) is a party to an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with 33 State Attorneys General. The AVC, which generally reflected Verizon Wireless’s practices at the time it was entered into in July 2004, obligates the company to disclose certain rates and terms during a sales transaction, to provide maps depicting coverage, and to comply with various requirements regarding advertising, billing, and other practices.

At the state and local level, wireless facilities are subject to zoning and land use regulation. Under the Communications Act, neither state nor local governments may categorically prohibit the construction of wireless facilities in any community or take actions, such as indefinite moratoria, which have the effect of prohibiting service. Nonetheless, securing state and local government approvals for new tower sites has been and is likely to continue to be a difficult, lengthy and expensive process. Finally, state and local governments continue to impose new or higher fees and taxes on wireless carriers.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133, (SFAS No. 161). This statement requires additional disclosures for derivative instruments and hedging activities that include how and why an entity uses derivatives, how these instruments and the related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and related interpretations, and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect the entity’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We are still evaluating the impact SFAS No. 161 will have on our financial position or results of operations.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), Business Combinations (Revised), (SFAS No. 141(R)), to replace SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting, defines the acquirer, establishes the acquisition date and broadens the scope to all transactions and other events in which one entity obtains control over one or more other businesses. This statement is effective for business combinations or transactions entered into for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We are still evaluating the impact of SFAS No. 141(R), however, the adoption of this statement is not expected to have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB No. 51, (SFAS No. 160). SFAS No. 160 establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the retained interest and gain or loss when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. This statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Upon the initial adoption of this statement we will change the classification and presentation of Noncontrolling Interest in our financial statements, which we currently refer to as Minority Interest. We are still evaluating the impact SFAS No. 160 will have, but we do not expect a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

32

In this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q we have made forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our estimates and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include the information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations. Forward-looking statements also include those preceded or followed by the words “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “hopes” or similar expressions. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The following important factors, along with those discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, could affect future results and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:

33

State Regulation and Local Approvals

Telephone Operations

State public utility commissions regulate our telephone operations with respect to certain telecommunications intrastate rates and services and other matters. Our competitive local exchange carrier and long distance operations are generally classified as nondominant and lightly regulated the same as other similarly situated carriers. Our incumbent local exchange operations are generally classified as dominant. These latter operations predominantly are subject to alternative forms of regulation (AFORs) in the various states, although they remain subject to rate of return regulation in a few states. Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington are rate of return regulated with various levels of pricing flexibility for competitive services. California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are under AFORs with various levels of pricing flexibility, detariffing, and service quality standards. None of the AFORs include earnings regulation. In Idaho, Verizon has made the election under a recent statutory amendment into a deregulatory regime that phases out all price regulation.

Video

Companies that provide cable service over a cable system are typically subject to state and/or local cable television rules and regulations. As noted above, cable operators generally must obtain a local cable franchise from each local unit of government prior to providing cable service in that local area. Some states have recently enacted legislation that enables cable operators to apply for, and obtain, a single cable franchise at the state, rather than local, level. To date, Verizon has applied for and received state-issued franchises in California, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas and the unincorporated areas of Delaware. Virginia law provides us the option of entering a given franchise area using state standards if local franchise negotiations are unsuccessful.

Wireless Services

The rapid growth of the wireless industry has led to an increase in efforts by some state legislatures and state public utility commissions to regulate the industry in ways that may impose additional costs on Verizon Wireless. The Communications Act generally preempts regulation by state and local governments of the entry of, or the rates charged by, wireless carriers. Although a state may petition the FCC to allow it to impose rate regulation, no state has done so. In addition, the Communications Act does not prohibit the states from regulating the other “terms and conditions” of wireless service. While numerous state commissions do not currently have jurisdiction over wireless services, state legislatures may decide to grant them such jurisdiction, and those commissions that already have authority to impose regulations on wireless carriers may adopt new rules.

State efforts to regulate wireless services have included proposals to regulate customer billing, termination of service, trial periods for service, advertising, network outages, the use of handsets while driving, and the provision of emergency or alert services. Over the past several years, only a few states have imposed regulation in one or more of these areas, and in 2006 a federal appellate court struck down one such state statute, but Verizon Wireless expects these efforts to continue. Some states also impose their own universal service support regimes on wireless and other telecommunications carriers, and other states are considering whether to create such regimes.

Verizon Wireless (as well as AT&T (formerly Cingular) and Sprint-Nextel) is a party to an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with 33 State Attorneys General. The AVC, which generally reflected Verizon Wireless’s practices at the time it was entered into in July 2004, obligates the company to disclose certain rates and terms during a sales transaction, to provide maps depicting coverage, and to comply with various requirements regarding advertising, billing, and other practices.

At the state and local level, wireless facilities are subject to zoning and land use regulation. Under the Communications Act, neither state nor local governments may categorically prohibit the construction of wireless facilities in any community or take actions, such as indefinite moratoria, which have the effect of prohibiting service. Nonetheless, securing state and local government approvals for new tower sites has been and is likely to continue to be a difficult, lengthy and expensive process. Finally, state and local governments continue to impose new or higher fees and taxes on wireless carriers.

