WPCE 2BEJX Courier X4#Xj\  P6G;+XP#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic@206{ ZK3|j #Xj\  P6G;+XP#3|j HP LaserJet 4Si (Additional) rm 544HPLA4SAD.PRSX\  P6G;\ P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN*a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P.\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P/e` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P0n` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P1w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2n4KB+K-K/K#2"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd"i~'^#)0<K4K6\69 K<"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN"(# 1  X94X\II.BACKGROUND p>"(# 3  X"4XX` ` A.` ` Statutory Framework ` p>"(# 3  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Overview ` p>"(# 6  X4X\III.STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION p"(# 29  X 4XX` ` A.` ` State Review of BOC Compliance with Section 271(c) ` p"(# 29  X!4XX` ` B.` ` Department of Justice's Evaluation ` p"(# 33  X#4X\IV.STANDARD FOR EVALUATING SECTION 271 APPLICATIONS p"(# 37  Xj$4XX` ` A.` ` Burden of Proof for Section 271 Applications and Compliance with Requirement that Application be Complete When Filed ` p"(# 37  X<&4XX` ` B.` ` Submission of New Factual Evidence and New Arguments in Reply Comments ` p"(# 39  X(4X\V.COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 271(c)(1)(B) p"(# 46"(,))II'"Ԍ X4XX` ` A.` ` Background ` p"(# 46  X4XX` ` B.` ` Evidence in the Record ` p"(# 49  X4XX` ` C.` ` Discussion ` p"(# 57  X4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Section 271(c)(1)(A) p"(# 57  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2.  Section 271(c)(1)(B) p"(# 58  X4XX` ` X X a.Summary p"(# 58  Xv4XX` ` X X b.Standard for Evaluating Qualifying Requests p"(# 59  X_4XX` ` X X c.Existence of "Qualifying Requests" in South Carolina p"(# 65  X14X\VI.CHECKLIST COMPLIANCE p"(# 77  X 4XX` ` A.` ` "Generally Offering" Each Checklist Item ` p"(# 77  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Introduction p"(# 77  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Discussion p"(# 79  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Operations Support Systems ` p"(# 82  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Introduction p"(# 82  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Description of BellSouth's Operations Support Systems p"(# 90  X4XX` ` X ` ` 3. General Approach to Analyzing Operations Support Systems p"(# 96  Xy4XX` ` X ` ` 4. Analysis of Ordering and Provisioning Functions p!(# 101  Xb4XX` ` X ` ` 5. Analysis of PreOrdering Functions p!(# 147  XK4XX` ` C.` ` Access to Unbundled Network Elements ` p!(# 182  X44XX` ` X ` ` 1. Summary p!(# 182  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Background p!(#183  X4XX` ` X ` ` 3. Evidence in the Record p!(#186  X4XX` ` X ` ` 4. Discussion p!(#195  X4XX` ` X ` ` 5. Other Concerns p!(#210  X4XX` ` D.` ` Resale of Contract Service Arrangements ` p!(#212  X4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Background p!(#212  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Discussion p!(#215  X|4XX` ` E.` ` Nondiscriminatory Access to 911 and E911 Services ` p!(#225  XN4X\VII.JOINT MARKETING p!(#231  X74XX` ` A.` ` Background ` p!(#231  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Discussion ` p!(#236  X4X\VIII.CONCLUSION p!(#240  X 4X\IX.ORDERING CLAUSES p!(#241  X"4APPENDIX` ` LIST OF COMMENTERS(#` "h$,>(>(II""Ԍ X' #Xj\  P6G;+XP#I. XINTRODUCTION (#  X41.` ` On September 30, 1997, BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. (collectively, BellSouth) filed an application for authorization under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  X4amended,"c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271. Section 271 was added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104 {O'104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et seq. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as "the Communications Act" or "the Act." The Telecommunications Act of 1996 will be referred to as "the 1996 Act." to provide inregion, interLATA services in the State of South Carolina.&c {O 'ԍ MOTION Application by BellSouth Corp., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc.,  {O 'for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in South Carolina, CC Docket No. 97208 (filed Sept. 30, 1997)  {O '(BellSouth Application); see also Comments Requested on Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in  {O'South Carolina, Public Notice, DA 972112 (rel. Sept. 30, 1997) (Sept. 30th Public Notice). All cites to the "BellSouth Application" refer to BellSouth's "Brief in Support of Application." References to all affidavits or other sources contained in the appendices submitted by BellSouth are initially cited to the Appendix, Volume, and Tab number indicating the location of the source in the record. Subsequent citation to affidavits are cited by  {O8'the affiant's name, e.g., "BellSouth Wright Affidavit." Comments on the current application are cited herein by  {O'party name, e.g., "Intermedia Comments." Documents, such as affidavits and declarations, submitted by  {O'commenters are cited by the affiant's name and the entity submitting the affidavit, e.g., "AT&T Bradbury Aff.," "MCI King Decl." A list of parties that submitted comments or replies is set forth in the Appendix. On October 1, 1997, AT&T Corp. (AT&T) and LCI International Telecom Corp. (LCI) filed a motion asking the  {O&'Commission to dismiss BellSouth's application. See Motion of AT&T & LCI Int'l Telecom Corp. to Dismiss  {O'BellSouth's 271 Application for South Carolina, CC Docket No. 97208 (filed Oct. 1, 1997) (AT&T/LCI Motion  {O'to Dismiss). Pursuant to our September19, 1997, Public Notice, we treat this motion as early filed comments.  {M'See Revised Procedures for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section271 of the Communications Act,  {OL'Public Notice, FCC 97330, at 8 (rel. Sept. 19, 1997) (Sept. 19th Public Notice).   X_42.` ` In this Order, we conclude that BellSouth is not eligible to proceed under section 271(c)(1)(B) and that it has not yet demonstrated that it generally offers each of the items of the competitive checklist set forth in section 271(c)(2)(B). In light of these conclusions, we need not and do not, address the issue of whether BellSouth has demonstrated that the authorization it seeks is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and  X 4necessity.M c yO= 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3)(C).M " 0,>(>(IIm "Ԍ X' II.XBACKGROUND (#  X'X A.X` ` Statutory Framework (#`  X43.` ` The 1996 Act conditions Bell Operating Company (BOC)c yO'ԍFor purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the definition of the term "Bell Operating Company" contained in 47 U.S.C.  153(4). provision of in X4region, interLATA services on compliance with certain provisions of section 271.4 c yO^ 'ԍWe note here that, for the provision of international services, a U.S. carrier must obtain section 214  {O& 'authority. See 47 U.S.C.  214; see also Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and  {O 'Tariff Requirements, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996); Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation  {O 'in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97398 (rel. Nov. 26, 1997). The requirement to obtain a section 214 authorization will apply to a BOC even after it receives its section 271 authority to provide inregion, interLATA service. Several BOCs have applied for, and have  {O'obtained, section 214 authority to provide outofregion, international services. See, e.g., NYNEX Long Distance Co., Ameritech Communications, Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended, to Provide International Services from Certain Parts of the  {On'United States to International Points through Resale of International Switched Services, Order, Authorization and Certificate, 11 FCC Rcd 8685 (Int'l Bur. 1996).4 Under section271, BOCs must apply to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) for  X_4authorization to provide interLATA services originating in any inregion state.% _ c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(1). The Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ), which ended the government's antitrust suit against AT&T, and which resulted in the divestiture of the BOCs from AT&T, prohibited the BOCs  {O*'from providing interLATA services. See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 226234 (D.D.C.  {O'1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. Western Elec.  {O'Co., Civil Action No. 820192 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996) (vacating the MFJ). For purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the definition of the term "inregion state" that is contained in 47 U.S.C.  271(i)(1). We note that section 271(j) provides that a BOC's inregion services include 800 service, private line service, or their equivalents that terminate in an inregion state of that BOC and that allow the called party to determine the interLATA carrier,  {O'even if such services originate outofregion. Id.  271(j). The 1996 Act defines "interLATA services" as "telecommunications between a point located in a local access and transport area and a point located outside such area." 47 U.S.C. 153(21). The 1996 Act defines a "local access and transport area" (LATA) as "a contiguous geographic area (A)established before the date of enactment of the [1996 Act] by a [BOC] such that no exchange area includes points within more than 1 metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the AT&T Consent Decree; or (B) established or modified by a [BOC] after such date of enactment and approved by the Commission." 47 U.S.C.  153(25).  {OZ 'LATAs were created as part of the MFJ's "plan of reorganization." United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F.  {O$!'Supp. 990, 1057 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd sub nom. California v. United States, 464 U.S. 1013 (1983). Pursuant to the MFJ, "all [BOC] territory in the continental United States [was] divided into LATAs, generally centering  {O"'upon a city or other identifiable community of interest." United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. at 993.% The Commission must issue a written determination approving or denying each application no later  X14than 90 days after receiving such application.J1c yO&'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3).J In acting on a BOC's application for authority"1,>(>(II" to provide inregion, interLATA services, the Commission must consult with the Attorney General and give substantial weight to the Attorney General's evaluation of the BOC's  X4application.Mc {OK'ԍId.  271(d)(2)(A).M In addition, the Commission must consult with the applicable state commission in order to verify that the BOC has either a stateapproved interconnection agreement or a statement of generally available terms and conditions (SGAT) that satisfies the "competitive  X4checklist."M Zc {O'ԍId.  271(d)(2)(B).M  X_44.` ` Section 271 requires the Commission to make several findings before approving BOC entry. A BOC must show that it satisfies the requirements of either section  X14271(c)(1)(A),{ 1c yO 'ԍSection 271(c)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part: XA [BOC] meets the requirements of [section 271(c)(1)(A)] if it has entered into one or more binding agreements that have been approved under section 252 specifying the terms and conditions under which the [BOC] is providing access and interconnection to its network facilities for the network facilities of one or more unaffiliated competing providers of telephone exchange service . . . to residential and business subscribers. For the purpose of [section 271(c)(1)(A)], such telephone exchange service may be offered by such competing providers either exclusively over their own telephone exchange service facilities or predominately over their own telephone exchange service facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications services of another carrier.(#{ known as "Track A," or section 271(c)(1)(B), known as "Track B." Section 271(c)(1)(B), which we treat as the pertinent section for purposes of this Order, provides that a BOC meets the requirements of Track B if no competing provider has requested the access and interconnection described in section 271(c)(1)(A) before the date that is three months  X 4before the BOC's section 271 application is filed. @ c yO 'ԍXSection 271(c)(1)(B) provides, in relevant part:(# XA [BOC] meets the requirements of [section 271(c)(1)(B)] if, after 10 months after the date of enactment of the [1996 Act], no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)] before the date which is 3 months before the date the [BOC] makes it application under [section 271(d)(1)], and a statement of the terms and conditions that the [BOC] generally offers to provide such access and interconnection has been approved or permitted to take effect by the State commission under section 252(f).(#Ƙ In addition, a statement of the generally available terms and conditions that the BOC offers to provide such access and interconnection must have been approved or permitted to take effect by the applicable State commission under section 252(f). In order to grant a BOC's application, the Commission must also find that the SGAT approved or allowed to take effect by the state under section 252 offers all of the items  Xb4included in the competitive checklist contained in section 271(c)(2)(B),Q bc yO%'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3)(A)(ii).Q that the requested"b ,>(>(II"  X4authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 272, c {Oy'ԍId.  271(d)(3)(B). The Commission has adopted various rules implementing the accounting and  {OC'nonaccounting safeguards contained in section 272. See, e.g., Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards  {O 'of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96149, First Report  {O'and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996) (NonAccounting Safeguards  {O'Order), Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997), further recon. pending, petition for summary review  {Ok'in part denied and motion for voluntary remand granted sub nom., SBC Communications v. FCC, No. 971118  {O5'(D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 6, 1997) (held in abeyance pursuant to court order filed May 7, 1997), on remand, Second  {O'Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97222 (rel. June 24, 1997), petition for review pending sub nom., Bell Atlantic  {O'Telephone Companies v. FCC, No. 971423 (D.C. Cir. filed July 11, 1997); Implementation of the  {O 'Telecommunications Act of 1996: Accounting Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket  {O] 'No. 96150, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996), recon. pending. and that the BOC's entry into the inregion interLATA market is "consistent with the public interest,  X4convenience, and necessity."M> c yO 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3)(C).M  X45.` ` To date, the Commission has considered two BOC applications for the provision of inregion, interLATA services pursuant to section 271 of the Act. Specifically, on June 25, 1997 the Commission denied Southwestern Bell's application to provide in X_4region, interLATA services in Oklahoma, (_ c {O'ԍSee Application by SBC Communications, Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of  {O'1934, as amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 97121,  {Or'Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97228 (rel. June 26, 1997) (SBC Oklahoma Order), petition for review  {O<'pending sub nom., SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, No. 971425 (D.C. Cir. filed July 3, 1997).  and on August 19, 1997, the Commission denied the application of Ameritech Michigan to provide inregion, interLATA services in  X14Michigan.^1c {O'ԍSee Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  {Oj'amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97137, Memorandum Opinion  {O4'and Order, FCC 97137 (rel. Aug. 19, 1997) (Ameritech Michigan Order), recon. pending. These orders interpret various section 271 requirements.  X ' B.` ` Overview (#`  X 46. ` ` We conclude in this order that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it complies with the competitive checklist contained in section 271 of the Act. We recognize, however, that BellSouth has made progress in opening its local market to competition. BellSouth states that it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to create an organizational structure to meet the needs of new entrants as they seek to compete in BellSouth's market. BellSouth has also negotiated more than 80 agreements with competing carriers to provide competitive service in South Carolina. Moreover, as was the Department of Justice, we are encouraged by BellSouth's efforts to develop systems that accommodate the needs of smaller competing carriers. We commend BellSouth for the efforts that it has made thus far. ",>(>(IIf"Ԍ X47. ` ` The 1996 Act's overriding goal is to open all telecommunications markets to  X4competition and, ultimately, to deregulate these markets.c yOb'ԍThe purpose of the 1996 Act is to "provide for a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and  {O'information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to  {O'competition." Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996) (Joint Explanatory Statement) (emphasis added). Before the 1996 Act's passage, the BOCs, the local progeny of the onceintegrated Bell system, were barred by the terms of the MFJ from entering certain lines of business, including long distance services. The ban on BOC provision of long distance services was based on the MFJ court's determination that such a restriction was "clearly necessary to preserve free competition in the interexchange  Xv4market."rv|c {O 'ԍUnited States v. Western Electric Co., 552 F. Supp. at 188.r The court found that, if the BOCs were permitted to compete in the interexchange market, they would have "substantial incentives" and opportunity, through their control of local exchange and exchange access facilities and services, to discriminate against their  X14interexchange rivals and to crosssubsidize their interexchange ventures.@\1c {O'ԍId. Although never called upon to make final evidentiary conclusions, the court found it appropriate "to consider whether the state of proof at trial was such as to sustain th[e] divestiture as being in the public interest."  {O'Id. at 161. @  X 48. ` ` In this Order, we find that BellSouth is ineligible to proceed under Track B. We find that BellSouth has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that it has received no qualifying requests for access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). We also clarify our standard for evaluating   the type of requests for access and interconnection that preclude a BOC from proceeding under section 271(c)(1)(B). In addition, we analyze BellSouth's SGAT for compliance with the competitive checklist, as described below.   XK49.` ` Through the competitive checklist and the other requirements of section 271, Congress has prescribed the mechanism by which the BOCs may enter the inregion, long distance market. This mechanism replaces the structural approach of the MFJ that prohibited BOCs from participating in that market. Although Congress supplanted the MFJ, it nonetheless acknowledged the principles underlying that approach that BOC entry into the long distance market could have significant anticompetitive effects unless the BOCs first open their local markets to competition. Accordingly, Congress set up a framework that requires  X4BOCs to demonstrate that their local markets are open to competition before they are permitted to enter the inregion long distance market. In order to effectuate Congress' intent, we must make certain that the BOCs have opened their local markets and thus allow competition to develop in those markets.  X94 10.` ` Section 251 of the 1996 Act contemplates three paths of entry into the local market the construction of new networks, the use of unbundled elements of the incumbent's""2 ,>(>(II"  X4network, and resale. c {Oy'ԍ IOWA 47 U.S.C.  251; see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the  {OC'Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 9698, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15509  {O '(1996) (Local Competition Order), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996) (Local Competition  {O'First Reconsideration Order), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996) (Local Competition  {O'Second Reconsideration Order), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  {Ok'FCC 97295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997) (Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order), further recon. pending. Petitions for review of the First Report and Order were filed in a number of federal courts. Those petitions were  {O'consolidated and assigned by lottery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C.  2112(a)(3). On July 18, 1997, the Eighth Circuit issued its decision affirming in part and vacating in part  {O 'certain portions of the First Report and Order. See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997),  {OY 'modified on reh'g, No. 963321 (Oct. 14, 1997) (Rehearing Order). The Commission and numerous other parties have filed petitions for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court challenging the Eighth Circuit's  {O 'decision. See AT&T Corp. et al. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. 97826 (Nov. 17, 1997); MCI Telecommunications  {O 'Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. 97829 (Nov. 17, 1997); Association for Local Telecommunications Services et al.  {O 'v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. 97830 (Nov. 17, 1997); FCC & United States v. Iowa Utils Bd., No. 97831 (Nov. 19, 1997). Section 251(c)(2), for example, imposes on all incumbent local  X4exchange carriers (LECs) (c yO'ԍThe term "local exchange carrier" or LEC, means "any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access." 47 U.S.C.  153(26). We will refer to incumbent local exchange carriers, including BOCs, as "incumbent LECs." "Competing LECs" refers to carriers seeking to enter the local exchange market. the duty to provide for interconnection between the incumbent's network and the new entrant's network. This provision enables customers using a new entrant's facilities to receive and place calls to customers on the incumbent's network. Section 251(c)(3) imposes on all incumbent LECs the duty to provide unbundled network elements, and section 251(c)(4) requires incumbents to offer their retail services to new entrants at discounted rates so that the new entrants can resell those services. Neither section 251 nor our rules implementing that section express a preference for one particular entry strategy. As the Commission concluded, "given the likelihood that entrants will combine or alter entry strategies over time, an attempt to indicate such a preference in our section 251  X 4rules may have unintended and undesirable results."d c {O'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15509.d The Commission has established rules that are intended to guarantee that all procompetitive entry strategies are available. In order to ensure efficient entry, each potential competitor must be able to choose the entry strategy that it believes is most appropriate under the circumstances.  X 4 11. ` ` These critical, marketopening provisions of section 251 are incorporated into the competitive checklist found in section 271. For example, the competitive checklist requires BOCs to demonstrate that they provide interconnection in accordance with section  Xb4251(c)(2)."bc yO%'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B)(i). Moreover, the competitive checklist requires that the BOC provide  {O}&'interconnection and access to network elements in accordance with section 252(d). Id  271(c)(2)(B)(i),(ii)." The checklist also requires BOCs to show that they provide access to unbundled network elements in accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(3), and to"K,>(>(II" demonstrate that they provide resale in accordance with the requirements of section  X4251(c)(4).gc {Ob'ԍId.  271(c)(2)(B)(ii), (iv)(vi), (xiv).g Section 271 thus places on this Commission the responsibility to ensure that the requirements of section 251 are met before the BOC is allowed into the inregion, interLATA market.  X4 12.` ` In this Order, we conclude that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it satisfies the competitive checklist in section 271, and we therefore must deny its application. Although recognizing that BellSouth has made some progress, we identify a number of significant deficiencies in BellSouth's offering of unbundled network elements and resale services. We have attempted, however, to provide guidance where possible to BellSouth regarding what steps it must take in order to comply with section 271.  X 4 13. ` ` As a preliminary matter, we emphasize that the standards we apply herein to determine whether BellSouth complies with the competitive checklist are firmly rooted in the Act, in our implementing regulations, and in the standards and guidance the Commission  X 4promulgated in the Ameritech Michigan Order. We are thus not in this Order diverging from the requirements of the Act or in any other way establishing impediments to BOC entry into the interLATA market. We note, however, that BellSouth states that it "disagrees" with  Xd4certain interpretations of checklist requirements suggested in the Commission's Ameritech  XO4Michigan Order and that, "in this application BellSouth preserves its positions for resolution  X:4by the courts if necessary."M:Zc yOE'ԍBellSouth Application at 20.M As discussed below, we reaffirm, where applicable, the earlier Order.  X4 14.` ` We believe that the deficiencies we identify below in BellSouth's application are ones which we find are likely to frustrate competitors' ability to pursue entry through the use of unbundled network elements or resale, the two methods of entry that promise the most  X4rapid introduction of competition."c {OK'ԍSee Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 816 ("Congress recognized that the amount of time and capital investment involved in the construction of a complete local standbeside telecommunications network are substantial barriers to entry, and thus required incumbent LECs to allow competing carriers to use their networks in order to hasten the influence of competitive forces in the local telephone business."). Specifically, we find that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it: (1) offers nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems; (2) offers nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that permits competing carriers to combine them; and (3) offers certain retail services at discounted rates as required by the Act.  X&415. ` ` With respect to access to its operations support systems, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems functions, which the Commission has recognized as a prerequisite to the" ,>(>(II" development of meaningful local competition. Incumbent LECs, such as BellSouth, maintain a variety of computer databases and "backoffice" systems that are used to provide service to customers. We collectively refer to these computer databases and systems as operations support systems, or OSS. These systems enable the employees of incumbent LECs to formulate customers' orders for telecommunications services, to provide the requested services to their customers, to maintain and repair network facilities, and to render bills.  X_416. ` ` In implementing the local competition provisions of the 1996 Act, the  XH4Commission concluded in its August 1996 Local Competition Order that much of the information maintained by the incumbents' operations support systems is critical to the ability of other carriers to compete with incumbent LECs using unbundled network elements or resold services. The Commission concluded that, in order to meet the nondiscriminatory access standard for OSS, an incumbent LEC must provide to competing carriers access to OSS functions for preordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing  X 4that is equivalent to what it provides itself, its customers or other carriers.d c {O9'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15766.d This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which agreed with the Commission that the requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS is an integral  X{4part of the 1996 Act's blueprint for opening local markets to competition.\Z{Zc {O'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 809 (the "explicit reference to 'databases, signaling systems, and information sufficient for billing and collection' [in the statutory definition of 'network element'] clearly indicates that operational support systems qualify as network elements under the Act").\  XM417.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions is embodied in various terms of the competitive checklist in section 271. Without equivalent access to the BOC's OSS, many items required by the checklist, such as resale services, unbundled loops, unbundled local switching, and unbundled local transport would not be available in a timely manner or at an  X4acceptable level of quality.]|c {O 'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 132.] The Commission found that it was necessary to determine whether the access to OSS functions provided by the BOC to competing carriers sufficiently supports each of the three modes of competitive entry strategies established by the Act: interconnection, unbundled network elements, and services offered for resale. In so doing, the Commission sought to ensure that a new entrant's decision to enter the local exchange market in a particular state is based on the new entrant's business considerations, rather than the availability or unavailability of particular OSS functions to support each of the modes of  X;4entry.H;c {O$'ԍId. at para. 133.H "$ ,>(>(II"Ԍ X418. ` ` Determining whether a BOC provides nondiscriminatory access to OSS requires the Commission to assess the various components of such access in some detail because these details have clear implications for a new entrant's ability to effectively compete. For example, the details concerning how and when a BOC provides a new entrant information concerning the status of the new entrant's resale order or order for unbundled network elements are critically important. As demonstrated by this case, when one of BellSouth's customers calls a BellSouth representative with questions concerning the status of his or her order for a telecommunications service, BellSouth is generally able to provide such information because it is contained in BellSouth's systems to which its employees have quick and unfettered access. By contrast, when a new entrant seeks to provide service to one of its new customers via resale or unbundled network elements, the new entrant must send its customer's order to BellSouth for processing and, until BellSouth informs the new entrant of the status of that order, either through a confirmation that the order has been processed or through a notice that there is a problem with the order, the new entrant is unable to inform its customer of the status of his or her order. The customer may not understand that the new entrant's inability to provide information on her order may be due to the fact that BellSouth has not returned an order confirmation. To the customer, the new entrant may appear to be a less efficient and responsive service provider than its competitor, BellSouth. Accordingly, it is important that we assess such details of BellSouth's OSS. Our comprehensive review of BellSouth's OSS indicates that it has failed to provide to new entrants information concerning the status of their orders in a timely manner.  X419. ` ` It is also critical that a new entrant's ability to provide service to its customers in substantially the same time that a BOC can provide service to its customers is not hindered by the BOC's OSS access. Customers will expect similar levels of service from new entrants. If a new entrant cannot provision service in substantially the same time as the incumbent, the customer may decide not to switch carriers. A BOC's failure to timely process a new entrant's order may result in the new entrant losing a potential customer. In order to measure  X|4this fundamental gauge of parity, the Commission required in the Ameritech Michigan Order that BOCs submit evidence on the average time it takes for the BOC to provide service to a  XP4customer and the average time it takes the new entrant to provide service.]Pc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 166.] We note, as did the Department of Justice, that BellSouth has failed to provide meaningful data on this  X"4important yardstick. "Zc yO-!'ԍEvaluation of the United States Department of Justice, CC Docket 97208, at 23 (filed Nov. 4, 1997)  {O!'