Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with much of the Court's analysis in Parts II and III of its opinion, which demonstrates that reading "any entity" in 47 U. S. C. §253(a) to include political subdivisions of States would have several unhappy consequences. I do not think, however, that the avoidance of unhappy consequences is adequate basis for interpreting a text. Cf. ante, at 13 ("The municipal respondents' position holds sufficient promise of futility and uncertainty to keep us from accepting it"). I would instead reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground discussed in Part IV of the Court's opinion: Section 253(a) simply does not provide the clear statement which would be required by Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452 (1991), for a statute to limit the power of States to restrict the delivery of telecommunications services by their political subdivisions.

I would not address the additional question whether the statute affects the "power of . . . localities to restrict their own (or their political inferiors') delivery" of telecommunications services, ante, at 2 (emphasis added), an issue considered and apparently answered negatively by the Court. That question is neither presented by this litigation nor contained within the question on which we granted certiorari.