93 demonstrates “a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” to forbear from applying sections 251 and 252. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (internal quotation marks omitted). The APA demands nothing more. The partial dissent agrees with much of this, but nonetheless believes that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by “attempt[ing] to have it both ways” when it found a lack of competition in its reclassification decision, but simultaneously found adequate competition to justify forbearance. Concurring & Dissenting Op. at 67. The partial dissent also believes that the Commission’s competition analysis was contrary to its own precedent. Id. at 66. Notably, however, and despite the partial dissent’s assertion, see id. at 60–61, Full Service Network has never claimed that the Commission misapplied any of the section 10(a) factors, failed to analyze competitive effect as required by section 10(b), or acted contrary to its forbearance precedent. Indeed, when pressed at oral argument, Full Service Network disclaimed any intent to make these arguments. Oral Arg. Tr. 139–40. Full Service Network’s argument regarding the Commission’s competition analysis was confined to its contention that section 251’s focus on local competition required the Commission to perform a local market analysis as part of its forbearance inquiry. As the partial dissent acknowledges, EarthLink “fully supports the Commission” on that score. Concurring & Dissenting Op. at 68. According to the partial dissent, however, by citing section 10(b) in its brief, Full Service Network presented a broader challenge to the Commission’s competition analysis. Id. at 60–61. But Full Service Network cited section 10(b) only once, and only in the context of its argument that the Commission “must evaluate each provision [under section 10] using the definition and context of that provision in the Act,” which, “[i]n the context of the local ‘connection link’ to the Internet that