(Department of Justice Evaluation); see also infra paras. INST1132שINST2140. As discussed in detail below,K!"c {O#'ԍSee infra part VI.B.K BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it offers to competing carriers nondiscriminatory access to all of its OSS functions, as required by the competitive checklist. We emphasize that the deficiencies we identify with regard to BellSouth's OSS affect a competitor's ability to enter via resale as well as through the use of" F!,>(>(IIk" unbundled network elements. Nondiscriminatory access to an incumbent's OSS is just as vital to a competitor seeking to enter via resale as to one using unbundled network elements.  X4 20.` ` We also conclude in this Order that entry in South Carolina through the use of unbundled network elements may be hindered by BellSouth's failure to offer unbundled network elements in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them to provide a telecommunications service. In a recent decision, the Eighth Circuit held that requesting carriers, rather than incumbent LECs, have the duty to combine network elements, even if  XH4those elements are already combined by the incumbent LEC.U"ZHc {O 'ԍIowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order at 1. The court vacated section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules, which states that "[e]xcept upon request, an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines." 47 C.F.R. 51.315(b). U Thus, where a BOC uses a combination of network elements to serve a customer, but then loses that customer to a new entrant that intends to provide service to that customer through the purchase of those network elements, the BOC may physically disassemble the combined elements and require the new entrant to incur the costs of recombining them in order to provide service to the same customer. In reaching this decision, the court noted that the statute requires incumbent LECs "'to provide . . . unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to  X 4combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.'"# c {OB'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., Rehearing Order at 1 (quoting 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3)). We and the industry are still in the early stages of evaluating the implications of the Eighth Circuit's ruling that, although competing carriers may offer services solely through the use of unbundled network elements, the competing carriers must combine those elements themselves. Various methods of combining elements are being discussed by the industry.  X421. ` ` Pursuant to the provisions of its SGAT, BellSouth asserts that, as a general  X4rule, competitors must use collocation in order to combine network elements./$z|c yO3'ԍBellSouth Reply at 3334 (BellSouth has identified no other means by which new entrants can combine unbundled network elements). The Act identifies two forms of collocation physical collocation and virtual collocation. 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6). Physical collocation refers to the placement of a competing carrier's transmission equipment in a segregated space in the incumbent LEC's central office. The competing carrier  {OS'owns the equipment and has the right to enter its segregated space in the LECs central office. See infra part VI.C. Virtual collocation refers to the placement of transmission equipment in a central office, but not in a segregated space, that is dedicated to the competing carrier but is maintained by the BOC./ Regardless of the merits of BellSouth's position that collocation is the primary means by which competitors combine elements, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated in the record before us  X4that it offers or can timely provide this method of combining unbundled network elements.<%Z c {O0$'ԍSee infra part VI.C. We make no finding as to the appropriateness of physical or virtual collocation as a method of combining network element or whether other methods, such as direct access to an incumbent LEC's network, are required by the Communications Act.< For example, BellSouth's SGAT fails to include any provision committing BellSouth to a" %,>(>(II" time within which it will implement a request for collocation. We find this omission particularly problematic because the record indicates that, in practice, it is taking BellSouth a long time to implement such requests. If competitors must first construct collocation space in each BellSouth central office from which they wish to provide local exchange service by combining network elements, delays in constructing such space will undermine the Act's goal of the rapid introduction of competition through the use of combinations of network elements. As a result of these and other concerns detailed below, we conclude that BellSouth has not met its burden under section 271 of showing that a competing provider can enter a local telecommunications market in South Carolina by acquiring all necessary elements from an  X14incumbent LEC, as required by section 251 and specifically upheld by the Eighth Circuit.&Z1c {O 'ԍSee Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 81617 ("[T]he Act itself calls for the rapid introduction of competition into local phone markets by requiring incumbent LECs to make their networks available to their competing carriers.").  X 422.` ` We recognize that local competition has not developed in South Carolina and  X 4other states as quickly as many had hoped.'  c yO'ԍThe record suggests that currently there is only limited competition in the provision of local telephone services in South Carolina, particularly in the residential market. According to BellSouth, as of September 11, 1997, no wireline facilitybased local exchange service competition had begun in South Carolina. Competing carriers in South Carolina were providing approximately 1785 resold business local exchange access lines and 573 resold residential local exchange access lines within the state. BellSouth Application, App. A, Vol. V, Tab 16, Affidavit of Gary M. Wright (BellSouth Wright Aff.) at para. 24. Based on this information and information from BellSouth's 1996 8K Quarterly Report, the Department of Justice estimates BellSouth's market share of  {O'local exchange in its service area in South Carolina is 99.8% based on access lines. See Department of Justice Evaluation, App. B at B3. This has led to significant frustration and concern that the goals of the Act may not be met. We believe that such pronouncements are premature. The process of opening local markets is highly complex and peculiarly requires the current incumbent to share its facilities in ways that require unprecedented degrees of cooperation and coordination. At the same time, we recognize that the Act directs us to grant a section 271 application under Track B if a BOC satisfies the other requirements of section 271, even if no competing provider has sought to enter a particular state's local market and we would not hesitate to do so.  X423.` ` Our confidence that local competition is possible is bolstered by recent history. In the 1980s, this country saw a fundamental restructuring in the long distance market following the breakup of the Bell system. The subsequent development of competition in that market is very encouraging, although the pace of the growth of competition in that market was much slower than the pace we seek to achieve in opening local markets to competition. In the decade following divestiture of the BOCs, AT&T's share of interstate  X4long distance revenues fell from approximately 90 percent to 55 percent.( c {O&'ԍMotion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a NonDominant Carrier, 11 FCC Rcd 3271, 3307 (1995) (AT&T  {O&'Reclassification Order). In order to make" (,>(>(II" such competition possible, it was necessary for the BOCs and other incumbent LECs to offer their customers equal access to all qualified long distance carriers, which required technical  X4modifications to network equipment in thousands of end offices across the country.&)c {OK'ԍSee generally MTS and WATS Market Structure Phase III: Establishment of Physical Connections and Through Routes among Carriers; Establishment of Physical Connection by Carriers with NonCarrier Communications Facilities; Planning among Carriers for Provision of Interconnected Services, and in Connection with National Defense and Emergency Communications Services; and Regulations for and in  {Om'Connection with the Foregoing, Report and Order, Phase III, 100 FCC 2d 860 (1985).& Such competition also required long distance competitors to build brand recognition and win the trust of customers accustomed to dealing with the Bell system for all of their  X4telecommunications needs.B*Z|c {O 'ԍSee Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, Phase I, 101 FCC 2d 911 (1985) (finding that the routing of all undesignated interLATA traffic to AT&T was unreasonable and prescribing a pro rata allocation that all LECs were required to put into effect).B  X_424. ` ` As the Commission discussed in the Ameritech Michigan Order, the development of meaningful local competition requires the telecommunications industry to surmount even more daunting hurdles than were faced in the development of competition in  X 4the long distance market.\+ c {Ok'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 17.\ The Commission noted that "[n]ew entrants do not have available a ready, mature market for the resale of local services or for the purchase of unbundled network elements, and the processes for switching customers for local service from the  X 4incumbent to the new entrant are novel, complex and still largely untested.":, 0 c {O'ԍId.: Moreover, although the largest interexchange carriers enjoy strong brand identification, many of the smaller entrants do not. As a result, the development of local competition is likely to be a gradual process, which will require substantial effort by both incumbent LECs and their potential competitors over an extended period of time. We are confident that such efforts will bear fruit in the foreseeable future.  X6425.` ` BellSouth contends that approving its application to provide long distance services in South Carolina will provide an incentive for long distance companies to begin competing in the local market. BellSouth argues that it has opened its local market to competition and that these companies are choosing not to enter the local market for strategic  X4reasons.- c yOM#'ԍBellSouth Application at 103; BellSouth Reply Comments at 9596. BellSouth asserts that until recently the vast majority of competing LECs had no interest in competing in South Carolina, and those that do have an interest have limited themselves to serving business customers. BellSouth further contends that competing LECs' "new expressions of interest have certainly been prompted by hopes of defeating BellSouth's application under  {Om&'Track B." BellSouth Reply at 95; see also BellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 8, Tab 79, South Carolina  {O7''Commission, Order Addressing Statement and Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of"7',,>(>(6'"  {O'1996, Docket No. 97101C, Order No. 97640, at 6667 (July 31, 1997) (South Carolina Commission  {OZ'Compliance Order) (approving BellSouth's application "will create real incentives for the major [interexchange carriers] to enter the local market rapidly in South Carolina, because they will no longer be able to pursue other opportunities secure in the knowledge that [BellSouth] cannot invade their market until they build substantial local facilities."). BellSouth's argument presumes that BellSouth's local markets are already open to"|-,>(>(II " competition and that the lack of local competition in South Carolina is due solely to competitors' failure to devote adequate resources in South Carolina. As discussed above, however, we find in this Order that BellSouth has not yet demonstrated that it complies with the competitive checklist, and that such deficiencies may be hindering successful entry in South Carolina on either a resale basis or through the use of unbundled network elements. BellSouth's entry into the long distance market would surely give long distance carriers an added incentive to enter the local market. But even such an incentive would not be enough to overcome the structural obstacles to competition that new entrants face as a result of BellSouth's failure to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS and to provide competitors a timely and reasonable means to offer telecommunications service by combining unbundled network elements from BellSouth, as Congress mandated.  X 426.` ` BellSouth also contends that approving its application will benefit South Carolina consumers because they will then enjoy the benefit of packaged long distance and local services. Although grant of this application would allow the major long distance carriers  X 4to market jointly local and long distance services in South Carolina,." |c yO'ԍSection 271(e)(1) of the Communications Act prohibits major interexchange carrier from joint marketing a BOC's resold local services with the carrier's long distance services in a BOC's state until the BOC is authorized to provide inregion long distance services in that state or until 36 months have passed since  {O,'enactment of the Communications Act, i.e., February 7, 1999, whichever is earlier. their ability actually to provide those services in competition with BellSouth's own package of service would be hampered by BellSouth's failure to open its local markets in the manner required by section 271. We share the South Carolina Commission's frustration at the lack of local competition in its state and the desire to make more choices available to its citizens, including the ability to purchase bundled local and long distance services. Our concern, however, is that, unless a BOC first satisfies the requirements of section 271 before it is permitted to offer inregion long distance services as well as local services, the BOC could gain an unfair advantage in the provision of bundled local and long distance service.  X427. ` ` Finally, we are mindful of the fact that the South Carolina Commission has found that BellSouth does comply with the competitive checklist and, as noted, believes that BellSouth's entry into the long distance market in that state is in the public interest. We must respectfully disagree. In giving substantial weight to the Department of Justice's evaluation, as required by Congress, that BellSouth's market is not open to competition, and in  XN4conducting our statutorily required independent assessment, we reach a different conclusion.(#(# We must also respectfully disagree with the South Carolina Commission's contention that we should not consider any new issues or facts that were not presented in the state commission" f .,>(>(II"  X4proceeding./c yOy'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 4; South Carolina Commission Reply Comments at 2, 10, 12. Because it is the Commission's statutory duty to determine whether the requirements of section271 have been satisfied, the Commission is not limited to considering  X4only the issues and facts that were presented in the state commission proceeding.0"Xc yO'ԍA number of commenters agree that the Commission must make its own independent findings and can  {O'use evidence outside that presented in the state commission section271 proceeding. See, e.g., ACSI Comments at 10 n.35; ALTS Reply Comments at 48; CFA Reply Comments at 57, 41; Sprint Comments at 45; WorldCom Reply Comments at 1617. We find no basis in the statute to justify our refusal to consider all information that is pertinent to our evaluation of an application. On the other hand, we emphasize that parties should make every effort to present their views to the state commission in the first instance, where such views can be adequately addressed by other interested parties and subjected to crossexamination.  XH428.` ` In sum, we conclude in this Order that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it satisfies the competitive checklist. We believe that these deficiencies pose significant obstacles to the development of local competition in South Carolina. We are encouraged, however, by the progress BellSouth has made and believe it is capable of correcting these deficiencies. We are also hopeful that local competition will continue to grow within the state, particularly with the cooperation of BellSouth.  X ' _III.XSTATE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION (#  Xy' A.` ` State Review of BOC Compliance with Section 271(c)  XK429.` `  STATE Under section 271(d)(2)(B), the Commission "shall consult with the State commission of any State that is the subject of the application in order to verify the  X4_compliance of the Bell operating company with the requirements of subsection (c)."1Bc yO'ԍ47 U.S.C. 271(d)(2)(B). Subsection (c)(1) defines the requirements for TrackA or TrackB entry, and subsection(c)(2) contains the competitive checklist. As the  X4Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, Congress afforded the states this opportunity to present their views regarding the opening of the BOCs' local networks to  X4competition.]2c {O% 'ԍ Ameritech Michigan Order at para.30.] The Commission further noted that, in order to fulfill this role as effectively as possible, state commissions should conduct proceedings to develop a comprehensive factual record concerning BOC compliance with the requirements of section 271 and the status of  X4local competition.:3, c {Or$'ԍId.: The Commission observed that the Act does not prescribe any standard for Commission consideration of a state commission's verification under section 271(d)(2)(B). The Commission concluded, therefore, that it has discretion in each section 271 proceeding to determine what weight to accord to the state commission's consultation in light of the nature"P 3,>(>(IIh" and extent of state proceedings to develop a complete record concerning the applicant's compliance with section271 and the status of local competition. Therefore, although the Commission will consider carefully state determinations of fact that are supported by a detailed and extensive record, it is the Commission's role to determine whether the factual  X4record supports a conclusion that particular requirements of section 271 have been met.:4c {O'ԍId.:  Xv430.` ` The South Carolina Commission has reviewed BellSouth's compliance with the requirements of section271 and provided us with its written evaluation. After establishing a docket on March20, 1997, the South Carolina Commission held a public hearing on July710, 1997, during which BellSouth and parties opposing BellSouth's entry into the South  X 4Carolina long distance market presented testimony and conducted crossexaminations.5F Zc {O% 'ԍCOMPLIANCE ORDERBellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.1, Tab1, South Carolina Commission, Order Establishing Docket  {O 'and Time Table, Docket No.97101C, Order No.97223 (Mar.20, 1997) (South Carolina Commission Mar. 20,  {O'1997 Order); South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 24; South Carolina Commission Comments at 23. Before the hearing, parties submitted comments and testimony to the South Carolina Commission, and exchanged and responded to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. In addition, the South Carolina Commission staff issued its own data requests and conducted investigations. South Carolina Commission Comments at 3. The record contained over 1600 pages of live and prepared sworn testimony and another 1500 pages of pleadings. BellSouth Application at 3. On  X 4July22, 1997, the parties submitted their proposed orders,6 h c {O'ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.8, Tab68, BellSouth Proposed Order; BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.8, Tab73, AT&T Proposed Order Regarding Approval of BellSouth's SGAT. and on July31, 1997, the South  X 4Carolina Commission issued the South Carolina Commission Compliance Order, ruling that BellSouth had complied with the requirements of section271(c). That Order also approved BellSouth's SGAT, with modifications, and concluded that BellSouth had met the competitive  X 4checklist, finding that the SGAT makes available to new entrants each of the checklist items.7 c {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 46. We note that several commenters argue that we  {O'should not defer to the South Carolina Commission Compliance Order because the state commission adopted BellSouth's proposed order virtually verbatim instead of exercising its own independent judgment. AT&T Comments at 4748; AT&T Comments, App., Vol.VIII, Ex.I, Affidavit of Kenneth P. McNeely (AT&T McNeely Aff.), Attachs. 24; MCI Comments at 910; MCI Reply Comments at 12; WorldCom Reply  {O'Comments at 1516. But see BellSouth Reply Comments at 36. The South Carolina Commission also concluded that BellSouth's entry into the interLATA market would be in the public interest because long distance rates would be lowered, carriers could jointly package local and long distance services to consumers, and competitive providers  XM4of local exchange service would be encouraged to enter the local market.i8M@c {O>$'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 67.i That Order did not analyze whether BellSouth had satisfied the requirements of section271(c)(1)(A) (TrackA) or section271(c)(1)(B) (Track B). The state commission did, however, discuss its views of the state of competition in local telecommunications markets in South Carolina. The"8,>(>(II" commission found that, although the local market in South Carolina was open to competition, no potential competitive carriers were taking any reasonable steps toward providing facilities X4based local service for business and residential customers.D9c {OK'ԍId. at 1820.D  X431.SC PROCEEDING` ` Following the July31, 1997, release of the South Carolina Commission  X4Compliance Order, BellSouth filed on August25, 1997, a proposed revised SGAT to reflect the July18, 1997, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on  Xc4review of the Commission's Local Competition Order.[ :cZc {On 'ԍBellSouth Application, App. C, Vol.9, Tab83, BellSouth Comments on SGAT Revisions, Ex. 1; see  yO8 'BellSouth Reply Comments, App., Tab9, Affidavit of Alphonso J. Varner (BellSouth Varner Reply Aff.) at para.29. On July18, 1997, the Eighth Circuit held that sections252(c)(2) and (d) gave state commissions exclusive authority to interpret the pricing terms of sections251 and 252 and implicitly divested the Commission  {O 'of any rulemaking role in that area. See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 79396. Moreover, the court held that the matters governed by the interconnection provisions of the Act are fundamentally intrastate in character, and that any ambiguity regarding the Commission's jurisdiction over pricing and other issues arising under  {O'section251 did not give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to intrastate communications. Id. at 796800, 80207. The court also vacated the Commission's "pick and choose" rule that had allowed new entrants to select  {O|'the favorable terms of a prior interconnection agreement. Id. at 80001. In addition, the court upheld the Commission's rules that discounted and promotional offerings were telecommunications services subject to the  {O'resale requirements of the Act. Id. at 81819. Furthermore, the court agreed with the Commission that new entrants may provide telecommunications service wholly through the use of unbundled network elements purchased from incumbent LECs at costbased unbundled network element prices, but vacated the Commission's  {Oh'rules requiring incumbent LECs to combine the network elements for new entrants. Id. at 81315. The court also agreed that vertical features qualify as unbundled network elements. On rehearing on October14, 1997, the court vacated the Commission's rule prohibiting LECs from separating previously combined network elements  {O'requested by a competing carrier.  Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order. The Commission and numerous other parties have filed petitions for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court challenging the Eighth  {OT'Circuit's decision. See petitions cited supra note  IOWA20 .[ The SGAT approved on July31, 1997, provided that, if a new entrant combined network elements to produce an existing BellSouth tariffed retail service, the new entrant would be charged the wholesale price for the  X 4retail service.k; c yO'ԍBellSouth Comments on SGAT Revisions, Ex. 1 II(F)(1).k The proposed revised SGAT deleted this provision and instead allows competing carriers to use combinations of network elements to provide a telecommunications service that replicates an existing BellSouth retail service if the competing carrier combines those elements itself. The SGAT offers to deliver certain elements to the competing carrier's  X 4collocation space for combining.< bc {O"'ԍId. For discussion on SGAT provisions on combining unbundled network elements, see infra part VI.C. BellSouth also proposed revising the language in the earlier version of the SGAT that offered vertical features, such as call waiting, at the retail" <,>(>(II[ "  X4price less the applicable wholesale discount.k=\c {Oy'ԍId., Ex. 1 VI(A). Vertical features perform certain switching functions beyond the basic switching function of connecting lines and trunks. Examples include call waiting, threeway calling, call forwarding, and  {O 'caller ID. See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1570506.k Under the revision, the SGAT now offers  X4vertical features as part of the unbundled local switching functionality.e>c yO'ԍBellSouth Comments on SGAT Revisions, Ex. 1 VI.e BellSouth also submitted a revised pricing schedule to the SGAT on September5, 1997, that removed the earlier version's language regarding vertical features and stated instead that no charges would be assessed for vertical features until prices were developed in the South Carolina  X4Commission's pending cost proceeding.?|c {O 'ԍSee BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.9, Tab91, Revised Attachment A to the Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (BellSouth Revised SGAT Attach. A) at 3. The South Carolina Commission approved a later version of the SGAT, incorporating certain of BellSouth's proposed changes (including the ones discussed above), on September9, 1997, and this revised SGAT was released on  XH4September19, 1997.@$Hc {O'ԍBellSouth Application, App.B, Vol.1, Tab1, Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundling and Resale Provided by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. in the State of  {Oa'South Carolina (Sept. 19, 1997) (SGAT); see BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para.30; Department of Justice Evaluation at 5 n.3. The September19, 1997, SGAT is the one that BellSouth relies on here, and it is the one which we review. Unless otherwise expressly noted, all references herein to BellSouth's SGAT refer to the September19, 1997, revised SGAT.  X 432.` ` On October17, 1997, the South Carolina Commission submitted its comments concerning BellSouth's application. The South Carolina Commission reiterated the views  X 4expressed in the South Carolina Commission Compliance Order that no potential competitive carriers were taking any reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased local service for business and residential customers, that BellSouth had satisfied the competitive checklist requirements, and that BellSouth's interLATA entry would be in the public interest  Xd4because it would promote both local and long distance competition.\Ad c yO'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 116.\ We note that the South Carolina Commission has addressed every checklist item and has, as suggested in the  X64Ameritech Michigan Order, included an analysis of the state of local competition in South  X!4Carolina.`B!R c {O$"'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para.34.` " B,>(>(II"Ԍ X' B.` ` Department of Justice's Evaluation  X4 33.` ` Section 271(d)(2)(A) requires the Commission, before making any determination approving or denying a section 271 application, to consult with the Attorney General. Under that section, the Attorney General is entitled to evaluate the application "using any standard the Attorney General considers appropriate," and the Commission is  Xv4required to "give substantial weight to the Attorney General's evaluation."MCvc yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(2)(A).M Section 271(d)(2)(A) specifically provides, however, that "such evaluation shall not have any  XH4preclusive effect on any Commission decision.";DHXc {OQ 'ԍId. ; The Commission found in the Ameritech  X34Michigan Order that the Commission is required to give substantial weight not only to the Department of Justice's evaluation of the effect of BOC entry on long distance competition, but also to its evaluation of each of the criteria for BOC entry under section 271(d)(3), including the state of local competition and the applicant's compliance with the competitive  X 4checklist, if addressed by the Department of Justice.\E c {Ot'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para.37.\  X 4!34.` ` In its evaluation of BellSouth's application to provide inregion, interLATA service in South Carolina, the Department of Justice focused on certain deficiencies in BellSouth's showing of compliance with the requirements of section 271. First, the Department of Justice concluded that BellSouth has not fully implemented several elements of the competitive checklist, including the requirement that it provide access and interconnection  X84in accordance with the competitive checklist.[F8|c yOe'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 1213.[ In particular, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it is providing access to unbundled network  X 4elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine them.AG  c {O'ԍId. at 16.A In making this finding, the Department of Justice noted that the South Carolina Commission has not made any specific findings as to this issue. In addition, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth's SGAT is legally insufficient, because it fails to describe whether or how BellSouth will provision unbundled network elements so that competing carriers may combine  X4them to provide telecommunications services.Hc {O"'ԍId. at 1920. For discussion of BellSouth's offering to combine unbundled network elements, see infra partVI.C. The Department of Justice explained that the  X4SGAT fails to "specify what BellSouth will provide, the method in which it will be provided,  Xk4or the terms on which it will be provided," and therefore it could not make a finding that"k H,>(>(II" BellSouth is offering nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in accordance  X4with the requirements of section271.XIc yOb'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 20.X  X4"35.` ` Second, the Department of Justice concluded that BellSouth's operations  X4support systems are deficient.DJXc {O'ԍId. at 2830.D Specifically, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth had not demonstrated that the current interfaces for preordering and ordering functions will allow for effective competition. The Department of Justice concluded that, because of the limited capacity of BellSouth's systems, the performance problems new entrants are experiencing will become more serious as they begin to order unbundled network elements or resale services in larger amounts. The Department of Justice also found that BellSouth's failure to institute all of the necessary OSS performance measures "prevents a determination that BellSouth is currently in compliance with checklist requirements or that compliance can  X 4be assured in the future."FK c {O'ԍId. at 2829. F  X 4#36.