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K we have made forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our estimates and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include the information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations. Forward-looking statements also include those preceded or followed by the words “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “hopes” or similar expressions. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The following important factors, along with those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report, could affect future results and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:

We, the management of Verizon Communications Inc., are responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting of the company. Management has evaluated internal control over financial reporting of the company using the criteria for effective internal control established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

Management has assessed the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. Based on this assessment, we believe that the internal control over financial reporting of the company is effective as of December 31, 2007. In connection with this assessment, there were no material weaknesses in the company’s internal control over financial reporting identified by management.

The company’s financial statements included in this annual report have been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, independent registered public accounting firm. Ernst & Young LLP has also provided an attestation report on the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

State Regulation and Local Approvals

Telephone Operations

State public utility commissions regulate our telephone operations with respect to certain telecommunications intrastate rates and services and other matters. Our competitive local exchange carrier and long distance operations are generally classified as nondominant and lightly regulated the same as other similarly situated carriers. Our incumbent local exchange operations are generally classified as dominant. These latter operations predominantly are subject to alternative forms of regulation (AFORs) in the various states, although they remain subject to rate of return regulation in a few states. Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington are rate of return regulated with various levels of pricing flexibility for competitive services. California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are under AFORs with various levels of pricing flexibility, detariffing, and service quality standards. None of the AFORs include earnings regulation. In Idaho, Verizon has made the election under a recent statutory amendment into a deregulatory regime that phases out all price regulation.

46

Table of Contents

Video

Companies that provide cable service over a cable system are typically subject to state and/or local cable television rules and regulations. As noted above, cable operators generally must obtain a local cable franchise from each local unit of government prior to providing cable service in that local area. Some states have recently enacted legislation that enables cable operators to apply for, and obtain, a single cable franchise at the state, rather than local, level. To date, Verizon has applied for and received state-issued franchises in California, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas and the unincorporated areas of Delaware. Virginia law provides us the option of entering a given franchise area using state standards if local franchise negotiations are unsuccessful.

Wireless Services

The rapid growth of the wireless industry has led to an increase in efforts by some state legislatures and state public utility commissions to regulate the industry in ways that may impose additional costs on Verizon Wireless. The Communications Act generally preempts regulation by state and local governments of the entry of, or the rates charged by, wireless carriers. Although a state may petition the FCC to allow it to impose rate regulation, no state has done so. In addition, the Communications Act does not prohibit the states from regulating the other “terms and conditions” of wireless service. While numerous state commissions do not currently have jurisdiction over wireless services, state legislatures may decide to grant them such jurisdiction, and those commissions that already have authority to impose regulations on wireless carriers may adopt new rules.

State efforts to regulate wireless services have included proposals to regulate customer billing, termination of service, trial periods for service, advertising, network outages, the use of handsets while driving, and the provision of emergency or alert services. Over the past several years, only a few states have imposed regulation in one or more of these areas, and in 2006 a federal appellate court struck down one such state statute, but Verizon Wireless expects these efforts to continue. Some states also impose their own universal service support regimes on wireless and other telecommunications carriers, and other states are considering whether to create such regimes.

Verizon Wireless (as well as AT&T (formerly Cingular) and Sprint-Nextel) is a party to an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with 33 State Attorneys General. The AVC, which generally reflected Verizon Wireless’s practices at the time it was entered into in July 2004, obligates the company to disclose certain rates and terms during a sales transaction, to provide maps depicting coverage, and to comply with various requirements regarding advertising, billing, and other practices.

At the state and local level, wireless facilities are subject to zoning and land use regulation. Under the Communications Act, neither state nor local governments may categorically prohibit the construction of wireless facilities in any community or take actions, such as indefinite moratoria, which have the effect of prohibiting service. Nonetheless, securing state and local government approvals for new tower sites has been and is likely to continue to be a difficult, lengthy and expensive process. Finally, state and local governments continue to impose new or higher fees and taxes on wireless carriers.

In February 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities - Including an Amendment of SFAS 115 (SFAS No. 159), which allows for the option to measure financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. Unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value option has been elected are reported in earnings. This statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. We are currently evaluating the impact of SFAS No. 159 on our financial statements.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurement (SFAS No. 157). SFAS No. 157 expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles and establishes a hierarchy that categorizes and prioritizes the sources to be used to estimate fair value. We are required to adopt SFAS No. 157 effective January 1, 2008 on a prospective basis. We are currently evaluating the impact this new standard will have on our financial statements.

In June 2006, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) reached a consensus on EITF No. 06-3, How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income Statement (EITF No. 06-3). EITF No. 06-3 permits that such taxes may be presented on either a gross basis or a net basis as long as that presentation is used consistently. The adoption of EITF No. 06-3 on January 1, 2007 did not impact our financial statements. We present the taxes within the scope of EITF No. 06-3 on a net basis.

47

Table of Contents

In this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, we have made forward-looking statements. These statements are based on our estimates and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include the information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations. Forward-looking statements also include those preceded or followed by the words “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “hopes” or similar expressions. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The following important factors, along with those discussed elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, could affect future results and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:

48

Table of Contents