` ` Finally, the Department of Justice concluded that granting BellSouth's application would not be in the public interest, because local markets in South Carolina are  X4not irreversibly open to competition.vLZ|c {O'ԍId. at 13, 3132. The Department of Justice first adopted this standard that the local market be fully and irreversibly open to competition in its evaluation of SBC's section271 application to provide inregion, interLATA service in Oklahoma. Department of Justice SBC Oklahoma Evaluation at vivii and 3651.v In making this finding, the Department of Justice explained that it considered whether all three entry paths contemplated by the 1996Act facilitiesbased entry involving construction of new networks, the use of unbundled network elements, and resale of the BOC's services are fully and irreversibly open to competitive entry to serve both business and residential consumers. It examined first the extent of actual local competition, and then whether significant barriers continue to impede the growth of  X4competition and whether benchmarks to prevent backsliding have been established.WMc yOU'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 2.W In concluding that the South Carolina local market is not fully and irreversibly open to competition, the Department of Justice found that substantial barriers to resale competition  X4and competition using unbundled network elements remain.DN. c {O"'ԍId. at 3435.D Among the concerns expressed by the Department of Justice was that BellSouth had not demonstrated that current or future prices for unbundled elements would permit efficient entry or effective competition, noting in  X|4particular the uncertainty of future prices.DO| c {O&'ԍId. at 3544.D Moreover, the Department of Justice found that"|R O,>(>(II" BellSouth had failed to demonstrate that the local market would remain open to competition because it had not instituted performance measurements needed to ensure consistent  X4performance in the delivery of service to new entrants.DPc {OK'ԍId. at 4548.D The Department of Justice also rejected BellSouth's estimates of the competitive benefits that would result from BellSouth's entry into the market at this time. Specifically, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth significantly overvalued the benefits of BellSouth's entry into the long distance market and undervalued the benefits to be gained from opening BellSouth's local markets to  X_4competition.DQ_Zc {Oj 'ԍId. at 4849.D  X1' IV.XSTANDARD FOR EVALUATING SECTION 271 APPLICATIONS (#  X ' XA.X` ` Burden of Proof for Section 271 Applications and Compliance with  X 'Requirement that Application be Complete When Filed (#`  X 4$37. ` `  PRIMA Section271 places on the applicant the burden of proving that all of the  X 4requirements for authorization to provide inregion, interLATA services are satisfied.zR c {OD'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3); see Ameritech Michigan Order at para.43.z In the  X4Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission determined that the ultimate burden of proof with respect to factual issues remains at all times with the BOC, even if no party opposes the  Xd4BOC's application.`Sd~c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras.4344.` In the first instance, a BOC must present a prima facie case in its  XO4application that all of the requirements of section 271 have been satisfied.GTOc {O'ԍId. at para.44.G Once the applicant has made such a showing, opponents of the BOC's entry must, as a practical matter, produce evidence and arguments necessary to show that the application does not satisfy the  X 4requirements of section 271, or risk a ruling in the BOC's favor.;U c {O]'ԍId. ; Nevertheless, the BOC  X4applicant retains at all times the ultimate burden of proof that its application is sufficient.;V4 c {O 'ԍId. ; The Commission also concluded that, with respect to assessing evidence proffered by a BOC applicant, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is the appropriate standard for  X4evaluating a BOC section 271 application.GW c {O%%'ԍId. at para. 45.G The Commission further concluded that, "if the Department of Justice concludes that a BOC has not satisfied the requirements of sections271"X W,>(>(II" and 272, a BOC must submit more convincing evidence than that proffered by the Department  X4of Justice in order to satisfy its burden of proof."GXc {Ob'ԍId. at para.46.G  X4%38.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission also required that an  X4application be complete when filed.GYZc {O'ԍId. at para.50.G The Commission concluded that, when a BOC presents factual evidence and arguments in support of its application for inregion, interLATA entry, such evidence must be clearly described and arguments must be clearly stated in its legal brief  Xa4with appropriate references to supporting affidavits.Z&ac {O 'ԍId. at para.60. The Commission further concluded that the obligation to present evidence and  {O 'arguments in a clear and concise manner also extends to commenting parties. Id. In addition, the Commission concluded that, when a BOC submits factual evidence in support of its application, it bears the burden of  {OZ'ensuring that the significance of the evidence is readily apparent. Id. at para. 61. The Commission stressed that an applicant may not, at any time during the pendency of its application, supplement its application by submitting new factual evidence that is not directly responsive to arguments  X 4raised by parties commenting on its application.G[ c {O'ԍId. at para. 50.G This prohibition applies to the submission, on reply, of factual evidence gathered after the initial filing that is not responsive to the  X 4oppositions filed.;\ l c {O 'ԍId. ; Moreover, under no circumstance is a BOC permitted to counter any  X 4arguments made in the comments with new factual evidence postdating the filing of those  X 4comments.G] c {Oq'ԍId. at para. 51.G The Commission warned that, if a BOC applicant chooses to submit such evidence, the Commission reserves the discretion either to restart the 90day clock, or to  X4accord the new evidence no weight.G^ c {O'ԍId. at para. 50.G The Commission further found that a BOC's promises  X}4of future performance to address particular concerns raised by commenters have no probative  Xh4value in demonstrating its present compliance with the requirements of section271.G_h"c {O; 'ԍId. at para. 55.G When a BOC files its application, it must demonstrate that it already is in full compliance with the  X<4requirements of section271.;`<c {O#'ԍId. ; "%F`,>(>(II "Ԍ X'v#Xj\  P6G;+XP# B.` ` Submission of New Factual Evidence and New Arguments in Reply  X4Comments (#`  X4&39.` `  EVID1 Under the Commission's revised procedures for section 271 proceedings, "[t]he applicant's and third parties' reply comments may not raise new arguments or include new vdata that are not directly responsive to arguments other participants have raised, nor may the  Xv4replies merely repeat arguments made by that party in the application or initial comments."Uavc {O'ԍSept. 19th Public Notice at 7.U In addition, "[a]n applicant may submit new factual evidence in its reply if the sole purpose of that evidence is to rebut arguments made, or facts submitted, by commenters, provided the evidence covers only the period placed in dispute by commenters, and in no event postdates  X 4the filing of the relevant comments.":b Zc {O% 'ԍId.: In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission determined that it would accord no weight to new factual evidence submitted in the reply  X 4comments that does not directly respond to arguments or evidence raised by other parties.dc c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras. 5054, 59.d  X 4'40.` ` In this proceeding, BellSouth filed on December 4, 1997, a motion to strike portions of several parties' reply comments, because BellSouth contends that these reply comments contain new arguments and evidence that could have been presented in initial  X{4comments and that "do not answer any comments filed by other parties."d{~c {O'ԍSee BellSouth's Motion to Strike Portions of Reply Comments Raising New Arguments and/or Including New Evidence, filed December 4, 1997 (BellSouth's Motion to Strike Reply Comments). Several parties filed responses to BellSouth's Motion to Strike Reply Comments that argue, in general, that their reply comments were proper under our rules governing 271 applications, because their reply comments directly respond to arguments and evidence raised by other parties in their  X4initial comments.ec yO'ԍThe following parties filed responses to BellSouth's Motion to Strike: ALTS, Hyperion, KMC Telecom, Vanguard Cellular, WorldCom. In addition, AT&T, in an ex parte letter filed on December 8, 1997, argues that the Commission should give no weight to specific new evidence and arguments contained in BellSouth's reply comments and accompanying affidavits that should have been included in the application or that postdate the application but are not directly responsive to  X4another party's comments.f0 c {O"'ԍSee Letter from Roy E. Hoffinger, AT&T, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications  {Op#'Commission, Dec. 8, 1997 (AT&T Dec. 8 Ex Parte). On December 19, 1997, BellSouth filed a motion to strike  X4AT&T's December 8 Ex Parte letter, because BellSouth argues that the letter did not have the" f,>(>(II"  X4correct caption to be considered an ex parte letter and was not served on BellSouth as  X4required of motions to strike.gc {Od'ԍSee BellSouth's Motion to Strike AT&T's December 8, 1997 Letter, filed December 8, 1997. (BellSouth's Motion to Strike AT&T's Letter).  X4(41.` ` One party cited by BellSouth in its Motion to Strike Reply Comments, Intermedia, submits evidence in its reply comments that concerns activity after October 20,  X41997, the date on which comments were due.rh"c {Ob 'ԍSee Intermedia Reply Comments at 912 and Attachs. B and C.r In particular, Intermedia submits evidence that BellSouth has failed to acknowledge receipt of a number of Intermedia's orders in a  Xa4timely manner during the later part of October and early November.:iac {O 'ԍId.: Those portions of Intermedia's factual evidence that postdate the filing of comments are not directly responsive to an argument raised in the comments, because the activity cited by Intermedia occurred after  X 4the comments were filed. The Commission determined in the Ameritech Michigan Order that "[b]ecause parties are required to file comments within 20 days after a BOC files its section 271 application, commenters will not have placed at issue facts which postdate day 20 of the application. For this reason, under no circumstance is a BOC permitted to counter any  X 4arguments with new factual evidence postdating the filing of comments."\j Fc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 51.\ This same rule applies with equal force to other participants in the proceeding. Because some of the evidence submitted by Intermedia postdates the filing of comments, and is therefore not responsive to an argument raised in those comments, we strike the evidence in the reply comments to the extent that the evidence concerns activity that occurred after October 20,  XQ41997.kQc yO'ԍWe strike those portions of Attachments B and C of Intermedia's reply comments that concern activity occurring after October 20, 1997, and the portions of Intermedia's reply comments on pages 912 that rely exclusively on this evidence that postdates the filing of comments. Although we do not strike those portions of Intermedia's reply comments that concern activity prior to October 20, 1997, as discussed below, we will exercise our discretion and give no weight to the evidence that is not directly responsive to another commenter's  {O'arguments and that does not cover the period placed in dispute by commenters. See infra para. STRIKE42.  X#4)42.` `  STRIKE We do not, however, grant BellSouth's Motion to Strike Reply Comments with respect to other portions of reply comments that BellSouth cites. These other reply comments do not concern factual evidence of activity that occurred after the filing of comments. Instead, they include arguments or evidence of activity that occurred prior to the comment  X4filing date. Consistent with the Ameritech Michigan Order, we consider reply comments only to the extent they are directly responsive to other parties' comments and the evidence"R k,>(>(II"  X4submitted covers only the period placed in dispute by commenters.hlc {Oy'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 5254, 59.h Accordingly, we exercise our discretion in determining whether to accord new factual evidence and arguments that are made on reply any weight, and therefore, we do not strike from the record the portions of reply comments that BellSouth cites in its motion, with the exception of the  X4Intermedia evidence discussed above.KmZc {O'ԍSee id. at para. 59.K  Xv4*43.` ` Moreover, we disagree with BellSouth that the entire reply comments of CPI  X_4and NCTA should be struck, because those parties did not file initial comments._n_c {O 'ԍSee BellSouth's Motion to Strike at 67._ Under our procedures governing BOC applications, a party may file a reply comment to any comment  X14made by any other participant.o1~c {O`'ԍSept. 19th Public Notice at 7; Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 51. Parties may not, however, withhold evidence until the reply  X 4comments in an attempt to shield the evidence from attack.\p c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 52.\ Thus, although we do not strike these parties' reply comments, we give no weight to evidence and arguments that are not directly responsive to arguments made by other parties in their comments.  X 4+44.` ` With respect to AT&T's ex parte letter arguing that the Commission should give no weight to new factual evidence and arguments made by BellSouth in its reply comments, we note that BellSouth submits evidence in its reply comments that postdates the  X{4October 20 comment filing date.q\{c {O'ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Reply Aff., Ex. 2 (providing an aggregate measure for the month of October of the average interval from the time BellSouth's operation support systems accept a  {O`'competing carrier's order to the time of actual completion of the order); see also AT&T Dec. 8 Ex Parte at 46.  Because we do not have a motion before us to strike this evidence, however, we do not do so. Nevertheless, consistent with our procedures governing section 271 applications, we give no weight to new evidence that is not directly responsive to another commenter's arguments and that does not cover the period placed in dispute by  X4commenters.Zr c {O 'ԍSee supra para. STRIKE42.Z Because we do not strike BellSouth's reply comments and because, irrespective of AT&T's letter, we determine whether to accord new evidence any weight in accordance with our procedures governing section 271 applications, we deny BellSouth's Motion to Strike AT&T's Letter.  X4,45.` `  EVID2 As the Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, these procedures governing section 271 applications are necessary in light of the 90day statutory time"X r,>(>(II"  X4deadlines.\sc {Oy'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 54.\ During the 90day review period, the Commission has neither the time nor the  X4resources to evaluate a record that is constantly evolving.:tZc {O'ԍId.: Moreover, when new information is filed in the reply comments, other parties do not have the same opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the information that they would have if the evidence were raised in an earlier  X4filing.Guc {OA 'ԍId. at para. 52.G We therefore require the BOC's application to be complete on the day it is filed.v~c {O 'ԍSept. 19 Public Notice at 23; Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 5051. We also expect other parties in the proceeding to submit arguments and evidence supporting or opposing the BOC's application in their comments, rather than withholding such information until the reply comments are filed.  X1' aV.XCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 271(c)(1)(B) (#  X ' A.` ` Background (#`  X 4-46.` ` In the SBC Oklahoma Order, the Commission described the circumstances under which a BOC is permitted to file under section 271(c)(1)(B) and when a BOC is  X 4aforeclosed from proceeding under section 271(c)(1)(B).Vw c {Oj'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 23.V In particular, the Commission held that a BOC may not pursue inregion, interLATA entry under section 271(c)(1)(B) if that  X{4BOC has received a "qualifying request" for access and interconnection.Gx{c {O'ԍId. at para. 27.G For purposes of section 271(c)(1)(B), the Commission defined a "qualifying request" as a request for negotiation to obtain access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the  X64requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A).Ly64 c {O'ԍId. at paras. 27, 54.L The Commission further concluded that the "request for access and interconnection must be from an unaffiliated competing provider that seeks to  X4provide the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A),"Mz c yO!'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(A).M and that  X4the term "competing provider" includes both potential and actual competing providers.V{V c {O#'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 14.V "{,>(>(II" Moreover, in order for the request to be timely, and therefore foreclose Track B, it must be  X4made at least three months before the BOC's section 271 application is filed.r|Zc yOb'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(B). Thus, because BellSouth's section 271 application was filed on September30, 1997, a qualifying request in the instant proceeding is timely if it was made "before the date  {O'which is 3 months before" BellSouth's section 271 application was filed, i.e., June 30, 1997.r  X4.47.` ` The Commission also noted that pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B), a BOC,   Xshall be considered not to have received any request for access and interconnection if the State commission of such State certifies that the only provider or providers making such a request have (i) failed to negotiate in good faith as required by section 252, or (ii) violated the terms of an agreement approved under section 252 by the provider's failure to comply, within a reasonable period of time, with the  X 4implementation schedule contained in such agreement.|} +X {O'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 31 (quoting 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(B)).|!  X 4  As the Commission explained in the SBC Oklahoma Order, these exceptions are designed to ensure that, after a request for access and interconnection, Track B would become available to the BOC if facilitiesbased competition does not emerge because the potential competitor fails either to bargain in good faith or to implement its interconnection agreement according to a  X4negotiated or arbitrated schedule.G~|c {O'ԍId. at para.37.G  Xd4  /48.` ` The Commission also recognized that in some circumstances there may be a basis for revisiting its decision that, because there has been a qualifying request, Track B is  X64foreclosed in a particular state.G6c {O'ԍId. at para. 58.G The Commission found that if, following a determination that Track B is foreclosed, a BOC refiles its section 271 application, the Commission may reevaluate whether a BOC is entitled to proceed under Track B "in the event relevant facts demonstrate that none of its potential competitors is taking reasonable steps toward  X4implementing its request in a fashion that will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A).":c {O+ 'ԍId.: By adopting such a standard, the Commission intended to ensure that potential competitors will not be permitted "to delay indefinitely BOC entry by failing to provide the type of telephone  X4exchange service described in Track A."L2 c {Ox$'ԍId. at paras. 55, 58.L "~ ,>(>(II"Ԍ X' B.` ` Evidence in the Record (#`  X4  049.` ` In its application, BellSouth submits that it is eligible to apply for inregion, interLATA authorization in South Carolina pursuant to Track B on the grounds that it has an approved SGAT and, through no fault of BellSouth, no potential competitors are taking reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased service to residential and business  Xv4customers.Nvc yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 45.N  XH4150.` ` BellSouth states that it has executed interconnection and/or resale agreements with 83 different telecommunications carriers in South Carolina, and the South Carolina  X 4Commission has approved 67 of these agreements.@ Xc {O# 'ԍId. at 5.@ In addition, BellSouth contends that it has "actively invited entry" by competing LECs by offering interconnection and network  X 4access through its SGAT.L\ c {O'ԍId. at 67. As noted above, BellSouth's SGAT was approved, with modifications, by the South Carolina Commission on July 31, 1997. The South Carolina Commission approved further modifications to BellSouth's  {O'SGAT on September 9, 1997.  See id. at 78.L BellSouth further submits that, despite its efforts, no competing LEC has "made any significant, timely effort to provide the sort of facilitiesbased  X 4competition" intended by the 1996 Act.@ c {O}'ԍId. at 8.@  X4251.` ` According to BellSouth, because information held by its competitors may demonstrate that BellSouth has satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), the Commission, during the pendency of its review of BellSouth's section 271 application, should conduct an inquiry into the status of local competition in South Carolina and require  X44commenters to give "specific details regarding their telephone exchange service operations."4c {O'ԍId. at 16. BellSouth does not suggest that the Commission toll the statutory 90day period while the Commission conduct such an inquiry. BellSouth contends that, if the evidence in the record reveals the existence of a competing provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A), then it is  X4eligible to proceed under section 271(c)(1)(A) and section 271(c)(1)(B).D c {O!'ԍId. at 1617.D BellSouth further maintains that, "[i]f the evidence shows that a [competing LEC] has begun supplementing facilitiesbased service to business customers with resale of BellSouth's residential service in" ,>(>(II1" South Carolina, BellSouth would be eligible for interLATA relief under both Track A and  X4Track B."c {Ob'ԍId. In support of its contention that Track A may be satisfied in this manner, BellSouth points out that "[t]he Department of Justice has explained that the Act does not require . . . that each class of customers (i.e., business and residential) must be served over a facilitiesbased competitor's own facilities. It does not matter whether the competitor reaches one class of customers e.g., residential only through resale, provided the  {O'competitor's local exchange services as a whole are provided 'predominately' over its own facilities." Id. at 17 (quoting Department of Justice SBC Oklahoma Evaluation at 3).  X4352. TWOPART ` ` BellSouth asserts that a BOC is eligible to proceed under Track B unless a potential facilitiesbased competitor has made a timely request for interconnection and access from BellSouth in South Carolina that, if implemented, will lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) and is taking reasonable steps toward implementing that request in a fashion that satisfies the requirements of section  XH4271(c)(1)(A).AHDc {O='ԍId. at 10.A Moreover, according to BellSouth, in deciding whether requesting carriers are taking reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers, the Commission may only consider the state of local competition as of three months before the date a BOC's application for inregion, interLATA authorization was filed,  X 4or in this case, before June 30, 1997.D c {Os'ԍId. at 1011.D BellSouth maintains that "Congress established this cutoff date to 'ensure' the [BOCs'] ability to file Track B applications when facilitiesbased  X 4competition is not developing despite an open market."g h c {O'ԍId. (citing Joint Explanatory Statement at 148).g BellSouth concludes that, because no potential competitors are taking reasonable steps to satisfy the requirements of section  X4271(c)(1)(A), it is eligible to proceed under Track B. c {O;'ԍId. at 12 (citing South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 19).  Xb4453.` ` In evaluating BellSouth's compliance with the requirements of section 271(c), the South Carolina Commission maintains that it considered the business plans "of those  X44companies seeking to provide local dialtone service in South Carolina."\4 c {Oq 'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 5 (citing South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 19). We note that MCI filed a petition before the South Carolina Commission requesting a declaratory ruling that BellSouth is ineligible to proceed under Track B. In its response to this petition, BellSouth argued that "the availability of Track A or Track B is a decision that has been delegated to the FCC." BellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 1, Tab 21, BellSouth Brief in Response, South Carolina Commission Docket No. 97101C (May 19, 1997), at 18. The South Carolina Commission agreed with BellSouth and in a July 7, 1997 order held that the "final decision on the applicability of either Track should be deferred to the FCC, since Federal law is  {O%'involved in this issue." BellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 3, Tab 57, South Carolina Commission, Order  {O&'Denying MCI's Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration, Docket No. 97101C, Order No. 97575 (July 7,"&,>(>(&"  {O'1997) (South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997 Order). In that proceeding, MCI had requested the South Carolina Commission to reconsider its position with regard to the availability of Track B in light of the  {O"'Commission's decision in the SBC Oklahoma Order. Id.  Based upon this"4,>(>(II" information, the South Carolina Commission found that "none of BellSouth's potential competitors are taking reasonable steps toward implementing any business plan for facilities X4based local service."c {Oo'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 5 (citing South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 19). The South Carolina Commission further maintains that it is unaware of any actual facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers in South Carolina.  X4554. ` ` Opponents of BellSouth's application assert that BellSouth has received "qualifying requests" for access and interconnection for the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) and that BellSouth, therefore, is foreclosed from proceeding  XH4under Track B.d"HFc {O?'ԍSee, e.g., ACSI Comments at 12, 1316; ALTS Comments at 79; AT&T Comments at 50; CompTel Comments at 7; Intermedia Comments at 67; MCI Comments at 57; Sprint Comments at 33; TCG Comments at 6; TRA Comments at 1718; Vanguard Cellular Comments at 89; South Carolina Consumer Advocate Comments at 3.d Similarly, the South Carolina Consumer Advocate maintains that BellSouth should not be allowed to proceed under Track B because several carriers have taken steps to provide local service and that these steps have been reasonable in light of the uncertainties caused by the lack of "permanent rates" for interconnection and unbundled network  X 4elements.e 0 c yO'ԍSouth Carolina Consumer Advocate Comments at 35, 7.e Although AT&T contends that "BellSouth's noncompliance with its checklist obligations is so pervasive and damaging to local competition" in South Carolina that there is no need for the Commission to consider whether BellSouth may proceed under section 271(c)(1)(B), it asserts that if the Commission does reach the issue it should find that AT&T  X4has made qualifying request that forecloses Track B.o c {O'ԍAT&T Comments at 48, 50; see also Sprint Comments at 33.o Ameritech and U S WEST, in contrast, agree with BellSouth's contention that its application may proceed under Track B on the basis that no competing provider is taking reasonable steps to provide facilitiesbased  XK4residential and business telephone exchange service in South Carolina.kKR c yON 'ԍAmeritech Comments at 45; U S WEST Comments at 3, 812. k  X4655.` ` ALTS, MCI, and WorldCom dispute BellSouth's assertion that the Commission may not consider any reasonable steps taken after June 30, 1997, in its analysis of whether a  X4potential competitor has made a qualifying request.pc yO%'ԍALTS Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 6; WorldCom Comments at 21.p Rather, these commenters assert that the Commission may consider all the available evidence, including events occurring before and after June 30, 1997, in deciding whether any potential competitors are taking reasonable"r,>(>(II1" steps to provide facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers in South  X4Carolina.c {Ob'ԍWorldCom Comments at 21; see also ALTS Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 6. U S WEST, on the other hand, concurs with BellSouth's contention that, in deciding whether requesting carriers are reasonably proceeding toward facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers, the Commission must look only to the state of local  X4competition as of three months before BellSouth's section 271 application was filed.HZc yO'ԍU S WEST Comments at 7.H  Xv4756.` ` As to BellSouth's eligibility to proceed under Track A, the Department of Justice contends that there is no evidence in BellSouth's application or elsewhere in the record that BellSouth is providing access and interconnection to an operational competing provider of  X14the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A).X1c yO 'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 12.X Moreover, the Department of Justice maintains that the record available at the time of its evaluation did not  X 4contain sufficient evidence of whether BellSouth had received a qualifying request.D zc {O.'ԍId. at 1011.D The Department of Justice asserts, therefore, that it is unable to determine BellSouth's eligibility to  X 4proceed under Track B.A c {O'ԍId. at 12.A The Department of Justice does submit, however, that a conclusion that a BOC had received a qualifying request would not be warranted unless the requesting carrier intends to provide the type of telephone exchange service described in section  X4271(c)(1)(A) "within a specified and reasonable time frame."f\c {O'ԍId. at 10. Absent a showing of this kind, the Department of Justice maintains that "a BOC's ability to use Track B could be foreclosed indefinitely by the inaction of its competitors, contrary to the purpose of Track  {Oq'B." Id. (citing SBC Oklahoma Order at paras. 5456).f  Xb'_ C.` ` Discussion (#`  X4'` ` 1. Section 271(c)(1)(A) (#  X4857.` ` BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it is providing access and interconnection to an unaffiliated, facilitiesbased competing provider of telephone exchange _service to residential and business subscribers. Although, on reply, BellSouth contends that MCI's "provision" of telephone exchange service on a test basis, at no charge, to the homes of  X419 MCI employees,\ c {O%'ԍSee BellSouth Reply Comments at 2122 (asserting that MCI's provision of facilitiesbased service to residential customers in combination with ACSI's provision of competitive access services to business customers  {O&'enables it to satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A)). But see Letter from Kimberly M. Kirby, MCI, to"&,>(>(&" William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, Oct. 16, 1997 (stating that MCI has placed 19 trial orders for residential service in South Carolina for MCI employees via resale and/or loop/port combination). qualifies MCI as a competing provider under section 271(c)(1)(A), the" ,>(>(II" Commission has expressly rejected the view that such a trial offering is sufficient for these  X4purposes.Z c {O'ԍSee SBC Oklahoma Order at para. 17 (concluding that Brooks' provision of local exchange service on a test basis, at no charge, to the homes of four of its employees does not qualify Brooks as a section 271(c)(1)(A) carrier). In the SBC Oklahoma Order, the Commission concluded that the terms "subscribers" and "telephone exchange service," as used in section 271(c)(1)(A), require that  X4the persons receiving the service pay a fee.>Bc {O 'ԍSee id.> Moreover, the Commission held that "for the  X4purposes of section 271(c)(1)(A), the competing provider must actually be in the market, and,  X4therefore, beyond the testing phase."Rc {O'ԍId. (emphasis in original).R Consistent with the precedent established in the SBC  X|4Oklahoma Order, we find that MCI is not an operational competing provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). We, therefore, conclude that BellSouth has not satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). In reaching this conclusion, we decline BellSouth's invitation to conduct an inquiry into the status of local competition in South Carolina in order to determine whether competing carriers are, in fact,  X 4providing the type of service described in section 271(c)(1)(A).W f c {O"'ԍSee BellSouth Application at 16.W As the Commission found  X 4in the Ameritech Michigan Order, "the ultimate burden of proof with respect to factual issues  X 4remains at all times with the BOC."m c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 43 (emphasis added).m  X '_` ` 2.  Section 271(c)(1)(B)   X'` `  a.` Summary (#   XW4958.` ` For the reasons set forth below, we find that BellSouth is ineligible to proceed under Track B because it has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it has received no requests for access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy _the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). As an initial matter, we clarify our standard for evaluating   qualifying requests and the role of reasonable steps in our evaluation. ` `  X'` `  b.Standard for Evaluating Qualifying Requests   X4:59.` ` Section 271(c)(1)(B) provides that a "[BOC] meets the requirements of [section  X4271(c)(1)(B)] if . . . no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)] before the date which is 3 months before the date the company"s! ,>(>(II"  X4makes its application under [section 271(d)(1)]."^c yOy'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added).^ Once the Commission has found that a request for access and interconnection was made more than three months prior to the filing of a section 271 application, it must next determine whether such request is for the type of  X4access and interconnection described in section 271(c)(1)(A), i.e., a qualifying request.  X4;60.` ` Because, however, it may not be apparent from the face of a request whether it is qualifying, the Commission may be required to engage in a predictive judgment to determine whether the request, if implemented, will lead to the type of telephone exchange  XJ4service described in section 271(c)(1)(A).VJXc {OS 'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 57.V In determining whether a request for access to unbundled network elements and interconnection is a qualifying request, therefore, the Commission will consider various types of evidence in the record that may inform its determination. For example, the Commission could consider, among other things, preliminary discussions and correspondence between the BOC and the requesting carrier that may predate or postdate a specific request. The Commission would also attach particular weight to any negotiated or arbitrated agreement between the BOC and the requesting carrier. Thus, if a potential competitor makes a request for access and interconnection and the competitor subsequently negotiates an interconnection agreement that provides facilities for the requesting carrier to serve residential and business customers, that interconnection agreement could be considered probative evidence that the request for access and interconnection was, in fact, a qualifying request.  X4<61.` ` BellSouth claims that the Commission held in the SBC Oklahoma Order that a qualifying request will not foreclose Track B unless a carrier takes "reasonable steps" toward implementing that request. The Commission's statement concerning the relevance of "reasonable steps" taken by a requesting carrier toward the provision of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A), however, was made in a different context. In that decision, the Commission found that SBC had received qualifying requests for access and interconnection that foreclosed SBC from proceeding under Track B. Since SBC also failed to demonstrate that its application satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), the Commission denied its application for inregion, interLATA authority. The Commission observed, however, that its finding regarding SBC's receipt of qualifying requests, which foreclosed Track B, was not immutable. Specifically, the Commission held out the possibility that, when SBC files a new application for Oklahoma, SBC might be able to show that the carriers that had submitted qualifying requests at the time of its initial application have not taken "reasonable steps" toward reducing those requests to agreements or otherwise have not progressed toward the provision of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). Thus, in the event relevant facts demonstrate that no requesting carrier has taken reasonable steps to implement a request for access and interconnection in the"!",>(>(II% " intervening period between an initial and subsequent section 271 application, the Commission  X4stated that it may "reevaluate whether [the BOC] is entitled to proceed under Track B."Wc {Ob'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 58. W  X4=62.` ` In this case, BellSouth contends that the Commission should consider whether a requesting carrier has taken "reasonable steps" toward implementing its request for access and interconnection in a fashion that will satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) in  Xv4determining whether the BOC is foreclosed from proceeding under Track B.MvZc yO 'ԍBellSouth Application at 10.M To the extent  X_4BellSouth argues that certain reasonable steps are required before a request for access and  XJ4interconnection can foreclose Track B, we disagree.Jc {O 'ԍRather, as the Commission held in the SBC Oklahoma Order, Track B is foreclosed to the BOC once it  {O 'has received a qualifying request. See SBC Oklahoma Order at paras. 23, 27, 54. Rather, we find that a request can be qualifying by its terms and need not be accompanied by reasonable steps.  X 4>63.` ` In the SBC Oklahoma Order, the Commission indicated that, in assessing whether there has been a request for access and interconnection that would foreclose Track B, the Commission would have to engage in a difficult predictive judgment regarding whether the request will lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in subsection  X 4271(c)(1)(A).V Fc {O'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 57.V The Commission has now engaged in this difficult predictive judgment on  X4two occasions, namely, the SBC Oklahoma Order and the instant one. The Commission, and the parties, have devoted enormous resources to informing and making this judgment, notwithstanding the fact that section 271(c)(1)(A) and section 271(c)(1)(B) are essentially threshold questions that we must consider before assessing whether the BOC has satisfied the items of the competitive checklist and the other requirements of section 271(d)(3). The  X#4Commission developed the "qualifying request" framework in the SBC Oklahoma Order as a method of giving effect to the language in section 271(c)(1)(B) specifying that Track B is foreclosed as soon as there is a "request" for the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A), rather than foreclosing Track B only if the request or requests for interconnection are made by carriers that are already predominately facilitiesbased and  X4already serving residential and business customers.^c {O;!'ԍSee SBC Oklahoma Order at paras. 5456.^ In addition, the Commission developed the "reasonable steps" framework so that new entrants would not be able to preclude BOC entry indefinitely by making a qualifying request for access and interconnection and then not completing the work necessary to provide the type of telephone exchange service described in  XV4section 271(c)(1)(A).VVj c {Oq&'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 54.V "?# ,>(>(II_"Ԍ X4?64.` ` Upon further reflection, we observe that there may be other more efficient ways of assessing requests for access and interconnection for purposes of Track B, while preventing new entrants from relying on bare requests to preclude BOC entry. Notwithstanding the  X4Commission's dicta in the SBC Oklahoma Order concerning "reasonable steps," the statute expressly empowers state commissions to nullify the foreclosure of Track B that occurs when  X4a timely, qualifying request has been madeMc yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(B).M in two situations. Specifically, a BOC will not be deemed to have received a qualifying request if the applicable state commission "certifies that the only provider or providers making such a request have (i) failed to negotiate in good faith . . . or (ii) violated the terms or an agreement . . . by the provider's failure to comply, within a reasonable period of time, with the implementation schedule contained in such  X 4agreement.": Xc {O% 'ԍId.: With respect to the latter exception, we note that nothing in the Commission's rules precludes incumbent LECs, including BOCs, from negotiating, or states from imposing in arbitration, schedules for the implementation of the terms and conditions by the parties to the agreement. For instance, section 252(c)(3) provides that in "resolving by arbitration under [section 252 (b)] any open issues and imposing conditions upon the parties to the agreement, a State commission shall .. . provide a schedule for implementation of the terms and  X4conditions by the parties to the agreement."Jc yO-'ԍ47 U.S.C.  252(c)(3).J We would be prepared to give such certifications conclusive effect so long as they are consistent with the statute. We intend to offer more specific guidance as to the scope and form of such certifications in a future  XM4proceeding.uMzc yOx'ԍ Notably, the only arbitrated interconnection agreement in South Carolina, the AT&T/BellSouth agreement, contains no implementation schedule, and the South Carolina Commission's order approving the arbitrated agreement fails to require one. As the South Carolina Consumer Advocate observes, BellSouth and the South Carolina Commission "are in no position to assert failure to act on the part of [BellSouth's] competitors when neither utilized [the provisions of section 252(c)(3)]" to obtain or require an implementation schedule. South Carolina Consumer Advocate Comments at 3.u  X'` ` c. Existence of "Qualifying Requests" in South Carolina (#  X4@65. ` ` As noted above, Track B is available to BellSouth if no potential facilitiesbased provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) requested access and interconnection to BellSouth's network prior to June 30, 1997. In its application, BellSouth submits that, as of September19, 1997, it had signed local exchange interconnection and/or resale agreements with eightythree different telecommunications"$ ,>(>(II"  X4carriers in South Carolina.c yOy'#X\  P6G;IP#эBellSouth Wright Aff. at para. 6 & Attach. WPEA at 2. The South Carolina Commission has approved BellSouth's agreements with 67 of these providers. BellSouth Application at 56 n.4. BellSouth further states that it is in negotiations with 71 additional companies "which may possibly result in South Carolina agreements  yO'in the future." BellSouth Wright Aff. at para. 6. BellSouth provides no further information on the nature of the requests made by these 71 carriers. We note, however, that at least 30 of these requests were made prior to the  {Oa'commencement of the threemonth window. Id., Attach. WPEF at 12. BellSouth maintains that twentysix of these carriers indicated in their interconnection negotiations that they may provide "competitive local exchange services  X4in whole or in part over their facilitybased networks."zBc yO '#X\  P6G;IP#эBellSouth Wright Aff. at para. 6. As explained by BellSouth, the 26 potential facilitiesbased competing providers in South Carolina are: ACSI, ALEC, Inc., American MetroComm, AT&T, AXSYS Inc., Business Telecom, Communications Brokerage Services, Competitive Communications, Inc. (CCI), Comm Depot, Cybernet Group, ITC DeltaCom (DeltaCom), FiberSouth, GNET, Hart Communications, Intermedia, IntelCom Group, Interstate Telephone, Kamine Multimedia Corp (KMC), MCI, National Telephone, Southeast Telephone, Teleport Communications Group (TCG), Time Warner Communications (Time Warner), Tricomm, US LEC, and  {Ou'Winstar Communications. Id. Moreover, BellSouth asserts that these twentysix carriers signed interconnection agreements that include "terms and conditions  X4for local exchange interconnection and the unbundling of [BellSouth] network elements." c {O'#X\  P6G;IP#эId. at para. 6. We note that, as of September 19, 1997, 22 of these interconnection agreements had been approved by the South Carolina Commission. BellSouth Wright Aff., Attach. WPEA at 2. BellSouth further states that nine of these carriers, ACSI, AT&T, DeltaCom, FiberSouth, Hart Communications, Intermedia, KMC, MCI and US LEC, have received, or in the process of receiving, certification from the South Carolina Commission to provide local exchange  XH4services in South Carolina.mHc {O'#X\  P6G;IP#эId. at para. 7.m Notably, BellSouth identifies three carriers, ACSI, DeltaCom, and Time Warner, as having "sufficient distribution facilities currently in place to support the  X 4general delivery of facilitybased local exchange services."S pc yO;'ԍBellSouth Wright Aff. at para. 25.S BellSouth does not claim that any of these twentysix requests, which have resulted in signed interconnection agreements, were made after the commencement of the threemonth window. We find, therefore, that each of these requests was made "before the date which is 3 months before" BellSouth filed its section 271 application, and, therefore, falls within the statutory period in which a request  X 4can preclude a Track B application.N c yOX!'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(B). N  Xy4A66.` ` As the Commission held in the SBC Oklahoma Order, in order to satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(B), BellSouth must demonstrate that none of the timely"d%,>(>(II&"  X4requests for access and interconnection it has received are qualifying requests.$c {Oy'ԍSee SBC Oklahoma Order at paras. 27, 6064; CPI Reply Comments at 4 (stating that "in determining  {OC'whether Track B is applicable, BellSouth must allege and demonstrate, and the Commission must find, that none of the 83 to 154 requests that have been submitted to BellSouth in South Carolina are qualifying requests"); CompTel Reply Comments at 47; NCTA Reply Comments at 6. Instead of presenting evidence to support such a finding, BellSouth asserts that it is entitled to proceed under Track B because no requesting carrier is taking "reasonable steps" to provide the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) to residential and business  X4subscribers. c yO 'ԍ Although BellSouth claims that the South Carolina Commission "certified" that none of BellSouth's potential competitors is taking any reasonable steps towards implementing its request in a fashion that satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), we do not find that such certification is required pursuant to section  {Oa '271(c)(1)(B). See BellSouth Application at 3. Rather, section 271(c)(1)(B) provides that the relevant state commission may certify that a potential competitor either failed to negotiate in good faith or failed to comply,  {O '"within a reasonable time," with an implementation schedule contained in an interconnection agreement. 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(B). BellSouth does not allege, nor did the South Carolina Commission certify, that either of these exceptions is applicable here. Indeed, it does not appear that any of the interconnection agreements in the instant proceeding contain implementation schedules. Thus, to the extent that BellSouth characterizes the South Carolina Commission's statement as a "certification" pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B), we find that such reliance is misplaced. Indeed, in a July 7, 1997 order, the South Carolina Commission stated that it did not address BellSouth's eligibility to pursue inregion, interLATA entry under either Track A or Track B, concluding that "the final decision on the applicability of either Track A or Track B should be deferred to [the Commission],  {O5'since Federal law is involved in this issue." South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997 Order at 1.  In support of this contention, BellSouth provides detailed information on three carriers with "selfprovided" facilities in South Carolina that have signed interconnection  Xv4agreements.0vrc {O'ԍNotably, although the Commission held in the Ameritech Michigan Order that the use of unbundled network elements constitutes a competing carrier's "own facilities" for purposes of satisfying the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), BellSouth did not discuss any carriers, such as AT&T, whose strategy for entry into the local telecommunications market in South Carolina included the use of combinations of unbundled network  {O'elements. See Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 101. 0 BellSouth, however, provides little or no information on the other twentythree carriers with signed interconnection agreements or the carriers that have made timely requests  XH4for access and interconnection but have not yet obtained interconnection agreements.H&c yO'ԍ The Commission has never held that a carrier must obtain an interconnection agreement in order to have made a qualifying request for access and interconnection that forecloses Track B. In addition, BellSouth dismisses the requests of major interexchange carriers, such as AT&T, MCI, and Sprint by simply asserting that "the general lack of commitment demonstrated by these potential facilitybased providers in serving the local exchange market has led [BellSouth] to discount any possibility of their facilitybased entry in South Carolina in the  X 4foreseeable future."" ~c yO%'ԍWright Aff. at para. 25. Consequently, BellSouth included only a cursory discussion of these carriers in its application. Further, BellSouth maintains that the South Carolina Commission "has confirmed that [competing carriers'] failure to move more quickly to launch facilitiesbased local service particularly for  {O\''residential customers is due solely to their own business decisions" and that "BellSouth has not taken any"\',>(>(g'" action to prevent or retard the development of local competition in South Carolina." BellSouth Application at 14  {OX'(citing South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 20). " &",>(>(II "Ԍ X4ԙB67.` ` We find that BellSouth has failed to substantiate its contention that it has not received a qualifying request. Generalized assertions that no potential competitors are taking "reasonable steps" are insufficient to allow a BOC to proceed under Track B. Specifically, BellSouth does not discuss in any detail the remaining twentythree requesting carriers with signed interconnection agreements or the other carriers that have made timely requests but are still in the process of negotiation. We conclude, therefore, that BellSouth has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that it is eligible to proceed under Track B. Because we do not rely on actions taken by any requesting carrier after June 30, 1997, in reaching this conclusion, we find that the application of BellSouth's proposed "threemonth" rule would have no practical impact on the instant proceeding. We need not, therefore, address it here.  X 4C68.` ` Before turning to the competitive checklist issues, we review AT&T's experience in South Carolina. Although AT&T formally requested access and interconnection in June 1996, we find it relevant that AT&T first expressed its intention to serve residential and business customers in BellSouth's region through a combination of BellSouth's network elements soon after the passage of the 1996 Act. For example, on February 29, 1996, AT&T requested approval from the South Carolina Commission to offer local exchange services  Xy4throughout South Carolina.Oy"c yOL'ԍAT&T Carroll Aff. at para. 12.O Shortly thereafter, in March 1996, AT&T began informally to  Xb4negotiate an interconnection agreement with BellSouth.:bc {O'ԍId.: During these preliminary negotiations, on March 28, 1996, AT&T informed BellSouth of its intent to use unbundled network elements, including combinations of network elements, to provide "all the network capabilities and functions needed to offer residential and business customers a wide array of  X4basic exchange services."GDc {O'ԍId. at para. 14.G According to AT&T, this statement "confirmed and amplified [its] intention to serve residential and business customers throughout [BellSouth's] region  X4using unbundled network elements, resale, and interconnection."tc yO_'ԍAT&T Comments at 50 (citing AT&T Carroll Aff. at paras. 14, 1617).t In November 1996, when it was unable to reach a negotiated interconnection agreement with BellSouth, AT&T  X4requested arbitration before the South Carolina Commission pursuant to section 252.f c yO"'ԍBellSouth Application, App. B, Vol. 8, Tab. 69, South Carolina Commission, Order on Arbitration,  {O#'Docket No. 96358C, Order No. 97189, at 1 (Mar. 10, 1997) (Arbitration Order). "' ,>(>(II"Ԍ X4D69.` ` On March 10, 1997, the South Carolina Commission issued its ruling on the  X4arbitration.:c {Ob'ԍId.: The arbitrated interconnection agreement, which became effective on June 2, 1997, provides in pertinent part:  XAT&T may purchase unbundled Network Elements for the purpose of combining Network Elements, whether those elements are its own or are purchased from BellSouth, in any manner that it chooses to provide service. If Network Elements are rebundled to produce an existing tariffed retail service, the appropriate price to be  XH4charged to AT&T by BellSouth is the wholesale price (discounted retail price).XHZc yOS 'ԍBellSouth Application, App. B, Vol. 8, Tab 69, Agreement Between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc.  1.A (June 2, 1997) (BellSouthAT&T Interconnection Agreement).  (# We note that this provision of the arbitrated agreement is in violation of the Commission's rules (promulgated in August 1996 and, subsequently, affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in July 1997) that a competing carrier may provide local exchange services solely through the use of  X 4network elements and may obtain these elements at costbased rates. zc {O'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1564649; Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 81415. We also note that it is not apparent from this language whether AT&T can require BellSouth to combine the elements or whether BellSouth will disconnect already combined elements and require AT&T to recombine them. Until the Eighth Circuit issued its decision on rehearing on October 14, 1997, the Commission's rules barred BellSouth from separating elements already combined in  Xb4its network.b c {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  51.315(b) (vacated by Iowa Utils. Bd., Rehearing Order).  X44E70.` ` Although the Eighth Circuit Rehearing Order held that incumbent LECs have no duty to do the actual combining of network elements themselves, it did not alter the right of competing carriers to provide a telecommunications service solely through the use of unbundled network elements at costbased rates. Notwithstanding this right, if AT&T sought to combine the elements itself and thereby provide a service that replicates an existing retail  X4service, an entry strategy specifically ratified by the Eighth Circuit,[c {O!'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 81415.[ it is precluded from doing so at costbased rates under its arbitrated interconnection agreement. Moreover, AT&T cites a letter from BellSouth dated September 12, 1997, in which BellSouth states that "when AT&T orders a combination of network elements or orders individual network elements that,"~(0 ,>(>(II" when combined, duplicate a retail service provided by BellSouth, BellSouth will treat, for  X4purposes of billing and provisioning, that order as one for resale." Xc yOb'ԍAT&T Carroll Aff. at para. 24 (quoting Letter from Mark Feidler, President Interconnection Services, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. to W.J. Carroll, Vice President, AT&T Communications, Inc. (Sept. 12, 1997)).   X4F71.` ` It appears, therefore, that if AT&T seeks to provide service to residential and business customers solely through the use of unbundled network elements which would qualify as the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) AT&T would either have to renegotiate its interconnection agreement with BellSouth or replace its  X_4agreement with the terms of BellSouth's revised SGAT,_c yO 'ԍWe note that the SGAT was not revised until September 1997. Prior to that time, the SGAT contained restrictions on the use of unbundled network elements similar to that contained in AT&T's arbitration agreement. which now allows a competing carrier to use combinations of network elements, at costbased rates, when a carrier combines  X14the elements itself to provide a service that duplicates an existing BellSouth tariffed service.B1@c yO"'ԍFor example, after the Eighth Circuit's July 1997 ruling which vacated the Commission's rule implementing section 252(i), competing carriers may not "pick and choose" from individual sections of another interconnection agreement or an SGAT and then insert such sections into their own interconnection agreements.  {Oz'See Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 80001. Thus, in order for AT&T to avail itself of any of the terms in the SGAT, it would have to replace its entire interconnection agreement with the SGAT.B Thus, AT&T is faced with the choice of either starting the negotiation process all over again, and further delaying its entry into the local market, or losing all the benefits of its arbitrated agreement by accepting the terms of the SGAT. We note that even if AT&T could surmount this hurdle and obtain the right to purchase combinations of network elements at costbased rates, we conclude in this Order that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it can provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that allows competing  X4carriers to combine them to provide a telecommunications service. c yO3'ԍWe also note that AT&T's arbitration agreement, and the original SGAT, provided that vertical features of the switch are retail services, not unbundled network elements. BellSouth/AT&T Interconnection Agreement at 55. This violates the Commission's rule, upheld by the Eighth Circuit, that vertical features are network  {O'elements. See 47 C.F.R.  51.319(c)(1)(C); Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 80809. After the Commission's rule was upheld by the Eighth Circuit, BellSouth submitted a revised SGAT that provides that vertical features are unbundled network elements. SGAT, Attach. C at 78.  Xb4G72. ` ` AT&T states that it has "attempted repeatedly to get BellSouth executives to change this [recombination] policy or at a minimum put it aside so that [both AT&T and  X44BellSouth] could move forward with implementation details."P4lc yOQ$'ԍAT&T Carroll Aff. at para. 25. P AT&T also maintains that, in those states in BellSouth's region where combinations of network elements were available at costbased prices, AT&T has sought to implement its request, for example, by testing the"),>(>(II"  X4provision of unbundled network element combinations.Sc yOy'ԍAT&T Crafton Aff. at paras. 2627.S AT&T argues, however, that BellSouth has resisted these efforts. BellSouth responds that it is willing to engage in such implementation efforts, but BellSouth does not dispute that, in these states, AT&T is making  X4such efforts.Xc yO'ԍAT&T Carroll Aff., Ex. 9, Letter from W. Scott Schaefer, Vice President Marketing, BellSouth, to William J. Carroll, AT&T (May 16, 1996).  X4H73.` ` Because of these circumstances, AT&T contends that BellSouth has hindered its  Xv4ability to begin providing local exchange services in South Carolina. vc yO 'ԍSubsequent to its formal request for access and interconnection, in June 1996, AT&T submitted a proposed interconnection agreement with BellSouth. In negotiations concerning such agreement, AT&T maintains that it "continued to emphasize" its interest in ordering unbundled network elements as well as combinations of such elements. AT&T Carroll Aff. at para. 17. More specifically, AT&T submits that BellSouth has refused to allow AT&T to pursue its entry strategy of providing local service through combinations of unbundled network elements. AT&T states that "had BellSouth responded constructively to AT&T's request for [unbundled network element]based entry under the law as applicable throughout the relevant time period, AT&T would have been able to provide 'the type of telephone exchange service described in section  X 4271(c)(1)(A).'"H c yO5'ԍAT&T Comments at 5152.H  X 4I74. ` ` On reply, AT&T reiterates that it has sought from the outset of its negotiations with BellSouth the ability to provide local service to business and residential customers with a  X4combination of BellSouth's network elements.L( c yOi'ԍAT&T Reply Comments at 27. L It also asserts that "if unbundled network elements were truly available on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions and priced at cost as the Act requires AT&T would rely upon unbundled network elements, in conjunction with its own facilities, to serve at least the majority of its residential and business customers . . . service that this Commission would deem to be predominantly facilitiesbased to both  X4residential and business customers.": c {O 'ԍId.: AT&T maintains, however, that it is not in a position to say when it will provide such unbundled network elementbased service in South Carolina given the"'great uncertainty' concerning whether and when BellSouth will make unbundled  X4network elements available to AT&T at costbased rates."{J c {O$'ԍId. at 2728 (quoting Department of Justice Evaluation at 4041). { "*,>(>(IIK"Ԍ X4J75.` ` It is evident from the circumstances presented in this proceeding that AT&T has made significant efforts to advance its entry strategy in South Carolina but its efforts have  X4been hindered.#Zc yOK'ԍAlong with the construction of new networks and resale, the use of unbundled elements of the  {O'incumbent's network is one of the three paths of entry contemplated by the Act. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15509.# In particular, although the Eighth Circuit upheld the Commission's rule that, pursuant to the Act, unbundled network elements must be made available, individually and in combination at costbased rates, and the Commission has held that unbundled network element entry is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), AT&T has been unable to provide local service in South Carolina through the use of unbundled network elements. More specifically, even under AT&T's arbitrated interconnection agreement, AT&T was, and still is, precluded from offering local exchange service through a combination of unbundled network elements unless AT&T agrees to pay for that combination of elements at the rate applicable to resold services, instead of the costbased rates applicable to the  X 4purchase of network elements.O c yO'ԍAT&T Carroll Aff. at para. 23.O   X 4K76.` ` Although we deny BellSouth's application on the grounds that it has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1), we proceed to evaluate BellSouth's application under the "generally offering" standard set forth in section 271(c)(2)(A)(i)(II) and also deny BellSouth's application on the grounds that it has failed to generally offer each of the competitive checklist items in section 271(c)(2)(B).  XK'  VI.XCHECKLIST COMPLIANCE (#  X' XA.X` ` "Generally Offering" Each Checklist Item(#`  X4  X' ` ` 1. Introduction (#  X4L77.` ` To demonstrate checklist compliance under TrackB, the BOC must show that  X4it "generally offers" each checklist item pursuant to an SGAT.czc yO'ԍ47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B), 271(d)(3)(A)(ii).c Pursuant to  section271(c)(1)(B), a BOC meets the requirements for authorization to provide inregion interLATA service if it "generally offers to provide such access and interconnection [as described in section271(c)(1)(A)]" pursuant to a statement of general terms and conditions  XN4approved or allowed to take effect by a state commission.N c yO $'ԍUnder 47 U.S.C. 252(f), a BOC may file with a state commission a "statement of the terms and conditions that such company generally offers within that state to comply with the requirements of section 251." Under section271(d)(3)(A)(ii), the Commission shall not approve a request for inregion, interLATA service unless the BOC demonstrates that, "with respect to access and interconnection generally offered pursuant to" +b ,>(>(II" [an SGAT], such statement offers all of the items included in the competitive checklist . . . ." Thus, before examining BellSouth's showing on specific checklist items, we first must address what it means to "generally offer[ ]" to provide a checklist item under section271(c)(2)(B). We conclude that a BOC "generally offers" to provide a checklist item if it makes that item available as a legal and practical matter, as discussed below.  Xv4M78.` ` As explained below, this conclusion is consistent with the standard set forth in  X_4the Ameritech Michigan Order for checklist items that have not been requested. In the  XJ4Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission addressed the meaning of "providing access and interconnection" pursuant to the competitive checklist as required under sections271(c)(2)(A)  X 4and 271(d)(3)(A)(i) (i.e., for Track A). Under these provisions, the BOC must show that it "is providing access and interconnection" and that it "has fully implemented the competitive  X 4checklist."b c yOk 'ԍ47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(A), 271(d)(3)(A)(i).b The Commission concluded that "a BOC 'provides' a checklist item if it  X 4actually furnishes the item at rates and on terms and conditions that comply with the Act."] Xc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para.110.] Alternatively, the Commission concluded that, where no competitor is actually using the item, the BOC must show that it makes the checklist item available "as both a legal and practical  X4matter.";c {O1'ԍId. ; To be "providing" a checklist item, "a BOC must have a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish the item upon request pursuant to stateapproved interconnection  Xh4agreements that set forth prices and other terms and conditions for each checklist item.";h|c {O'ԍId. ; In addition, the BOC must demonstrate that it is "presently ready to furnish each checklist item in the quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at an acceptable level of  X#4quality.";#c {O'ԍId. ; Evidence of actual commercial usage of a checklist item is most probative, but a BOC may also submit evidence such as carriertocarrier testing, independent third party  X4testing, and internal testing to demonstrate its ability to provide a checklist item.;c {OF'ԍId. ;  X' X2.X` ` Discussion (#`  X4N79.` ` Although parties that address the issue use somewhat different terminology to define "generally offer," parties seem to agree that to "generally offer" is consistent with a requirement to "make available." BellSouth asserts that it is "generally offering" the items in its SGAT because it "stands ready to furnish each item in the quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at a level of quality that enables competitors to provide service on par"=,2 ,>(>(II_"  X4with BellSouth's."Pc yOy'ԍBellSouth Application at 1819.P It contends that the checklist items in the SGAT are "ready and  X4waiting."EXc {O'ԍId. at 17, 18.E Before the South Carolina Commission, BellSouth contended that "generally offering" means "that when a competitor requests a checklist item, BellSouth will provide it within a reasonable period of time, in parity with the services provided for our own retail  X4customers and in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations."c yO? 'ԍBellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 3, Tab58, Testimony of Alphonso J. Varner, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission Docket No. 97101C, July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 173. BellSouth argues that evidence of actual commercial usage and testing in other states demonstrates its ability to  Xv4furnish checklist items upon request.vBc {Oi 'ԍBellSouth Application at 35; see also id., App. A, Vol.3a, Tab9, Affidavit of W. Keith Milner (BellSouth Milner Aff.) at para.5. Similarly, the South Carolina Commission uses various phrases to define "generally offers," including "make available," "generally available,"  XH4and "functionally available."tHc {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 26, 31, 41, 44.t The South Carolina Commission concluded that, although approval of the SGAT does not require BellSouth to show that it is actually providing each checklist item, BellSouth has established that it has actually provided each item somewhere  X 4within its ninestate region.I . c {O'ԍId. at 56, 2627.I  X 4O80.` ` The Department of Justice employs the standard the Commission adopted in the  X 4Ameritech Michigan Order, asserting that, "[u]nder Track B, as well as under Track A, an applicant is required to show that each checklist item is available both as a legal matter and as  X4a practical matter."X c yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 13.X The Department of Justice contends that the phrase "statement of  X{4generally available terms" indicates that "checklist items must be generally offered to all  Xf4interested carriers, be generally available, and be offered at concrete terms.";fP c {Og'ԍId. ; According to the Department of Justice, a "mere paper promise to provide a checklist item, or an invitation to negotiate, would not be a sufficient basis for the Commission to conclude that a BOC 'is  X#4generally offering' all checklist items.";#c {O#'ԍId. ; Similarly, AT&T argues that a BOC must  X 4demonstrate that it is "able to actually provision" each checklist item. tc yO1&'ԍAT&T Comments at 8 (comparing Georgia Commission's statement that BellSouth's SGAT should not be approved so long as BellSouth has not demonstrated that it is able to actually provision the listed services). MCI contends" -,>(>(II" similarly that BellSouth must demonstrate that it could provide each item "in the real  X4world."Dc yOb'ԍMCI Comments at 55.D According to MCI, an "offer" must be more than just a recitation of the Act's requirements; it must include reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions as well  X4as a reliable implementation procedure.;Xc {O'ԍId. ;  X4P81.CONCRETE TERMS` `  GENOFFER We conclude that the phrase "generally offers to provide such access and interconnection" requires a BOC to make the checklist item available as both a legal and  X_4practical matter. The term "offer" is commonly understood to mean "make available."_c {O 'ԍWebster's II New College Dictionary 759 (1995); see also South Carolina Commission Compliance  {O 'Order at 26. The statute contemplates that, in a TrackB application, a carrier may file even though no request has been made for any checklist item. Under TrackB, the BOC must offer checklist items on terms such that a competitor may obtain these items if and when the competitor actually enters the local market. Thus, the standard for a Track B application is that the BOC must have a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish the item upon request pursuant to its  X 4SGAT.a Fc {O'ԍCf. Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 110.a Moreover, the BOC must demonstrate that it is presently prepared to furnish each checklist item in the quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at an acceptable  X 4level of quality.? c {O0'ԍCf. id. ? The Commission must make a predictive judgment to determine whether a BOC is actually able to furnish the checklist item upon demand, and thus whether the item is legally and practically available. Where the BOC uses identical processes and systems for ordering and for furnishing items in a multistate region, evidence that a BOC actually is or is not capable of furnishing the item in another state would be probative of that BOC's ability to make the checklist item available as both a legal and practical matter in the state that is the  X4subject of the application.uj c yO8'ԍAccording to BellSouth, its "processes are identical in all nine states for ordering, provisioning, maintaining and repairing and rendering a bill. Thus, BellSouth's provision of a given checklist item in one state is evidence of its functional availability in South Carolina." BellSouth Milner Aff. at para.5. Because BellSouth "uses the same processes with respect to checklist items in all of its nine states, [BellSouth's] experience within and outside South Carolina confirms the practical availability of interconnection in South Carolina." BellSouth Application at 35.u Alternatively, a carrier could demonstrate that an item is practically available through carriertocarrier testing, thirdparty testing, or internal testing.  X4This is consistent with the Commission's conclusion, which we reaffirm, in the Ameritech  X4Michigan Order for a TrackA application that, where no party has actually requested an item, the Commission would consider whether the item is available as both a legal and practical".,>(>(II1"  X4matter.ac {Oy'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para.110.a For the reasons described below, we find that BellSouth does not "generally offer[] to provide" certain of the checklist items.  X'#Xj\  P6G;+XP#I  B.` ` Operations Support Systems (#`  X'XX` ` 1.X Introduction (#  X_4Q82.` ` As discussed above, Congress requires incumbent LECs to share their networks  XH4with new entrants to hasten the development of competition in the local exchange market."HZc {OS 'ԍSee supra part II.B; see also Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 13; Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 816 ("Congress clearly included measures in the Act, such as the interconnection, unbundled access, and resale provisions, in order to expedite the introduction of pervasive competition into the local telecommunications industry."). I In order for a new entrant practically to have access to an incumbent LEC's network, the  X 4Commission has required, since adoption of the Local Competition Order in August 1996, that incumbent LECs offer nondiscriminatory access to the systems, information, and personnel  X 4that support those network elements or services.l Dc {O'ԍ Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15499, 15767.l These systems, databases, and personnel  X 4collectively are commonly referred to as operations support systems, or OSS. c {O^'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 129. We note that the Department of Justice, in its evaluation, uses the term "wholesale support processes," which it defines as "the automated and manual processes required to make resale services and unbundled elements, among other items, meaningfully available to competitors." Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 1. We believe the terms "operations support systems," as used by  {O'the Commission, and "wholesale support processes," as used by the Department of Justice, are the same. See  {OJ'Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 129.  The Commission has consistently found that nondiscriminatory access to the functions of operations support systems is integral to the ability of competing carriers to enter the local  X4exchange market and compete with the incumbent LEC. T c {O'ԍ Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 12930; see also Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15763;  {Oa'Local Competition Second Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1974143.  To compete effectively in the local exchange market, new entrants must be able to provide service to their customers at a quality level that matches the service provided by the incumbent LEC. A competing carrier that lacks access to operations support systems equivalent to those the incumbent LEC provides to itself, its affiliates or its customers, "will be severely disadvantaged, if not  X4precluded altogether, from fairly competing."gc {O$'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1576364.g  X4R83.` ` As the Commission decided in the Ameritech Michigan Order, section 271 requires the Commission to review the BOC's offer of access to operations support systems"/B,>(>(IIT" functions and to verify that a section 271 applicant is meeting its obligation to offer  X4nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.]c {Ob'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 131.] As the Commission determined in the Local  X4Competition Order, the provision of access to OSS functions falls squarely within an incumbent LEC's duty under section 251(c)(3) to provide unbundled network elements under terms and conditions that are nondiscriminatory and just and reasonable, and its duty under section 251(c)(4) to offer resale services without imposing any limitations or conditions that  Xz4are discriminatory or unreasonable.zZc {O 'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1566061, 15763; Local Competition Second Reconsideration  {OO 'Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1974243. Thus, as the Commission concluded in the Ameritech  Xe4Michigan Order, "[b]ecause the duty to provide access to network elements under section 251(c)(3) and the duty to provide resale services under section 251(c)(4) include the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, an examination of a BOC's OSS  X" 4performance is necessary to evaluate compliance with section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (xiv)."QZ" c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 131. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) requires section 271 applicants to demonstrate that "[t]elecommunications services are available for resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3)." 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B)(xiv).Q  X 4S84.` ` Moreover, the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions is  X 4embodied in other terms of the competitive checklist as well.] c {Of'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 132.] As discussed above, the duty to "offer" items under the checklist requires a BOC to make the item available as both a legal  X 4and practical matter, at rates and on terms and conditions that comply with the Act.\ j c {O'ԍSee supra para. GENOFFER81.\ Thus,  X4as the Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, in order for a BOC to be able to  X4demonstrate that it is offering the items enumerated in the checklist (e.g., unbundled loops,  Xn4unbundled local switching, and unbundled local transport), it must demonstrate, inter alia, that it is offering nondiscriminatory access to the systems, information, and personnel that support  XB4those elements or services.aB c {O'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 132.a An examination of a BOC's OSS performance is therefore integral to our determination whether a BOC is offering all of the items contained in the  X4competitive checklist.: c {OS"'ԍId.:  X4T85.` ` Although not expressly stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, we conclude that an additional reason that we must undertake a review of the BOC's offer of access to  X4OSS functions is that, as determined in the Local Competition Order, "operations support systems and the information they contain fall squarely within the definition of 'network"0 ,>(>(II"  X4element.'"dc {Oy'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15763.d The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Commission's determination that operations support systems are network elements that must be provided pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of  X4the Act.[Zc {O'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 80809.[ Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii), item (ii) of the competitive checklist, expressly requires a BOC to offer "nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)." Therefore, our section 271 review necessarily requires us to determine whether BellSouth offers nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.  XH4U86.` ` BellSouth claims that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems, stating that "[competing LECs] are able to perform traditional OSS functions such as preordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing 'in  X 4substantially the same time and manner' as BellSouth."M c yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 21.M In response, numerous parties argue that BellSouth has failed to satisfy various aspects of the requirement that it provide nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems, raising issues with respect to each of the categories of OSS functions: preordering, ordering, provisioning, repair and maintenance, and billing.  Xy4V87.` ` As discussed below, we conclude that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it offers to competing carriers nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, as required by the competitive checklist. First, we outline the general approach to analyzing the adequacy of a  X44BOC's operations support systems that the Commission adopted in the Ameritech Michigan  X4Order. Second, we briefly describe BellSouth's operations support systems. Third, we analyze the evidence concerning competing carriers' access to OSS functions for resale services and unbundled network elements.  X4W88.` ` Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated that the access to certain OSS functions that it provides to competing carriers for preordering, ordering, and provisioning of resale services and preordering of unbundled  X4network elements is equivalent to the access it provides to itself.X|c yO 'ԍAlthough parties also raise issues related to OSS functions for repair and maintenance and billing, we limit our discussion to preordering, ordering, and provisioning, because the record was more developed with respect to these issues. Although not a basis for our decision, we also address certain other concerns raised in the record concerning OSS access for ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements. Given our finding that BellSouth fails to provide nondiscriminatory access to certain critical OSS functions for preordering, ordering, and provisioning, we need not decide in this Order whether BellSouth complies with its obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to every OSS function. " 1,>(>(II"  X4Accordingly, as in the Ameritech Michigan Order, given the statutory 90day time deadline, we include here a discussion of only certain issues raised in the context of this application and do not make any conclusions with respect to other OSS functions not addressed in this  X4decision.]c {O6'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 128.] Nonetheless, to provide guidance for future applications, we highlight a number of other OSSrelated issues that we do not reach as a decisional basis, but which raise concerns. We note that some of the issues we discuss in this section have already been  Xx4addressed by the Commission in the Ameritech Michigan Order.  XL4X89.` ` We recognize that BellSouth has devoted substantial resources to deploying systems that allow competing carriers to access OSS functions. Nevertheless, to compete effectively in the local exchange market, new entrants must be able to provide telecommunications services to their customers at a quality level that matches the service provided by the incumbent LEC. For example, if new entrants are unable to process orders as quickly and accurately as the incumbent, they may have difficulty marketing their services to endusers. Each of the issues that we discuss below as a basis for our decision has a significant impact on a new entrant's ability to serve its customers. Moreover, the impact of these deficiencies is magnified when they are viewed collectively. Given these deficiencies, from an enduser's perspective, interactions with a new entrant will take longer and be more prone to errors than interactions with BellSouth, through no fault of the new entrant. As a result, the new entrant's reputation may suffer, even though problems that customers encounter with the new entrant are due to the type of access to OSS functions that BellSouth offers.  X'XX` ` 2.X Description of BellSouth's Operations Support Systems (#  X4Y90.` `  LCSC BellSouth has established two Local Carrier Service Centers (LCSCs), one in Atlanta, Georgia, and one in Birmingham, Alabama, that serve as the central contact points with BellSouth for new entrants for preordering, ordering, and provisioning of resale services  X4and network elements.Zc yO'ԍBellSouth Application, App. A, Vol. 5, Tab 13, Affidavit of William N. Stacy (BellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Aff.) at para. 4. Each new entrant is assigned to one LCSC to handle its needs for  Xi4the entire BellSouth region.ic {O 'ԍId. The Atlanta center supports "AT&T, MCI, OPC, Intermedia, Nextlink and Georgia Comm South."  {O!'All other carriers are handled by the Birmingham Center. Id. Thus, for example, a new entrant assigned to the Birmingham LCSC would interact with that LCSC for services it provides to customers in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, or any other state in BellSouth's region. The LCSC will accept facsimile, telephone, or mail requests from those new entrants that do not want to implement one of the"$2,>(>(II"  X4electronic interfaces for preordering, ordering, and provisioning discussed below.c yOy'ԍBellSouth Application, App. A, Vol. 4a, Tab 12, Affidavit of William N. Stacy (BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff.), Ex. WNS52 (Local Competition Operational Readiness Report) at 9, 49. The LCSC also handles manual processing of orders for services not supported by the electronic interfaces. In addition, if there is an error in the processing of an order, the LCSC either manually processes the order or notifies the new entrant of the error. Moreover, each new entrant is assigned a customer support manager at the LCSC who acts as a single point of contact for any "operational issues that are not satisfactorily resolved by the normal center  Xv4process."fv c yOG 'ԍBellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Aff. at para. 4.f  XH4Z91.` `  MODES  FUNC Preordering generally includes those activities that a carrier undertakes with a  X14customer to gather and confirm the information necessary to place an order.O1c {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  51.5.O  LENSDESC BellSouth provides an electronic interface, the Local Exchange Navigation System (LENS), for preordering of both resale services and unbundled network elements. LENS is a proprietary terminaltype interface that allows a competing carrier to use a browser software program to  X 4retrieve information from a BellSouth server on a realtime basis.D Bc {O'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 10; South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 35; AT&T Comments, App., Vol II, Ex. C, Affidavit of Jay M. Bradbury (AT&T Bradbury Aff.) at para. 9; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at paras. 6, 12; MCI Comments, Ex. A, Declaration of Samuel L. King (MCI King Decl.) at paras. 34, 40, 43; Sprint Comments, App. B, Affidavit of Melissa L. Closz (Sprint Closz Aff.) at paras. 46, 48. BellSouth, pursuant to its interconnection agreement with AT&T, is developing a machinetomachine interface for preordering that is scheduled to be available in December 1997. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 42 and Ex. WNS21. We do not consider this interface in this application because it was not offered at the time  {OB'BellSouth filed its application. See Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 1011.  Competing carriers can connect to LENS through dedicated local area network (LANtoLAN) connections, through  X 4dialup connections, or through the public Internet. N c {O'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 10 & Ex. WNS48 (LENS User Guide) at 34, 6. LENS has two modes, an "inquiry"  X4mode and a "firm order" mode.Gc {O!'ԍId. at para. 11.G The inquiry mode provides preordering information and  Xy4allows a competing carrier to access only those preordering functions that the carrier needs.yrc {O!'ԍId. at paras. 11, 19; BellSouth Reply Comments, App. A, Tab 7, Reply Affidavit of William N. Stacy (BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff.) at para. 25. The firm order mode requires a competing carrier to perform each preordering function in  XK4sequence, as if placing an order.Kc yO%'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 82; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 11; MCI King Decl. at paras. 51 n.7, 72 n.12. LENS also has some ordering functionality when used in"K3$,>(>(II" the firm order mode, but, as discussed below, BellSouth relies on another interface as its  X4primary ordering interface to meet the OSS requirements of section 271.cc {Ob'ԍSee infra para. LENSORDER94.c  X4[92.` `  EDIDESC Ordering includes the exchange of information necessary for a competing  X4carrier to order services and products from the BOC.OZc {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  51.5.O Provisioning includes those activities necessary to install services and products to the competing carrier and its customers as well as the exchange of information necessary to inform competing carriers on the status of that  X_4work.:_c {O 'ԍId.: BellSouth provides an electronic interface utilizing the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) protocol to meet its obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to requesting  X14telecommunications carriers for ordering and provisioning of resold services.1~c yO`'ԍEDI has been adopted by the Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF) of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) as the industry standard for the ordering and provisioning of  {O'resale services. See Transcript of Forum on Operations Support Systems for Unbundled Network Elements and Resale Services in Docket No. 9698 (May 2829, 1997), Ordering and Billing Forum Attachment, "Overview: Industry Guidelines for Operations Support Systems Functions." The EDI protocol enables BellSouth both to receive resale orders electronically from competing carriers  X 4and to transmit information to competing carriers concerning the status of their orders.X 0 c yO'ԍBellSouth's EDI interface supports electronic ordering for 34 resale services. BellSouth states that these 34 services comprise 80 percent of its overall retail revenue. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 58 & Ex. WNS27. BellSouth has deployed two versions of EDI, one that it jointly developed with AT&T, and a  X 4second one that it generally offers to other new entrants.fZ P c yO'ԍBellSouth states that its current EDI interface is compliant with version 6 of the OBF standard, and that BellSouth is committed to implementing version 7 in early 1998. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 50. The  {Of'OBF published the standards for version 7 on July 28, 1997. See id.f In addition, BellSouth offers a software package called PCEDI that enables competing carriers to use the EDI interface  X 4without the use of their own operations support systems.  rc yO'ԍBellSouth worked with a thirdparty software developer, Harbinger, to create a personal computer {O 'compatible software package for smaller competitive carriers to use with the EDI interface. Id. at paras. 50, 138. For the ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements, BellSouth accepts orders for loops, interim number portability and switching through its EDI interface, and for other network elements, such as transport, through its EXACT interface. BellSouth's EXACT interface is also used by interexchange  XK4carriers to order access services from BellSouth.H Kc {O%'ԍId. at para. 113.H "44^ ,>(>(II"Ԍ X4\93.` `  ORDSYS BellSouth uses several systems to process competing carriers' orders received through the EDI interface, including the local exchange ordering (LEO) system, the local exchange service order generator (LESOG) system, and the Service Order Control System  X4(SOCS).E \c yO4'ԍAlthough the LEO and LESOG systems are used exclusively for processing orders from competing  {O'carriers, the SOCS system processes both orders from competing carriers and BellSouth's retail operations. See  {O'id. at paras. 57, 76, 78.E Orders are initially reviewed by the LEO system for correctness and completeness. Orders supported by mechanized processing are then sent to the LESOG system which translates the EDI order into a format that can be accepted by the SOCS  Xv4system.J vc {O 'ԍId. at paras 7576.J The SOCS system then generates a valid service order that it sends to the appropriate BellSouth legacy systems, and creates a firm order confirmation (FOC) notice that  XH4is sent to competing carriers via the EDI interface. H~c {Ow'ԍId. Generally, a FOC notice informs a competing carrier that an order has been accepted by the BOC  {OA'and confirms the requested due date for completion. See Ameritech Michigan OrderĠat para. 172 n.429. If one of these systems encounters an error in the processing of a competing carrier's order, the order is sent to BellSouth's local  X 4carrier service center (LCSC) for manual processing. c yO'ԍCertain services, such as Basic Rate ISDN, are not currently supported by mechanized processing and are sent directly to the LCSC. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff., Ex. WNS27. As noted above, the LCSC will either correct the order and resubmit it for completion, or manually return an error notice to the  X 4ordering carrier.\ 2 c {O'ԍId. at paras. 7576. As discussed further below, BellSouth provides error notices to competing carriers via facsimile. In response to error notices, competing carriers can provide additional information to the LCSC  {Oa'representative, or submit a corrected order through the EDI interface. Id. at para.77. Finally, when an order is completed, the SOCS system creates an order  X 4completion notice that is sent to the ordering carrier via the EDI interface.K V c {O'ԍId. at paras. 7576.K  X 4]94.` ` LENSORDERAs indicated above, BellSouth also provides ordering functionality through its  X4LENS interface when LENS is used in the firm order mode.Xc {O)'ԍSee supra para.  FUNC91 .X BellSouth, however, states that it does not rely on the LENS interface to provide competing carriers with  Xb4nondiscriminatory access to ordering functions.bzc {O"'ԍBellSouth Application at 27; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 46; see also Florida Commission,  {MW#'Consideration of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s Entry into InterLATA Services Pursuant to Section 271 of  {O$'the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. 960786TL, Order No. PSC971459FOFTL (Nov.  {O$'19, 1997) (Florida Commission Section 271 Order) at 66; BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff., Ex. WNS1 at 28,  {O%'North Carolina Commission, Public Staff Proposed Order in the Matter of Application of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services Pursuant to Section 271 of the  {OE''Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. P55, SUB 1022 (Oct. 31, 1997) (North Carolina Public Staff"E',>(>(9'"  {O'Proposed Order). BellSouth states that "LENS was designed"b5Z,>(>(II@" primarily as a preordering tool for [competing carriers] and is not intended to support all  X4largescale ordering functions."SZc yO'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 4647.S BellSouth acknowledges that LENS ordering functionality  X4is limited to a subset of the order types and activity types provided by the EDI interface. c yOm'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 46; BellSouth Reply Comments at 4647. For example, BellSouth states that, at the time of its application, "LENS does not allow CLECs to add or delete features, ... only accepts orders of six lines or less, and only allows multiline hunt group [orders] to be switched 'as is.'" BellSouth Reply Comments at 4647. We therefore do not evaluate the adequacy of the LENS interface in making our determination as to whether BellSouth provides nondiscriminatory access to ordering and  X4provisioning functions.oc {O'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 21 n.32.o  X_4^95.` `  RNSDOE For its retail operations, BellSouth uses two interfaces, the Regional Negotiation System (RNS) and Direct Order Entry (DOE), both of which provide preordering  X14and ordering functions on an integrated basis.@Z1d c {OF'ԍId., App. A at 14; Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 78; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 8; Intermedia Comments at 20; MCI Comments at 25; MCI King Aff. at para.52; Sprint Comments at 13; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 51.@ RNS, which is currently used for most residential services, is a newer system with "Englishlanguage and pointandclick  X 4capabilities."U c yO:'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 8.U For business services and certain residential services that are not yet supported by RNS, BellSouth still uses DOE, an older system that relies on special codes and  X 4function keys.: c {O'ԍId.:  X 'XX` ` 3.X General Approach to Analyzing Operations Support Systems (#  Xy4_96.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission discussed the approach it would take to review whether a BOC was providing competing carriers with  XM4nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems.cMc {O"'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras. 13343. c As in the Ameritech Michigan  X84Order, we undertake a twopart inquiry in making this evaluation. First, we evaluate "whether the BOC has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and whether the BOC is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available"6:,>(>(II"  X4to them."Dc {Oy'ԍId. at para. 136. In making this determination, we "consider all of the automated and manual processes a BOC has undertaken to provide access to OSS functions to determine whether the BOC is meeting its duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to competing carriers." We also consider all of the components of a BOC's provision of access to OSS functions, including the "point of interface (or 'gateway') for the competing carrier's own internal operations support systems to interconnect with the BOC; any electronic or manual processing link between that interface and the BOC's internal operations support systems (including all necessary back office systems and personnel); and all of the internal operations support systems (or 'legacy systems') that a BOC uses  {O'in providing network elements and resale services to a competing carrier." Id. at para. 134 (footnote omitted). Second, we "determine whether the OSS functions that the BOC has deployed  X4are operationally ready, as a practical matter."Hc {On 'ԍId. at para. 136.H Under this second part of the inquiry, we  X4examine performance measurements and other evidence of commercial readiness.Hf c {O 'ԍId. at para. 138.H  X4`97.` ` The Commission concluded in the Ameritech Michigan Order that the most  X4probative evidence that OSS functions are operationally ready is actual commercial usage.N c {O8'ԍId. at paras. 110, 138.N  Xx4We recognize, however, that the Ameritech Michigan Order involved the review of an application filed under Track A, whereas we are reviewing BellSouth's application under Track B. Nevertheless, this inquiry into the operational readiness of the OSS functions still applies to a Track B application, because we must determine whether the checklist requirement that access to OSS functions is available, as a legal and practical matter, has been  X 4satisfied.K c {OB'ԍSee supra part VI.A.K In this case, because BellSouth's operations support systems are essentially the same throughout the region, we review the commercial usage of BellSouth's operations support systems in other states as part of the assessment of whether BellSouth is "generally offering" nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. BellSouth invites such review by submitting data on commercial usage throughout its region to demonstrate compliance with  X4the OSS requirements.c {Oa'ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Aff. at para. 42 & Ex. WNS9. The Commission also determined in the Ameritech Michigan Order that it would consider carriertocarrier testing, independent thirdparty testing, and internal  Xh4testing, in the absence of commercial usage, to demonstrate commercial readiness.] hc {O!'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 138.]  X:4a98.` ` For those OSS functions that are analogous to OSS functions that a BOC provides to itself including preordering, ordering and provisioning for resale services a BOC must offer access to competing carriers equivalent to the access the BOC provides" 7@ ,>(>(II"  X4itself.L!c {Oy'ԍId. at paras. 13940.L Thus, for example, for those functions that the BOC itself accesses electronically, the  X4BOC must offer electronic access for competing carriers.|"Zc {O'ԍId. at para. 137; Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15767.| In addition, access to OSS functions must be offered such that competing carriers are able to perform OSS functions in  X4"substantially the same time and manner" as the BOC.g#c {OX'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1576364.g Moreover, for those OSS functions that have no retail analogue, such as ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements, a BOC must offer access sufficient to allow an efficient competitor a meaningful  Xv4opportunity to compete.$l v~c {O 'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 141; Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15660; Local  {Oo 'Competition Second Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1974243. The Commission recognized, however, that, given sufficient churn in the marketplace, "winbacks of customers serviced by unbundled network elements  {O'might provide sufficient data with which to develop an appropriate measure of equivalent access." Ameritech  {O'Michigan Order at para. 141 & n.348. The Commission further recognized in the Ameritech Michigan Order that there may be situations in which a BOC contends that, although equivalent access has not been achieved for an analogous function, the access that it offers is still nondiscriminatory within the meaning of the statute,  {O%'because it offers an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete. Id. at para. 141 n.345. We need not reach this issue in rendering our decision on this application, because BellSouth contends that it has deployed  {O'systems that offer equivalent access. See BellSouth Application at 2122 ("BellSouth has modified its OSS to process CLEC transaction requests and has developed interfaces that allow CLECs to obtain access to resale services and unbundled elements at parity with BellSouth.").  XH4b99.` ` In sum, we reaffirm the finding in the Local Competition Order that "nondiscriminatory access to these support system functions . . . is vital to creating  X 4opportunities for meaningful competition."d% c {O'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15764.d Moreover, in reviewing similar functions in the  X 4Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that "these requirements with respect to access to OSS functions are readily achievable," because the BOC need only demonstrate  X 4that it is offering "the same access to competing carriers that it already provides to itself."]& Dc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 143.]  X 4c100.` `  REGION Furthermore, we note that any determinations regarding BellSouth's provision of nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions made by state commissions in the BellSouth  X}4region may be relevant to our inquiry in this application.t'}c {O$'ԍSee id. at para. 156; Department of Justice Evaluation at 15.t As noted above, BellSouth's operations support systems are essentially the same throughout the region and BellSouth submitted data in the record in this proceeding on usage throughout its region to demonstrate"O8h',>(>(II"  X4compliance with the requirements of section 271.(c {Oy'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 15 & App. A at 7; South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 20, 35; ACSI Reply Comments at 11 n.24; AT&T Reply Comments at 2 n.2; BellSouth Application at 19, 23; BellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 5; BellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Aff. at paras. 4, 42 & Ex. WNS9; Hyperion/KMC Comments at 5 n.3; MCI Comments at 11. Not only are the interfaces the same throughout BellSouth's region, but competing carriers are also assigned to one LCSC to handle their needs for the entire  {Oc'BellSouth region. See discussion supra para.  LCSC90 . Thus, as the Department of Justice points out in its evaluation, determinations with respect to this single regionwide system may, as a  X4practical matter, affect states throughout a BOC's entire region.X)Dc yO 'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 15.X With respect to BellSouth's regionwide operations support systems, the South Carolina Commission determined that BellSouth's "electronic interfaces provide access to [BellSouth's] operational support systems for preordering, ordering, maintenance and repair, and billing that is substantially the same as, and in many cases better than, that which it provides to  X_4[BellSouth's] retail customers."h*_c {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 33.h BellSouth also cites a determination from the Louisiana  XH4Commission and a proposed order of the North Carolina Commission's public staff,+Hf c yO_'ԍThe North Carolina Commission will review the proposed order of its public staff and comments from other parties, and will then issue its decision. both of which found that BellSouth's provision of access to OSS functions satisfies the requirements  X 4of section 271.m, c yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at paras. 410 & Ex. WNS1. m Other parties cite determinations from the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia commissions that, upon review of the very same functions, have concluded that BellSouth's  X 4operations support systems are deficient.$-Z N c {O'ԍSee, e.g., Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 89; ACSI Reply at 11 & n.27; ALTS Reply Comments at 57; AT&T Comments at 25 n.20; AT&T Reply Comments at 12, 1314; Hyperion Reply Comments at 45; MCI Reply Comments at 3 & n.1. $ Because evidence gathered by other state commissions in the region is probative of BellSouth's offer of access to OSS functions in South Carolina, and because any determination we make in this proceeding regarding BellSouth's operations support systems will have an impact on other states in the region, we conclude that we may take into account any evidence gathered by these other state commissions in their evaluation of BellSouth's regionwide systems.  XK' ` ` 4. Analysis of Ordering and Provisioning Functions ` `  hhCq  X4 d101.` ` For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions for the ordering and provisioning of resale services. As described above, BellSouth provides competing carriers access to an EDI interface to provide nondiscriminatory access for ordering and provisioning of resold services. BellSouth states that it has been capable of implementing an"9p-,>(>(II1"  X4EDI interface with any requesting carrier since December 1996.V.c yOy'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 54.V Competing carriers, however, had only recently begun to use EDI for ordering at the time of BellSouth's application. For example, evidence in the record indicates that AT&T has used EDI to  X4transmit orders since June 1997./Xc {O'ԍId., Ex. WNS52 (Local Competition Operational Readiness Report) at 132. At the time of its application, BellSouth states that an additional four carriers were using the PCEDI software to transmit commercial resale orders  X4through the EDI interface.}0c {O( 'ԍBellSouth Application at 27; see BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 54.} In addition, MCI states that it is currently testing BellSouth's  Xv4EDI interface to transmit orders from MCI's own OSS.1Xv|c yO 'ԍMCI King Decl. at para.97 (MCI began testing in early September). At the time of BellSouth's application, MCI was the only new entrant testing the second version of BellSouth's EDI interface with the use of its own OSS. In August, the most recent month for which data is available, BellSouth received, on a regionwide basis, 6715 orders through  XH4its EDI interface.2@Hc yO'ԍEDILetter from Michael Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Oct. 15, 1997). This letter attached a redacted public version of exhibit 41 to the BellSouth Stacy OSS affidavit, which will be cited hereinafter as "Public Ex. WNS41." Exhibit WNS41 provides data for carriers using both the EDI and LENS interfaces. Because BellSouth expressly relies on only its EDI interface to provide nondiscriminatory access for ordering and provisioning, we look only to the data concerning carriers using the EDI interface. By consulting with BellSouth, we have extracted data for those carriers using EDI. We urge BellSouth, however, in future applications, to sufficiently disaggregate its data to permit analysis of the performance of those interfaces upon which it is expressly relying on in its application.  X1'  X 4 e102.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that, because the ordering and provisioning of resale services by a competing carrier is analogous to the ordering and provisioning of a BOC's retail services by the BOC to its own customers, a BOC must provide to competing carriers access to OSS functions equivalent to the access  X 4provided to its retail operations.]3 c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 166.] In that order the Commission agreed with the Department of Justice that "[p]roviding resale services in substantially the same time as analogous retail  X4services is probably the most fundamental parity requirement in Section 251."46c {Oy!'ԍId. at para. 167. (quoting Department of Justice Evaluation, Docket No. 97137, App. A at 12 (filed June 25, 1997) (Department of Justice Ameritech Michigan Evaluation)). The Commission further concluded that a BOC's submission of data showing the average"{:4,>(>(IIc" installation intervals for the provision of both its retail and resale services is fundamental to a  X4demonstration of nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.q5\c {Ob'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 171. The Commission also found that, more generally, Ameritech failed to provide appropriate empirical evidence upon which the Commission could determine whether a BOC is  {O'providing nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. Id. at paras. 203213.q  X4f103.` ` Applying the standards adopted in the Ameritech Michigan Order, we find that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions for the ordering and provisioning of resale services. There is convincing evidence in the record that BellSouth's OSS functions for the ordering and provisioning of resale services contain significant deficiencies. Competing carriers using the EDI interface to order resale services are experiencing a high order rejection rate that has decreased significantly BellSouth's ability to process competing carriers' orders without additional human intervention. In addition, BellSouth has not provided to competing carriers information on the status of their orders in a timely manner. As discussed more fully below, we find that these deficiencies are significant and prevent competing carriers from providing service to their customers at parity with BellSouth's retail operations. Indeed, the inadequate performance of the EDI interface has led one carrier, LCI, to stop using it and return to submitting orders  X 4manually.6 c yOF'ԍLCI Comments, App. 1, Declaration of Betty Baffer (LCI Baffer Decl.) at para.6. Moreover, these significant deficiencies are occurring with a relatively small  X4volume of orders for resale of simple POTS services.7|c yO'ԍThe term "POTS" or "plain old telephone service" refers to the most basic types of telecommunications  {O'services offered by local exchange carriers to their customers. Ameritech Michigan Order at n.433. We are therefore concerned that the problems with BellSouth's EDI interface will only increase as more competing carriers enter the market, and the number and complexity of services ordered by those carriers increases.  XM'  X6'` `  a.Order Rejections(#  X4  X4g104.` `  CONF  ORDPROB1 It is critical to a competing carrier providing service by reselling the BOC's services that the competing carrier have its orders processed through the BOC's systems in substantially the same time and manner as the BOC's retail operations. Without such equivalent access, the competing carrier will be unable to provide service to its customers in a manner that is competitive with the BOC. Therefore, the BOC is obligated to demonstrate that it is offering competing carriers the ability to order services for resale on a nondiscriminatory basis. When BellSouth representatives place an order, the overwhelming majority of those orders automatically flow through BellSouth's ordering systems and databases. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, 97 percent of BellSouth's residential orders and 81 percent of its business orders are processed without additional human  X"4intervention once the order is submitted by the BellSouth service representative.b8"c yO&'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A22.b"";f 8,>(>(II"Ԍ X4ԙh105.` ` As discussed above, BellSouth states that it has similarly mechanized the order processing for most of the services competing carriers can electronically order through the  X4EDI interface.W9c {OK'ԍSee BellSouth Application at 28.W That is, a competing carrier service representative can send an order for service through the BOC's ordering systems without the need for BOC service representatives to intervene in the ordering process. The evidence in the record demonstrates that, in actual practice, the majority of orders submitted by competing carriers via the EDI interface do not mechanically flow through BellSouth's systems. Instead, these orders are rejected by BellSouth's systems and then require human intervention from BellSouth representatives for  XH4resolution.C:HZc yOS 'ԍPublic Ex. WNS41.C BellSouth's data demonstrate that, in July 1997, 75 percent of the orders submitted by competing carriers via the EDI interface were rejected due to errors; that is, only  X 425 percent flowed through BellSouth's systems without the need for human intervention.:; c {O'ԍId.: In  X 4August 1997, 60 percent of the orders were rejected.:< |c {O0'ԍId.: Evidence in the record suggests that, for example, AT&T and MCI must submit orders an average of 1.7 times before acceptance  X 4by BellSouth's systems, adding significant delay to the ordering process.P= c yO'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para 214.P The high number of order rejections is of particular concern because they are occurring for resale orders for  X 4simple POTS services, which should be among the easiest orders to submit and process.>$ c {O'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 173. The two carriers with the highest use of BellSouth's EDI interface to date are AT&T and Intermedia. Both parties assert that the overwhelming majority of orders they have sent via the EDI interface were for migrating existing BellSouth customers without changes to their  {OP'accounts. See, e.g., Intermedia Comments at 23. We would expect BellSouth to process orders for simple POTS services in substantially the  Xy4same and time and manner (i.e., an equivalent level of mechanized processing) as it does for itself. Moreover, the data show that these high rejection rates apply to all of the carriers  XM4using the EDI interface.C?M c yO'ԍPublic Ex. WNS41.C Therefore, the number of orders from competing carriers that BellSouth is successfully processing on a mechanized basis is, in fact, quite low.  X4i106.` ` In addition, the impact of the high order rejection rate is compounded because BellSouth does not notify competing carriers electronically that an order has been rejected. Instead, BellSouth personnel either send an error notice via facsimile to the competing carrier,  X4or they undertake to resolve the problem and resubmit the order for continued processing.E@c yO&'ԍId. at paras.7576.E "<@,>(>(IIK"  X4This error notice process, as discussed below,RAc {Oy'ԍSee infra part VI.B.4.b(1).R causes significant delays and hinders new entrants' ability to compete effectively.  X4j107.` ` We believe that this substantial disparity between the flowthrough rates of BellSouth's orders and those of competing carriers, on its face, demonstrates a lack of parity.  X4In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission found a direct correlation between mechanized order processing and the BOC's ability to provide competing carriers with  Xa4nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.BaZc {Ol 'ԍAmeritech Michigan OrderĠat para. 17299; see Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A22 to A23. The Commission stated that, "[b]ecause it is virtually impossible for orders that are processed manually to be completed in the same time as orders that flow through electronically, it is difficult to see how equivalent access could exist when [the BOC] processes a significant number of orders from competing carriers  X 4manually."]C c {Oj'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 196.] The Commission also noted that, "although there may be limited instances in which it is appropriate for [the BOC] to intervene manually in the processing stage so that  X 4orders are processed correctly into the legacy systems, excessive reliance on this type of manual processing, especially for routine transactions, impedes [the BOC's] ability to provide  X 4equivalent access to these fundamental OSS functions."YD Fc {O'ԍId. at para. 178 (emphasis added).Y We find that the low percentage of order flow through for competing carriers' resale orders not only is evidence that BellSouth's ordering systems are not working as advertised by BellSouth, but also is a substantial factor in BellSouth's inability to provide order status notices and to provision resale services on a timely basis, as described below.  X!4k108.` ` BellSouth claims that, after adjusting for errors caused by new entrants in submitting orders, the flowthrough rates for new entrant orders would be equivalent to the  X4flowthrough rates for BellSouth's own retail operations.aEc {O|'ԍSee BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 111.a The record does not, however, support these claims. BellSouth states that its analysis of competing carriers' orders shows that, in July 1997, competing carriers caused 50 percent of the total errors, and, in August  X41997, 87 percent of the total errors.:Fj c {O"'ԍId.: AT&T argues, however, that BellSouth does not explain how it determined which errors were caused by the actions of competing carriers as"= F,>(>(II"  X4opposed to BellSouth systems.tGZc yOy'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 20509. AT&T also contends that BellSouth's measurements are suspect because the data on error rates presented in BellSouth's application do not correlate with the data provided to  {O 'AT&T as part of its interconnection agreement with BellSouth. Id. at para.207 n.119.t We agree. Other than alleging that most of these errors were caused by competing carriers' actions, BellSouth does not provide credible evidence or explanation to substantiate its conclusions regarding the causes of order errors. As a point of contrast, in its application to provide inregion, interLATA services in Michigan, Ameritech  X4did provide such information.*HZc {O? 'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 175, 179, 182. Ameritech provided information concerning different causes for broad categories of errors that competing carriers were experiencing with their EDI interface.  {M 'Id.* BellSouth states that its conclusion that the high error rates are due to competing carriers' mistakes is the result of its SOER analysis, a term which is not  Xv4defined elsewhere in its application.}I^v c {O3'ԍIn an ex parte conversation, BellSouth stated that SOER is an acronym for "service order error routine."  {O'See Letter from Whit Jordan, Vice President Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to William Caton, Acting  {O'Secretary, FCC (Nov. 17, 1997) (BellSouth Nov. 17, 1997 Ex Parte).} Without further evidence from BellSouth as to the cause of errors, we cannot accept BellSouth's assertion that competing carriers' errors are the primary reason for BellSouth's significant order rejection rate.  X 4l109.` ` The evidence in the record in fact suggests that the significant number of order rejections cannot be attributed solely to new entrants. We note that every competing carrier  X 4attempting to use BellSouth's EDI interface is experiencing high order error rates.jJ 2 c {O'ԍPublic Ex. WNS41; see MCI King Decl. at para. 135.j Indeed, if we assume that BellSouth's analysis of the order rejection rate is correct, it shows that  X 4competing carriers' error rates actually increased from July to August.KP c yO3'ԍPublic Ex. WNS41. BellSouth provides data on the number of order errors measured against the total number of orders supported by mechanized processing. As discussed above, BellSouth also asserts that a certain percentage of those errors are due to errors by competing carriers. Based on the number of errors that BellSouth has assigned to competing carriers, we calculate that the percentage of errors committed by competing carriers, measured as a percentage of the total orders actually sent by competing carriers, increased from 30 percent in  {O'July to 51 percent in August. Id. For both July and August, BellSouth has provided the Commission with the number of orders eligible  {Ou 'for mechanized order processing (i.e., order flow through), the number of orders that actually did flow through its ordering systems, and the number of orders that BellSouth asserts would have flowed through its systems if  {O"'there were no "CLEC caused input errors." See id. Although BellSouth has provided aggregate data for carriers using both the EDI and LENS interfaces for ordering, as discussed above, we look only to the data for those  {O#'carriers using the EDI interface. See supra note  EDI306 . Based on these numbers, we calculated the number of orders that BellSouth claims contained "CLEC caused input errors." Our final calculation, for each month, was to divide the number of competing carriers' orders containing "CLEC caused input errors" by the total number of competing carriers' orders eligible for order flow through. Therefore, in July, 1997, for the total number of orders sent by competing carriers, BellSouth claims that competing carriers caused errors for 30 percent of the"&J,>(>(}&" total, and in August, 1997, BellSouth claims that competing carriers caused errors for 51 percent of the total. Moreover, BellSouth" >XK,>(>(II~ " appears to acknowledge that some of the errors are attributable to its systems. It asserts that actions it took to correct nine categories of "internally caused error conditions" were  X4responsible for the reduction of the order rejection rate from July to August.WLXc yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 112.W  X4m110.` ` Even if we were to assume that the high error rates were caused primarily by competing carriers' mistakes, we still could not conclude that BellSouth has met its burden of demonstrating that it is providing nondiscriminatory access. Because BellSouth has not provided information explaining the causes of order errors, as discussed above, we cannot make a judgment regarding how many of the errors assigned by BellSouth to the actions of competing carriers result from BellSouth's failure to provide information, such as business rules, concerning how BellSouth's internal systems process orders. As discussed in the  X 4Ameritech Michigan Order, business rules refer to the protocols that a BOC uses to ensure  X 4uniformity in the format of orders.M c yO'ԍThese protocols define valid relationships in the creation and processing of orders, as well as other  {OO'interactions involved in the BOC's provision of OSS functions. Ameritech Michigan Order at para.137 n.335. Commenters contend that errors are caused because  X 4carriers were not properly informed of BellSouth's business rules.pN Bc {O'ԍSee e.g., WorldCom Comments at 7; AT&T Comments at 2930.p The Department of Justice concurs and asserts that BellSouth is not "adequately assisting competing carriers to  X 4understand how to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them."jO c yO.'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A25 to A26.j Both the Department of Justice and competing carriers specifically cite BellSouth's failure to provide sufficient information concerning BellSouth's "internal editing and data formatting requirements" necessary for competing carriers' orders to be successfully processed through  XM4both BellSouth's interface and its internal systems.uPMd c {Ob'ԍId., App. A at A26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 14070, 208.u  X4n111.` ` It is, of course, critical that BellSouth provide to competing carriers BellSouth's business rules concerning how its internal systems and databases process an order submitted via the EDI interface so that competing carriers can take affirmative steps to reduce potential errors. The Commission previously has concluded that BOCs have an affirmative obligation to provide such information and support to competing carriers "with all of the information necessary to format and process their electronic requests so that these requests flow through  X4the interfaces, the transmission links,zQZ c yO<%'ԍTransmission links refer to those intermediate systems a BOC has deployed to translate or process orders received via an interface, such as BellSouth's EDI interface, to a format that can be understood and processed by  {O&'the BOC's internal legacy systems. See Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 13435. As discussed above,"&P,>(>(&" BellSouth employs the LEO and LESOG systems, and its LCSC personnel to process orders to a format that its legacy systems, beginning with its SOCS system, can understand and process to completion.z and into the legacy systems as quickly and efficiently"? Q,>(>(II"  X4as possible."HR c {O'ԍId. at para. 137.H Such information must include all internal business rules, and ordering codes  X4used by a BOC that competing carriers need to place orders through the system efficiently.Sc {OL'ԍId. Ordering codes include such information as universal service ordering codes (USOCs) and field  {O'identifiers (FIDs). Id. at para.137 n.336. We find that the evidence reasonably supports a conclusion that some of the competing carriers' errors were caused by BellSouth's failure to provide business rules and other pertinent information.  Xv4o112.` ` We also find that the lack of integration between BellSouth's interfaces for pre-ordering and ordering functions has contributed to competing carriers' error rates. This lack of integration requires new entrants manually to reenter data obtained from the pre-ordering interface into the ordering interface, a process that reasonably can be expected to contribute to errors committed by new entrants. In contrast, the design of BellSouth's internal systems helps to minimize such errors for its retail operations. As discussed below in the pre-ordering section, we find that BellSouth has not provided the information that would  X 4allow a new entrant to integrate BellSouth's pre-ordering and ordering interfaces.MT c {O'ԍSee infra part VI.B.5.M We further find that BellSouth's manual return of order rejection notices has contributed to competing carriers' error rates. BellSouth's manual process for returning order rejection notices requires new entrants to manually enter error information from the faxed notice into  Xy4the EDI interface.RUyc {O'ԍSee infra part VI.B.4.b(1).R BellSouth's failure to integrate order rejection notices into the EDI interface also can be reasonably expected to contribute to errors committed by new entrants.  X44p113.` ` Another contributing factor to competing carriers' error rates is that the PCEDI software BellSouth provides to competing carriers does not provide adequate capability to  X4check for errors before the order is submitted to BellSouth.SV2 c {O'ԍSee e.g., LCI Comments at 2.S Such error correction capabilities would allow competing carriers to reduce order errors by correcting errors before submitting orders to BellSouth. In contrast, BellSouth's retail systems include such error  X4check capabilities.fW c {O6$'ԍFlorida Commission Section 271 Order at 16971.f LCI also contends that BellSouth has not provided adequate training  X4necessary to use the PCEDI software properly.CXV c yO&'ԍLCI Comments at 2.C As a result of these and other problems"@X,>(>(II" with PCEDI, LCI states that it has stopped using it and returned to submitting orders  X4manually.Yc {Ob'ԍLCI Baffer Decl. at para.6; see Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A29 n.45.  X4q114. ERROR2 ` ` In sum, we find that BellSouth has not adequately explained or supported its contention that the errors of competing carriers are the cause of its EDI interface's high rejection rate. Instead, the record evidence supports a finding that the high error rates are due, to a significant degree, to BellSouth's failure to meet its obligation to provide competing carriers with information and support concerning the effective use of the EDI interface. We also find that deficiencies in BellSouth's OSS access, such as the lack of integration between the pre-ordering and ordering functions, are contributing to competing carriers' high error rates. We find that the high rejection rate of BellSouth's EDI interface precludes competing carriers from obtaining nondiscriminatory access to ordering and provisioning functions. At the very least, these high rejection rates are evidence that the systems BellSouth has deployed still require considerable improvement before they may be used in a manner that provides  X 4nondiscriminatory access to competing carriers. Also, as explained below,RZ Zc {O'ԍSee infra part VI.B.4.b(1).R the high rejection rate is of major concern because BellSouth has failed to implement a timely and effective means to notify competing carriers of problems with their orders.  Xb'_` `  b.XBellSouth does not provide order status notices to competing carriers in substantially the same time and manner as it does for itself.(#  X4  X4r115. FOCS ` ` It is critical to a competing carrier's ability to compete through the use of resale services that it receive information concerning the status of its customers' orders in _substantially the same time and manner as the BOC provides such information to its retail  X4operations. In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission noted the importance of order status notices because they "allow competing carriers to monitor the status of their resale  X4orders and to track the orders both for their customers and their own records."[c {O2'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 186. Order status notices include, at a minimum, order receipt, order rejection, firm order confirmation (FOC), order jeopardy, and order completion. Competing carriers using resale to provide service to customers would be significantly disadvantaged if they were unable to provide their customers with such basic information concerning their telephone service. For example, because BellSouth does not confirm the date when the service ordered by the competing carrier will be installed until the delivery of the firm order confirmation (FOC) notice to the competing carrier, the competing carrier depends upon timely delivery of such notice in order to inform its customers of the time of service installation. This information becomes even more critical if the customer needs to coordinate the installation of service with other activities, such as a move to a new location. Similarly, if BellSouth does not provide timely notice to the competing carrier that service can no longer" AF[,>(>(IIb" be provided on the assigned due date, the competing carrier will not be able to make alternate arrangements with its customer. If the competing carrier is never informed by BellSouth of changes to the due date, the customer will be likely to blame the competing carrier for the failure to install service on time, even if the competing carrier is completely without fault.  X4s116.` ` Evidence in the record indicates that BellSouth is not providing order status notices to competing carriers in substantially the same time and manner that it provides them to itself. We find that, in particular, BellSouth is not providing order rejection notices, FOC notices, and order jeopardy notices in substantially the same time and manner as it does for its own retail services.  X '  X '` `  (1)hhCOrder Error and Rejection Notices  X 4 t117.` `  FACS1 Timely delivery of order rejection notices has a direct impact on a new entrant's ability to serve its customers, because new entrants cannot correct errors and  X 4resubmit orders until they are notified of their rejection by BellSouth.\ c {O 'ԍSee AT&T Comments, App., Vol. IX, Ex. J, Affidavit of C. Michael Pfau (AT&T Pfau Aff.) at para.42; MCI King Decl. at paras.13335. Instead of sending order rejection notices via its EDI interface, rejected orders are reviewed for errors by a BellSouth LCSC employee, and a written error rejection notice is then sent back to the new  Xb4entrant via facsimile.Z]b"c yO5'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at paras. 7577.Z New entrants contend that, in comparison, BellSouth provides  XK4electronic notification of order errors to its retail operations.$^ZKc yO'ԍMCI King Decl. at paras.13233. We believe that the BOC performs the functional equivalent of an  {Ov'error notice for itself even if it does not do so in an identical manner. Cf. Ameritech Michigan OrderĠat para. 139. $  X4u118.` ` The evidence in the record suggests two particular problems with BellSouth's manual notification process. First, the evidence indicates that BellSouth does not provide competing carriers with the notices in a timely manner. AT&T submits data for August 1997 that show BellSouth provided AT&T with order rejection notices within one hour of order  X4submission only six percent of the time.A_Zc yOF 'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para.204 & Attach. 42. AT&T states that, in its interconnection agreement, BellSouth agreed to use its best efforts to provide AT&T with an order rejection notice within one hour of order  {O!'submission. Id. at paras. 20304.A BellSouth, on the other hand, has supplied us with no comparative data indicating how long it takes BellSouth to receive the equivalent of an error notice for its own orders. However, there is evidence that BellSouth's retail operations, depending on where the error occurs in its systems, receive the equivalent of an error notice  Xe4between a few seconds to thirty minutes after entering an order.n`e c {O ''ԍFlorida Commission Section 271 Order at 16162, 16970.n In the Ameritech Michigan"eB `,>(>(IIq"  X4Order, the Commission stressed that, if the BOC performs an analogous activity for its retail operations, it needs to provide comparative information in its application to demonstrate its compliance with the nondiscriminatory standard in the Act. Because BellSouth has not provided us information on how long it takes its own representatives to receive notices of errors, we cannot determine from this record what the appropriate time would be for BellSouth's provision of order rejection notices to competing carriers to demonstrate parity. We are concerned, however, that BellSouth has consistently failed to meet the standard identified in its interconnection agreement with AT&T. We expect, BellSouth, therefore, to submit appropriate comparative data on the timeliness of error rejection notices to support any future claims that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.  X 4v119.` ` Second, competing carriers argue that BellSouth's failure to return error notices via the EDI interface creates additional delay in the ordering process, and that the error notices competitive carriers do receive are insufficient and inconsistent, often requiring further  X 4clarification from BellSouth.Ua c yO9'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 10204.U Competing carriers argue that the return of order rejection notices outside of the EDI interface creates additional delay in the ordering process due to their need to monitor facsimile machines, and route order rejection notices to appropriate  X{4personnel.vb{Xc {O'ԍId.; seeĠDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A23 n.36.v Competing carriers also contend that, because BellSouth's order rejection notices do not contain codes clearly identifying the nature of errors, competing carriers suffer from  XM4additional delays and errors caused by their need to interpret the order rejection notice.cMc yO'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 103 (competing carriers must interpret the BellSouth representative's handwritten description of the error); MCI Comments at 1315.  X4w120. ERROR3 ` ` We conclude that BellSouth's manual provision of order rejection notices to competing carriers via facsimile is not equivalent access to that which BellSouth provides its retail operations. BellSouth provides the equivalent of order rejection notices to its retail  X4operations through electronic ordering interfaces.wdBc {O'ԍSeeĠgenerally Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 169.w If a BOC provides itself with an electronic interface as a means to obtain access to a particular OSS function, it must provide  X4"equivalent electronic access for competing carriers."e$c {O1!'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 137; see Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1576667 ("[A]n incumbent that provisions network resources electronically does not discharge its obligation under section 251(c)(3) by offering competing providers access that involves human intervention, such as facsimilebased  {O#'ordering."); Local Competition Second Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19739. Compared to a BOC's use of an electronic interface, competing carriers using a manual process, such as facsimilebased ordering, are at a significant disadvantage. Manual processes, as discussed above, are generally less timely and more prone to errors than electronic interfaces. "PC e,>(>(IIh"Ԍ X4x121.` `  FACS2 BellSouth, however, contends that it did not include error notices in its EDI interface because the current version of the EDI standard which was approved by the OBF did  X4not include specifications for transmission of error notices.fc yOK'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 75. BellSouth states that its current EDI interface is compliant with  {O'Version 6.0 of the OBF EDI standard. Id. In its application, BellSouth states that it plans to provide error messages through the EDI interface when it implements  X4the next version of the EDI standard in the first quarter of 1998.g"c {Ow'ԍId. On reply, BellSouth states that it will provide an initial version of electronic error notification in November 1997. BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 47. In response, competing carriers assert that they have requested electronic notification of error messages from BellSouth, and that they proposed several alternative methods of providing such messages  X_4through the EDI interface.rh_|c yO 'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 102; MCI King Decl. at para. 131136.r AT&T states that BellSouth, in their interconnection agreement, had agreed to provide AT&T with electronic notification of rejection notices by March 31,  X141997.+iZ1 c {O'ԍAT&T Comments at 35; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 102; AT&T Pfau Aff. at para. 44; see BellSouth Application, App. B, Vol. 8, Tab 69, BellSouthAT&T Interconnection Agreement (June 2, 1997)  28.6.4 (BellSouthAT&T Interconnection Agreement).+ We therefore reject any contention by BellSouth that it was not obligated to provide electronic error notification because of a lack of industry standards. We have previously rejected arguments that a lack of industry standards excuses an incumbent LEC from meeting  X 4its obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.j . c {O'ԍSee Second Local Competition Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19738, 1974445. Nor do we believe that  X 4there is any technical obstacle to providing electronic error notification.hk c {OF'ԍSee Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15765.h We note that at least one other BOC, Ameritech, does provide electronic notification of error messages  X 4through an EDI interface.]l R c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 186.]  Xy'` `  (2)hhC Firm Order Confirmation Notices(#`  XK4 y122.` ` We also find that BellSouth is not providing firm order confirmation (FOC) notices on a timely basis. BellSouth states that a FOC notice is sent to competing carriers  X4over the EDI interface when an order has been accepted by BellSouth's SOCS system.Vmc yO#'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para.75.V In  X4the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that the retail analogue of a FOC notice occurs when an order placed by the BOC's retail operations is recognized as valid by"Dtm,>(>(II"  X4its internal OSS.bnc {Oy'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para 187 n.479.b The Commission concluded that the BOC needs to provide FOC notices to competing carriers in substantially the same time that its retail operations receive the retail  X4analogue.:oZc {O'ԍId.: The timely return of a FOC notice or an order rejection notice (discussed above) is critical to competing carriers, because the failure to receive either notice in a timely manner prevents competing carriers from providing the same level of service and information to their  X4customers that the BOC can provide to its retail customers.Lpc {O* 'ԍSee id. at para. 186.L As the Commission stated in  Xv4the Ameritech Michigan Order, "as long as a competing carrier has not received a FOC, the  Xa4competing carrier, as well as the customer, is unaware of the status of its order."Hqa~c {O 'ԍId. at para. 187.H Moreover, the FOC notice also performs the critical function of confirming the due date for  X34installation.VrX3c yO'ԍAs discussed in the pre-ordering section, because BellSouth does not provide a means for competing carriers to reserve due date intervals, due date information received in FOC notices becomes even more critical to competing carriers' ability to provide accurate information to their customers.V As noted in the preordering discussion below, the ability of new entrants to obtain due dates over the LENS preordering system with any degree of confidence is highly constrained. Thus, the first opportunity competing carriers may have to inform their customers of the due date is when the FOC notice is returned. Delays in the return of the FOC notice therefore delay a new entrant's ability to inform its customers when service will  X 4begin.as 0 c {O'ԍSee e.g., AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 202.a  X4z123.` ` BellSouth's application does not provide data on the timeliness of its delivery of FOC notices to competing carriers, or how long it takes to provide the equivalent  Xd4information to its retail operations. In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission  XO4directed Ameritech to provide such information in subsequent applications.]tO c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan OrderĠat para. 187.] BellSouth states that it intends to measure the time to deliver FOC notices to competing carriers, but that such  X!4data were not available when it filed its application.gu!T c yO&"'ԍBellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Aff. at para. 43.g AT&T contends, however, that BellSouth had already provided AT&T with data on delivery of FOC notices for the month of  X4August, and that BellSouth should have provided such data in its application.Yvc yO%'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para.199 & n.113.Y BellSouth does not dispute that it provided such data to AT&T and not to us, but claims instead that data on the delivery of FOC notices in the aggregate are meaningless, given the different"Etv,>(>(II" performance standards for the return of FOC notices in individual interconnection  X4agreements.mwc yOb'ԍBellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Reply Aff. at para. 12.m  X4{124.` ` Evidence submitted by AT&T shows that, for 38 percent of the orders it submitted in August, BellSouth took longer than 24 hours to return a FOC notice, the time  X4that BellSouth agreed to in its interconnection agreement with AT&T.xXc yO'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at 97, Attach. 42. AT&T's interconnection agreement requires BellSouth to  {O^ 'provide FOC notices in 24 hours. See BellSouthAT&T Interconnection Agreement  28.5.3. AT&T argues that BellSouth's actual performance is probably worse than demonstrated by these statistics because BellSouth did not include information on those orders BellSouth processed  XH4manually..yXHc yO 'ԍAT&T Comments at 34. BellSouth acknowledges that it only includes those orders that flow through without human intervention in its measure of FOC timeliness. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff., Ex. WNS52 (Local Competition Operational Readiness Report) at 128.. As we noted above, the vast majority of orders to date have required manual intervention by BellSouth to complete order processing. LCI states that it received only ten percent of its FOC notices from BellSouth within 24 hours of submitting an order, and that on  X 4average it has taken seven days from submission of an order to receive a FOC notice.z c yO'ԍLCI Comments, App., Tab 3, Declaration of Beth Rausch (LCI Rausch Decl.) at paras. 47. Intermedia contends that BellSouth has consistently missed its commitment to provide a FOC  X 4notice within 48 hours of order submission.K{ b c yO'ԍIntermedia Comments at 23.K Intermedia states that it never received a FOC notice for 37 percent of the orders it submitted to BellSouth between August 9 and October 7,  X 41997.:| c {OJ'ԍId.:  Xy4|125.` ` We conclude that, because BellSouth has failed to provide data comparing its delivery of FOC notices to competing carriers with how long it takes BellSouth's retail operations to receive the equivalent of a FOC notice for its own orders, BellSouth has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory access. In the  X4Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission specifically requested that BOCs provide information on how long it takes them to provide the equivalent of a FOC notice to their  X4retail operations.]} c {O&#'ԍAmeritech Michigan OrderĠat para. 187.] BellSouth has simply failed to provide any data on its performance of this activity. We are also not persuaded by BellSouth's arguments that it should not provide data on its delivery of FOC notices to competing carriers because it has agreed to different performance intervals in its interconnection agreements. We find that BellSouth should present the data and then it may make such arguments to explain or clarify why aggregate"F},>(>(II" data may not be useful given differing performance intervals in its interconnection  X4agreements.L~c {Ob'ԍSee id. at para. 170.L In addition to providing aggregate data, BellSouth may also disaggregate its data to account for the impact of different performance intervals in its interconnection agreements. Regardless of the targets agreed to in its interconnection agreements, in order to obtain section 271 authorization, BellSouth must demonstrate that it meets its obligations to provide competing carriers with nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, including the provision of order status notices such as FOC notices.  XH4}126.` ` We reiterate that, for a BOC to demonstrate compliance with the nondiscriminatory standard of the Act, it must provide data for both its provision of FOC notices to competing carriers and the time it takes its retail operation to receive the equivalent of a FOC notice. Moreover, we conclude, based on the evidence submitted by AT&T, LCI, and Intermedia, evidence which is not refuted by BellSouth, that BellSouth is not providing competing carriers FOC notices on a timely basis.  X 4~127.` ` In its reply comments, BellSouth asserts that, after receiving a properly  X4formatted order, it generally provides a firm order confirmation within 24 hours.\Zc yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 56.\ As evidence, BellSouth states on reply that, for the week ending October 19, 1997, BellSouth provided to ACSI 68 percent of its FOC notices within 24 hours, and for the week ending October 12, 1997, BellSouth provided to Sprint 86 percent of its FOC notices within 24  X44hours.:4c {O'ԍId.: BellSouth contends that competing carriers that are not receiving FOC notices  X4within 24 hours are not formatting their orders correctly.S|c yOJ'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 4546.S  X4128.` ` We are not persuaded by this new evidence. First, BellSouth's evidence presents data concerning BellSouth activity after the date of its application, and indeed, to  X4some extent, postdates the time that comments were filed._ c {O~'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 4951._ Evidence that concerns BellSouth's postapplication performance is not demonstrative of its performance at the time of the application. Therefore, we will give this evidence no weight. Second, even if we were to consider the evidence, we would not find these data to be persuasive. Instead of providing evidence of BellSouth's performance for all carriers, BellSouth provides only a selected week's data on its performance for two carriers. Moreover, the evidence in the record indicates that neither Sprint nor ACSI is using the EDI interface upon which BellSouth relies to provide ordering functions on a nondiscriminatory basis. BellSouth provides no evidence to refute the information provided by AT&T, LCI, and Intermedia. Furthermore, we are" G,>(>(II" troubled by BellSouth's assertion that its performance for ACSI is in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirement of the Act, given that BellSouth missed its own 24 hour standard in approximately one third of the cases. Finally, we are not convinced, as BellSouth asserts, that competing carrier errors are directly responsible for BellSouth's failure to provide timely FOC notices. Competing carrier orders that are truly in error should receive timely order rejection notices, not untimely FOC notices. Further, as discussed above, we find that BellSouth has not provided evidence or explanation to support its contention that most errors in the ordering process are caused by new entrants. To the extent that such errors cause orders to drop to manual processing and in turn delay the return of a FOC notice to the competing carrier, it is unacceptable for BellSouth to place all of the responsibility for such delays on the competing carrier.  X 4129.` ` Finally, we are concerned that BellSouth has not included orders that require manual processing in its data on the return of FOC notices to competing carriers. It is those orders that are processed manually that are the most susceptible to delays and errors due to  X 4human intervention.L c {O 'ԍSee id. at para. 173.L We would expect BellSouth, in a future application, to submit comparative data for FOC notices, including data for those orders manually processed, that  Xy4support its claim to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.HyZc {O'ԍId. at para. 187.H  XK' ` `  (3)hhCOrder Jeopardy Notices  X4130.` ` After a competing carrier has received a FOC notice with a committed due date for the installation of a customer's service, it is critical that the BOC provide the competing  X4carrier with timely notice if the BOC, for any reason, can no longer meet that due date.^c {O'ԍSee, e.g.,MCI Comments at 1618.^ These notices are called order jeopardy notices. The failure to meet scheduled due dates is likely to have a significant competitive impact on new entrants' ability to compete, regardless of whether the delay is actually caused by the BOC. To the extent that the BOC does not provide timely order jeopardy notices to the competing carrier, the impact of missed due dates will be compounded by the inability of the competing carrier proactively to inform its customer and reschedule the time for service installation.  X74131. ORDPROB2 ` ` Evidence in the record shows that BellSouth is not providing order jeopardy notices to competing carriers when the due date cannot be met because of delays caused by  X 4BellSouth. ~c yO8%'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A23; LCI Baffer Decl., Ex. A at 2. We understand that BellSouth separates order jeopardy notices into those that are caused by competing carriers or their customers, and those that are caused by BellSouth"H,>(>(II"  X4itself.c {Oy'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para 47; see MCI King Decl. at paras. 137140. BellSouth provides competing carriers with notice of those order jeopardies caused  X4by the competing carrier or its customer, but not for delays caused by BellSouth."Zc {O'ԍSee MCI King Decl. at para. 13739. In addition, BellSouth provides this limited jeopardy notice via facsimile. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 77. As stated above in our discussion of order rejection notices, such a manual process does not provide competing carriers with equivalent access when BellSouth provides electronic notification to itself. When BellSouth cannot meet a committed due date, it is critical that the competing carrier be informed in a timely manner so that it can contact its customer in order to schedule another due date. We therefore find that, because BellSouth fails to provide order jeopardy notices for those delays caused by BellSouth, it is not providing competing carriers with nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. X(#  XH' ` `  c. Need to Provide Actual Installation Intervals (# ` `  X 4132.` `  INST1 Our requirement that a BOC demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to the various systems that comprise OSS serves to ensure that a competing carrier can provide service to its customers, using the BOC's resold service, in substantially the same time and manner that the BOC provides to its own retail customers. This concern is driven by the fact that the competing carrier's ability to provide timely service to its end user customers is, in large measure, dependent on the ability of the BOC to process competing carriers' orders for resale in a timely manner. Therefore, a critical measure of parity is whether the time required for a competing carrier's customer to receive service is substantially the same as the amount of time for a BOC to provide retail service to a customer. In the  XK4Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that a BOC's submission of data showing average installation intervals for both resale and retail services is fundamental to  X4demonstrating nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions.hDc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 16667, 17071.h The Commission stated that such data are direct evidence of whether a BOC takes substantially the same time to complete installations for new entrants as it does for its own retail operations, which is integral to the  X4concept of equivalent access.|c {Oa'ԍId.; see also Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A34.|  X4133.` ` To demonstrate parity in its provision of resale services, BellSouth initially  X4provided two performance measurements.h . yO#'ԍAs discussed below, BellSouth provided an additional measure, "issue date to completion date," on reply. The first measure, the "percentage of provisioning appointments met," shows how often BellSouth meets the due dates it has"I ,>(>(II" assigned to itself and how often BellSouth meets the due dates it has assigned to new  X4entrants.:. {Oy'ԍSee BellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Aff. at paras. 1920 & WNS1. BellSouth began providing data concerning its region-wide performance for this measurement in February of this year, and for its performance in South Carolina, beginning in July. BellSouth separates this data in two ways. It provides separate data for residential and business services, and it provides separate data for those orders that require the  {O'dispatch of a technician and those that do not. Id., Ex. WNS1.: The second measure, labeled "service order intervals," shows the average length of the due date assigned by BellSouth's SOCS system to both BellSouth's retail orders and  X4new entrants' resale orders.&. {O'ԍSee id. at paras. 5253. BellSouth states that it is providing this measure in response to discussions with  {O 'the Department of Justice, but that it will not provide this data on an ongoing basis. Id. The service order interval measure shows how many orders were assigned a due date of one day, two days, three days, four days,  {OC 'five days, and over five days. Id., Ex. WNS10.  XQ4134.` ` We conclude that these measures are not sufficient to demonstrate parity. First, both measures only begin their analysis once an order has cleared BellSouth's SOCS systems. By beginning the interval at the time the order clears BellSouth's SOCS system, rather then when the order is first submitted, these measures fail to capture the delays in order processing  X4time caused by the high order rejection rates discussed above.PZ. {O'ЍSee Department of Justice Evaluation, App., Ex. 3, Affidavit of Michael J. Friduss (Department of Justice Friduss Aff.) at para. 60 (the average [installation] interval "is very visible to end users and highly correlates with their perception of their service provider").P In addition, BellSouth's measures do not provide information on the time it takes BellSouth actually to install service. Rather, they simply measure whether assigned due dates have been met. They may thus mask discriminatory treatment of competing carriers' orders. As explained by the Department of Justice: XFundamentally, a report that shows the side of the line on which an order falls, either met or missed, does not reveal where it is in the range. As to provisioning appointments met, if all CLEC customers receive service on the due date while all BellSouth retail customers receive service in half the scheduled time, then a report of provisioning appointments met will show parity of performance, not revealing the discriminatory difference in performance between BellSouth and the CLEC. Likewise, as to provisioning appointments missed, if all BellSouth retail customers receive service after one additional day while all CLEC customers receive service after five additional days, then a report of provisioning appointments met will again show parity  X4of performance and fail to reveal the discriminatory difference.t . {O"'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A34 to A35.t(# We agree with the Department of Justice and therefore conclude that the measurements provided by BellSouth can mask discriminatory conduct, because they do not permit a direct  X,4comparison to BellSouth's retail performance.k,A . {O''ԍId., App. A at A34; AT&T Pfau Aff. at paras. 2021.k The Commission noted similar concerns",J,>(>(II"  X4with the measurements Ameritech submitted in its section 271 application for Michigan.a. {Oy'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras. 16471.a Although we believe that BellSouth's current measurements do provide some useful information, without data that meaningfully compares the average installation intervals for BellSouth's resale and retail services, we are unable to conclude that BellSouth is providing access to OSS functions on a nondiscriminatory basis.  X.4135.` `  AVER In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission clearly stated that a section 271 application, as originally filed, must include all of the factual evidence on which the  X4applicant would have the Commission rely in making its findings.^Z. {O 'ԍId. at para. 153; see Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications  {O 'Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 971, Order,  {O '12 FCC Rcd 3309, 3318 (Ameritech Michigan February 7th Order); December 6th Public Notice at 2. Nonetheless, on reply, BellSouth, for the first time, proposes another performance measure. This measure shows  X4data on the average interval from "issue date to completion date."h. yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Reply Aff., Ex. 2.h Specifically, the measurement tracks the average interval from the time that BellSouth's SOCS system accepts  X^ 4the competing carrier's order as valid (i.e., it is not rejected) to the time of actual completion  X= 4of service installation by BellSouth.t= . {O'ԍId., Ex. 2; see BellSouth Nov. 17, 1997 Ex Parte.t The data provided by BellSouth for this measure  X 4concern activity that occurred after the date of BellSouth's application.h . yOm'ԍBellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Reply Aff., Ex. 2.h We find that BellSouth's submission of information concerning average installation intervals in its reply comments to be procedurally and substantively inadequate. First, BellSouth's presentation of new evidence on reply does not provide commenters a fair opportunity for review. Moreover, the data concern BellSouth activity after the date it filed its application. Under our procedures governing section 271 applications, a BOC may provide information that postdates the filing of its application if the information is necessary to respond directly to  X%4arguments or factual information submitted by commenters.}%2 . {O'ԍSee discussion supra paras.  EVID139 ש EVID245 .} The Department of Justice and other parties that commented on BellSouth's failure to provide data showing actual installation intervals, however, did not do so in a manner that raised issues with BellSouth's performance after the date of its application. In fact, it is specifically BellSouth's performance at the time of its application that is at issue. Therefore we will give this evidence no weight.  XS4136.` ` Even if we were to consider BellSouth's evidence, it would not be persuasive. Although BellSouth's data may in fact measure the time between the "issue date" and the "completion date," that is, when service is actually installed, this interval is still an inadequate measure. This is because, like the measurement originally submitted by BellSouth, it only measures the interval from when the order clears BellSouth's systems rather than when the"K ,>(>(II_" order was originally submitted by the competing carrier. Thus, BellSouth's measurement, like the measurements it provided in its initial application, does not capture the time, if any, that elapses between when a new entrant first sends an order to BellSouth, and when that order is accepted as valid by BellSouth's SOCS system. As explained above, the evidence demonstrates that there are significant delays in BellSouth's processing of orders. By measuring the interval from a point in time where BellSouth has already completed its processing of the order, BellSouth's measurement fails to capture the delays in order processing that are a central problem with its OSS functions. Therefore, BellSouth measurements may vastly understate the difference between when a BellSouth representative submits a retail order and BellSouth actually provides the service, as compared to when a  X4competing carrier representative initially submits a resale order and service is provided.s. {O 'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A34 & n.52.s  X\ 4137.` ` We believe that a far more meaningful measure of parity is one that measures the interval from when BellSouth first receives an order to when service is installed. From a customer's perspective, what is important is the average length of time it takes from when the customer first contacts the carrier for service to when that service is provided. From a customer's perspective this period of time is a crucial point of comparison between the incumbent's performance and the competing carrier's performance. The most competitively significant performance measures are those that describe the "endtoend quality of service  Xg4from the customer's viewpoint."wgZ. yOr'ԍDepartment of Justice Friduss Aff. at para.22 (emphasis in original).w If the customer calls BellSouth on day one and receives service on day five, for example, the customer will expect comparable performance from the competing carrier. The customer is not likely to care if a competing carrier's inability to provide service within a comparable time is not the competing carrier's fault but rather is due to the incumbent LEC's delays in processing the competing carrier's order. Ideally then, one would want a measurement of the time between a customer's initial contact with a carrier and the installation of service. It would not be practical, however, for BellSouth to ascertain when a competing carrier is first contacted by a customer. A reasonable surrogate for when a customer first contacts a competing carrier would be when the competing carrier first submits  X.4an order to BellSouth, i.e., when the competing carrier's order first crosses the OSS interface used for ordering. The end of the interval should be when service is actually installed. Thus, we conclude that the most meaningful average installation interval measure would be the average interval from when BellSouth first receives an order from a competing carrier to when BellSouth provisions the service for that order. This can then be compared with the average time from when BellSouth's own service representatives first submit an order for service to when BellSouth completes provision of the service for its retail customers. Such a measure would expose any delays in the processing of orders. We expect BellSouth to provide such a measure in future applications.  X 4138.` ` We recognize that the length of the average installation interval provided for resale and retail orders can be influenced by such variables as the mix and complexity of services ordered by the competing carrier and the possibility that the competing carrier's customers may not choose to receive service on the first date available for service installation. "i#L,>(>(II#"  X4In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that these issues did not justify the withholding of information on average installation intervals by the BOC, but rather went  X4to the weight the Commission should attach to the information.]. {O5'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 170.] The Commission concluded that the BOC could provide information to explain such variables and how they might affect  Xv4the measurement.:vZ. {O'ԍId.: The Commission further explained that: X[The BOC] can and should exclude from its data those customers who requested due dates beyond the first available due date. In addition, [the BOC] can and should disaggregate its data to account for the impact different types of services may have on the average installation interval. Moreover, [the BOC] is free to use data on due dates not met to explain any inconsistencies between the average installation intervals for itself and other carriers. For example, if a particular competing carrier consistently requests a standard, longer interval for completion of all of its orders, rather than the first available installation date, such data may explain that any differences in the average installation intervals between [the BOC] and the other carrier are not due to  X 4discriminatory conduct on the part of [the BOC].X . {O'ԍId. (internal citations omitted).X(#  X4139.` ` We also expect BellSouth to provide data that will permit us to determine the average interval from when BellSouth first receives an order to when BellSouth sends an order completion notice to the competing carrier. There should not be a material difference in time between the actual installation of service and the competing carrier's receipt of an order completion notice. As we explained above, the receipt of order status notices, including order completion notices, is critical to a competing carrier's ability to monitor orders for resale service both for its own records and in order to provide information to its end user customers. The receipt of the order completion notice is particularly important because it provides the competing carrier with notice that it has begun providing service to its new customer. Therefore, in addition, we expect BellSouth to provide information that shows it is providing competing carriers with timely receipt of order completion notices.  X 4140.` `  INST2 For the reasons discussed above, we find that BellSouth's performance measures do not provide sufficient evidence for us to determine whether it is providing nondiscriminatory access to the ordering and provisioning of resale services.  X'#Xj\  P6G;+XP#.XX` ` X d.XOSS Functions for Ordering and Provisioning of Unbundled  X\'Network Elements (#  X4141.` ` We do not base our decision on BellSouth's OSS functions for ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements, although we have a number of concerns relating .to these OSS functions. Because competing carriers have used BellSouth's EDI ordering interface primarily for the ordering and provisioning of resale services, we focus our"!M~,>(>(II!" discussion in this section on the OSS functions associated with the ordering and provisioning  X4of resale services.V. yOV'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 58.V We emphasize, however, that BellSouth must also be able to demonstrate that it is offering nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions so as to enable competing carriers to submit orders for and obtain unbundled network elements in a timely manner. A section 271 applicant must demonstrate that the OSS functions that it has deployed adequately support each of the modes of entry envisioned by the Act:  X.4interconnection, use of unbundled network elements, and resale.].X. {O7 'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 133.] A BOC therefore does not meet its obligations under section 271 of the Act until it demonstrates that its OSS functions for ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements, as well as for resale, comply  X4with the nondiscrimination requirements of the Act.P. {O` 'ԍSee id at paras. 159161.P For those OSS functions that have no retail analogue, such as ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements, a BOC must demonstrate that the access it provides to competing carriers offers an efficient  X\ 4competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.\ |. {O'ԍId. at para. 141; see Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15660; Local Competition Second  {OS'Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1974243.  X 4142.` ` As noted above, competing carriers have primarily used BellSouth's EDI interface for the ordering and provisioning of resale services. At the time of its application, BellSouth stated that no competing carriers were submitting orders for unbundled network elements through the EDI interface, although several carriers indicated their interest in using  X4EDI.. yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 58; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 9; Sprint Closz Aff. at paras. 3940; WorldCom Comments, App., Declaration of Gary Ball (WorldCom Ball Decl.) at para. 5. Because there has been no commercial usage of the EDI interface for ordering unbundled network elements, BellSouth submits evidence of internal testing to demonstrate that it offers nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions for  {O3'ordering and provisioning unbundled network elements. See BellSouth Milner Aff. at paras. 59; BellSouth Milner Aff., Ex. WKM1; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 58. As competing carriers transition to using EDI, BellSouth's preferred ordering interface, we are concerned that competing carriers may face the same problems with the EDI interface that carriers have experienced with orders for resale. These problems include high  X!4rejection rates and untimely order status notices.!R . {O$!'ԍSee discussion supra paras. ORDPROB1104שORDPROB2131. We will examine carefully, in future applications, any allegations of similar problems with orders for unbundled network elements.  X4143.` ` We are also concerned about the level of manual processing involved in the ordering and provisioning of unbundled network elements. BellSouth states that competing carriers can use the EDI interface to place an order for a loop, port (switching), interim"rN,>(>(II"  X4number portability (INP), and a loop combined with INP.V. yOy'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 59.V At the time BellSouth filed its application, orders placed through the EDI interface for these elements were processed  X4manually by the LCSC.X. {O'ԍId.; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 184; MCI King Decl. at paras. 11516, 119. Several carriers contend that BellSouth's reliance on manual processing for these orders causes a significant increase in the time necessary to process these  Xt4orders and can lead to errors.t. yO 'ԍACSI Comments at 47; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 184; MCI King Decl. at para. 130; WorldCom  {O 'Ball Aff. at paras. 56. See generally Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 17299. Competing carriers also assert that the LCSCs do not have adequate resources to process orders manually and support the provisioning of unbundled  X.4network elements..D. yO# 'ԍACSI Comments at 28; Intermedia Comments at 2937; LCI Comments at 6 & App., Tab 2, Declaration of Albert D. Witbrodt (LCI Witbrodt Decl.) at para. 6.  X4144.` ` BellSouth contends that it implemented mechanized order processing for the  X4four types of unbundled network elements described above on October 6, 1997.EX. yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 58; BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 51. BellSouth asserts that manual processing was sufficient for the low volume of unbundled network element orders placed by competing carriers up to early October. BellSouth Reply Comments at 45.E Although we commend BellSouth for taking steps to improve the efficiency of its systems, we note that implementation of mechanized processing of orders for these unbundled network elements was  X\ 4instituted after the date BellSouth filed its application.q\\ . {O'ԍConsistent with the Commission's decision in the Ameritech Michigan Order, we must analyze BellSouth's operations support system at the time of the application. Given the statutory time constraints, we do  {O['not consider postfiling measures. See Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 15253.q We expect that, in any future application, BellSouth will provide a detailed explanation of the actions it has undertaken, as of the date of filing, to transition to an automated process, and will demonstrate that it is able to process orders for and provision unbundled network elements in a timely and accurate  X 4manner at both current and projected levels of demand from competing carriers.L . {Oa'ԍSee id. at para. 161.L  X4145.` ` An additional concern is whether BellSouth has deployed the necessary OSS functions to allow competing carriers to order unbundled network elements in a manner that allows them to be combined. As part of its duty to offer nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements, BellSouth must demonstrate that it offers such elements in a  X4manner that allows new entrants to combine them to provide a telecommunications service.r. yO!%'ԍFor a discussion of whether BellSouth offers nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements,  {O%'see infra part VI.C; see also Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order.  X4As the Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, deploying the necessary OSS"O,>(>(II" functions that allow competing carriers to order unbundled network elements is critical to  X4provisioning those network elements.]. {OV'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 160.]  X4146.` ` BellSouth states that, although it will generally deliver unbundled network elements to a new entrant's collocation space, it will continue to offer certain elements in combination, because, as BellSouth notes, some of these elements technically cannot be  X.4separated.2Z.Z. {O9 'ԍSee infra para.  UNE4191 ; see also BellSouth Reply Comments, App. A, Tab 9, Reply Affidavit of Alphonso J. Varner (BellSouth Varner Reply Aff.) at para.21 (listing unbundled network elements that BellSouth will provide in combination).2 BellSouth, however, submits no evidence of its ability to provide OSS functions that support the ordering and provisioning of these combinations of network elements. Indeed, BellSouth states in its affidavits that: XThe changes BellSouth would have to make to our electronic interfaces to accommodate [unbundled network element (UNE)] combinations would include modifying them to accept a new UNE order type, and substantial inventory and billing changes, which would be required to allow the systems to provision UNE combinations as resale (since they replicate resale services), but inventory  X 4and bill them as UNEs.V |. yO 'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 60.V  BellSouth further indicates that it has not yet undertaken development of OSS that could  X4process orders for combinations of network elements.: . {OG'ԍId.: In addition, we are troubled by allegations in the record with respect to BellSouth's ability to coordinate orders for separate  XD4unbundled network elements so that a carrier may combine them.xD. yO'ԍA number of carriers contend that BellSouth has not adequately coordinated the cutover of loops with competing carriers, and, as a result, customers have had their service disrupted for significant periods of time. ACSI Comments at 3132 & App. A, Tab 1, Affidavit of James C. Falvey (ACSI Falvey Aff.) at para. 32; ALTS Comments at 2425; Sprint Closz Aff. at paras. 6574; WorldCom Comments at 8; WorldCom Ball Decl. at para. 18. When a competing carrier orders a loop and unbundled local switching, the new entrant and BellSouth would need to coordinate these orders and the cutover of the loop so that the new entrant's customer does not lose service for a long period of time. We expect that, in future applications, BellSouth will submit evidence to demonstrate that both individual network elements and those elements that BellSouth offers in combination can be ordered and provisioned in an efficient, accurate, and timely manner, and that its operations support"P,>(>(II]" systems are designed to accommodate both current and projected demand for unbundled  X4network elements and combinations of unbundled network elements.$. yOV'ԍAs discussed below, although the Commission's rules do not require BellSouth to offer combinations of  {O'unbundled network elements, BellSouth states that it offers certain network elements in combination. See infra  {O'para.  UNE4191 ; see also BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para.21 (listing unbundled network elements that BellSouth will provide in combination).  X'QXX` ` 5.X Analysis of PreOrdering Functions (#  XQ4147.` ` The Commission's rules define preordering and ordering collectively as "the exchange of information between telecommunications carriers about current or proposed Qcustomer products and services or unbundled network elements or some combination  X4thereof."E. yOM 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.5.E Preordering generally includes those activities that a carrier undertakes with a customer to gather and confirm the information necessary to formulate an accurate order for that customer. As several parties point out, new entrants need access to information about an incumbent's network and the availability of products, services, and features to interact with their customers and obtain the information needed to place an order for the services the  X9 4customer desires.9 D. yO.'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 22; MCI King Decl. at para. 39; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 10. BellSouth states that it provides the following functions as part of its preordering: "(1) street address validation; (2) telephone number information; (3) services and features information; (4) due date information; and (5) customer service record  X 4information."U . yOU'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 5.U  X4148.` ` The Commission determined in the Ameritech Michigan Order that the OSS functions for preordering of resale services are analogous to the preordering of a BOC's  XF4retail services.]Fd . {O['ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 140.] As a result, the Commission concluded that BOCs must provide to competing carriers access to OSS functions for preordering of resale services equivalent to  X4the access provided to their retail operations in terms of quality, accuracy, and timeliness.L . {O'ԍId. at paras. 13940.L Because new entrants providing service through unbundled network elements need access to much of the same preordering information and functions as a carrier providing service through resale, BOCs must also provide access to OSS functions for preordering of unbundled network elements that is equivalent to the access provided to their retail operations.  X.4149.` ` As discussed above, BellSouth currently provides access to preordering  X 4functions through its LENS interface.m  . {OD''ԍSee discussion supra para. LENSDESC91.m BellSouth states that LENS "is an interactive system" Q,>(>(II"  X4that allows the CLEC direct, realtime access to BellSouth's preordering OSSs."M. yOy'ԍBellSouth Application at 24.M BellSouth further contends that it "is 'providing nondiscriminatory access to all OSS [preordering]  X4functions, as required by the Act.'"AX. {O'ԍId. at 26.A  Xt4150.` ` Commenters generally assert that BellSouth's provision of access to its OSS functions for preordering is not equivalent to the OSS access it provides to itself. Several commenters claim that the fundamental defect with BellSouth's operations support systems for preordering is that, unlike a machinetomachine interface, LENS allows new entrants to access information, but does not allow them to transfer information electronically to their  X4operations support systems or to BellSouth's EDI interface for ordering.. {O` 'ԍFor a discussion of this issue, see infra paras. INTEGR1152שINTEGR2166. As a result, new entrants must take an extra step between the preordering and ordering processes that BellSouth does not face in the case of its own retail operation, thereby increasing the likelihood of errors and delay for new entrants but not for BellSouth's retail operation. Commenters also dispute BellSouth's assessment that it provides substantially equivalent access to particular preordering functions, and that BellSouth's preordering interface is operationally ready.  X4151.` ` As discussed below, we conclude that BellSouth does not offer nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, because: (1) BellSouth has prevented competing carriers from connecting LENS electronically to their operations support systems and to the EDI ordering interface, and (2) BellSouth does not provide equivalent access to due dates for service installation. These deficiencies in BellSouth's offer of access to OSS functions place competitors at a significant disadvantage. We further address, but do not resolve as a decisional ground for denying BellSouth's application, concerns raised in the record about certain other OSS functions for preordering. In particular, we address access to telephone numbers and allegations in the record that certain functions require a competing carrier to take additional steps to obtain the same information as BellSouth's retail representatives. We do not base our decision on these issues, because there is inadequate evidence in the record for us to assess the impact on competing carriers of the differences between LENS and the preordering systems used by BellSouth's retail operations. All of the foregoing issues concern the first part of our inquiry, whether the BOC has deployed the necessary systems and interfaces to provide sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions. We are also concerned, however, about the operational readiness of BellSouth's OSS functions for preordering, the second part of our inquiry. We therefore highlight several issues relating to the operational readiness of BellSouth's preordering interface, although we do not base our decision on these issues, because there is inadequate evidence in the record for us to determine the extent of these operational readiness problems. "R|,>(>(II? "Ԍ X'QXX` ` X a.XLack of Equivalent Access in General (#  X4152.` `  INTEGR1 As discussed above, BellSouth's preordering interface for new entrants, LENS, is a proprietary terminaltype interface that uses a browser software program to retrieve  Xt4Qinformation from a BellSouth server.[t. {O'ԍSee supra para. LENSDESC91. We note that BellSouth, pursuant to its interconnection agreement with AT&T, is developing a machinetomachine interface for preordering, ECLite, that is scheduled to be available at the end  {O'of December 1997. See BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 42 & Ex. WNS21. We do not consider this  {OI'interface in this application because it was not offered at the time BellSouth filed its application. See Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A10 to A11.[ Several carriers, both large and small, and the  XQ4Department of Justice contend that, unlike a machinetomachine interface,ZQ~. yO 'ԍA machinetomachine interface allows a new entrant to connect its operations support systems electronically to BellSouth's systems. Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 4. BellSouth is deploying a  {O 'machinetomachine EDI interface for ordering, as discussed above. See discussion supra para. EDIDESC92.  competing carriers are unable to connect LENS electronically to their operations support systems or to  X 4the separate EDI ordering interface.z . yO\'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A10 to A14; ALTS Comments, Attach. C, Affidavit of Steven D. Moses on behalf of DeltaCom (ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 10; AT&T Comments at 26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 27; Intermedia Comments at 20; LCI Comments at 2; MCI Comments at 2426; MCI King Decl. at para. 43 & n.5; Sprint Comments at 1213; Sprint Closz Aff. at paras. 44, 50. As discussed above, although LENS may be used for ordering certain services, BellSouth claims that EDI is the primary interface for ordering and relies on its EDI interface to demonstrate compliance with the section 271  {O 'requirements. See supra paras. EDIDESC92שLENSORDER94. A new entrant can access the EDI interface either through its own  {O'operations support systems or through a software package developed by BellSouth, PCEDI. See supra para. EDIDESC92. Thus, if a new entrant were able to connect its operations support systems electronically to LENS, the new entrant could also connect LENS to the EDI interface.z Instead, they contend that competing carriers must copy the information from the LENS screen and manually reenter it into their operations support systems and into the EDI ordering interface, which leads to increased costs, delays,  X4and human errors.l <. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A10 to A14; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at paras. 1011; AT&T Comments at 26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 27; Intermedia Comments at 20; LCI Comments at 2; MCI Comments at 2426; MCI King Decl. at para. 43; Sprint Comments at 1213; Sprint Closz Aff. at paras. 44, 50. l As a result, these parties claim that LENS places competing carriers at a significant competitive disadvantage. Moreover, several of these parties argue that BellSouth has impeded the efforts of new entrants that have sought to use alternative methods that  X9 4would enable them to connect LENS to their systems.9 $. yO"'ԍALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 12; AT&T Comments at 2627; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 29, 3347; MCI Comments at 2829; MCI King Decl. at paras. 4850. " S|,>(>(II "Ԍ X4153.` ` BellSouth, on the other hand, contends that "preordering interactions with a CLEC using LENS are indistinguishable from preordering interactions with BellSouth,  X4regardless of whether LENS meets the definition of a machine to machine interface.". yO3'ԍTestimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 267. BellSouth further claims that, for a carrier that uses LENS for preordering and EDI for ordering, "the integration of preordering and ordering data is the responsibility of the  XQ4CLEC."VQ . yO" 'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 61.V In particular, BellSouth claims that competing carriers can use the following methods to connect LENS electronically to their operations support systems to avoid manually  X 4reentering data obtained from LENS: (1) use of Common Gateway Interface (CGI);s . yOl 'ԍBellSouth describes CGI as a "specification for communicating data between an information server, such as the LENS server, and another independent application, such as a CLEC operations support system." BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 44. BellSouth characterizes CGI as "an alternative for those CLECs who want to develop their own presentation systems for use with BellSouth's data." AT&T Bradbury Aff., Attach. 7,  {O'BellSouth's Report to the Georgia Public Service Commission, Electronic Interfaces for the New Local Market (Apr. 15, 1997) at 9. s or (2) development of a software program to extract the data underlying each LENS screen, a  X4process some parties refer to as "HTML parsing."* . yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 43; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 19192. Each LENS screen contains data and computer code. This method involves separating the data from the computer code, identifying the type of information in each  {O'data field (e.g., customer name, address, current service), and then transferring the data to the appropriate place  {O'in a competing carrier's operations support systems or in the EDI ordering interface. See BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 43; MCI King Decl. at paras. 4950. As a third method to avoid the need to retype data, BellSouth contends that competing carriers could "cut and paste" the information from LENS "into any other computer application that supports 'cut and paste,' including  X\ 4Microsoft Windows."vZ\ . yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 43. To use this method, a new entrant would highlight separate fields of data that appear on different LENS screens, copy the data, and then paste each field of data in another  {OC'interface. See Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A13; MCI King Decl. at 44.v This latter process is similar to cutting and pasting text from one document into another.  X 4154.` ` We note that, whereas the South Carolina Commission did not expressly  X 4address this issue in its Compliance Order, the Florida Commission recently found the lack of integration to be a significant flaw in BellSouth's OSS functions for preordering, because LENS requires manual handling of data, while BellSouth's retail systems, RNS and DOE,  Xi4fully integrate the preordering and ordering functions.$i. {O$'ԍFlorida Commission Section 271 Order at 8384; cf. South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 3435. As discussed above, BellSouth has deployed the same operations support systems for use throughout its region. Thus, the systems reviewed by the Florida Commission are the same as those used in South Carolina.  {O<''See discussion supra para. REGION100. The public staff of the North"iT,>(>(II" Carolina Commission, in its proposed order, did not consider this lack of integration to be significant, stating that "[a]ll that the [competing carriers] have to do is to electronically copy LENS information and electronically paste it into their EDI and EXACT interfaces a task no more complex than cutting data from one computer data screen and pasting it to  Xt4another."ht. {O'ԍNorth Carolina Public Staff Proposed Order at 28.h  X.4155.` ` For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the evidence in the record indicates BellSouth has impeded competing carriers' efforts to connect LENS electronically to their operations support systems and to the EDI ordering interface by not providing competing carriers with the necessary technical specifications and by modifying the types of data provided through the LENS interface. Thus, we conclude that, unlike BellSouth's retail operation which uses an integrated preordering/ordering interface, competing carriers cannot readily connect electronically the LENS interface to either their operations support systems or  X9 4to BellSouth's EDI interface for ordering, notwithstanding their desire to do so.9 Z. yOD'ԍWe recognize that LENS can also be used for ordering, and that when LENS is used for both pre {O 'ordering and ordering, the preordering and ordering functions are integrated. See BellSouth Reply Comments at 40. Nevertheless, because BellSouth acknowledges that LENS's ordering functionality is limited and relies on its EDI interface to demonstrate compliance with the section 271 requirements, we analyze the use of LENS for pre {Of'ordering and the EDI interface for ordering. See discussion supra paras. EDIDESC92שLENSORDER94. We therefore conclude that LENS does not provide competing carriers with equivalent access to OSS functions for preordering.  X4156.` `  REAS1 We further find that this lack of parity has a significant impact on a new entrant's ability to compete effectively in the local exchange market and to serve its customers  Xg4in a timely and efficient manner.g. yO&'ԍThe terms "equivalent access" and "parity of access" are used synonymously in this section. Because, as BellSouth states, "there is no strict delineation between preordering and ordering, as many 'preordering' activities generally occur in the context of actually negotiating a service order," an integrated pre X4ordering/ordering system is much more efficient.. yOM'ԍTestimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 198. Without such an integrated system, a new entrant is forced to enter information manually to use the EDI interface for ordering and to  X4import the data into its operations support systems.DX . yO_!'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at paras. 1011; AT&T Comments at 26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 28, 30; LCI Comments at 2; MCI Comments at 25; MCI King Decl. at para. 44; Sprint Comments at 1314; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 50.D Entering information manually can lead to significant delays while the customer is on the line, assuming that a carrier wants to  Xr4complete the order while speaking to the customer.r. yO9&'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 22, 30; MCI King Decl. at paras. 4344. Moreover, whether a carrier completes"rUn,>(>(II" the order while the customer is on the line, as BellSouth's customer service representatives generally do, or enters the information at a later time, such manual entry of data requires a  X4greater amount of time than BellSouth's retail operation requires./X. yO3'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at paras. 1011; AT&T Comments at 26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 30; LCI Baffer Decl. at para. 5; MCI Comments at 25; MCI King Decl. at para. 44; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 50./ As a result, the need to reenter information may limit a new entrant's ability to process a high volume of orders and would require a new entrant to expend a greater amount of resources than BellSouth to  XQ4conduct the same number of preordering transactions.Q. yO 'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12 to A13; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 1011; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 30; MCI King Decl. at paras. 4344.  X 4157.` ` Such manual entry of data also could lead to increased errors in entering  X4information when placing an order. X@. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 11; AT&T Comments at 26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 30; MCI Comments at 25; MCI King Decl. at 4344; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 50.  As discussed above, BellSouth's systems are rejecting  X4the vast majority of orders submitted by competing carriers.` . {O'ԍSee discussion supra paras. ORDPROB1104שERROR2114, ERROR3120. Although BellSouth claims that these high rejection rates are due to mistakes made by competing carriers, we conclude  X 4above that BellSouth's actions have contributed to such errors. . {O"'ԍSee discussion supra paras. ORDPROB1104שERROR2114, ERROR3120. It is reasonable to assume that this manual entry of information is a contributing factor to the high error rate, as a  X9 4number of parties contend.59 . yOn'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 11; AT&T Comments at 26; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 30; MCI Comments at 25; MCI King Decl. at 4344; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 50. Moreover, this high error rate and other delays in processing orders have contributed to  {O'problems that new entrants are experiencing with obtaining due dates, as discussed below. See discussion infra  yO'paras.  DUE1167 ש DUE2173 .5 Accordingly, competitors' access to BellSouth's preordering operations support systems is more conducive to errors than is the case for BellSouth's retail operations. When new entrants' customer service representatives make errors because of reentering information, the orders are rejected, and there is an unnecessary delay in processing those orders. As a result, customers may conclude that the new entrant does not match the quality of BellSouth's service, even though the problem stems from the access to OSS functions that BellSouth offers.  X!4158.` ` Moreover, this lack of a machinetomachine interface prevents a carrier from developing its own customized interface that its customer service representatives could use on a nationwide basis. As a result, new entrants that seek to enter other BOC markets would"V6,>(>(IIw" need to train their staff on BellSouth's proprietary system and also on systems used in other  X4regions of the country.. yOV'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A12 n.17, A13, A14; MCI Comments at 2526; MCI King Decl. at para. 45; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 50.  X4159.` `  REAS2 For these reasons, we conclude that BellSouth's preordering interface, in conjunction with BellSouth impeding competing carriers' efforts to connect electronically their systems and the EDI ordering interface to LENS, significantly restricts competing carriers' ability to market their services. To compete effectively in the local exchange market, new entrants must be able to perform services and interact with their customers as quickly and efficiently as BellSouth. The evidence demonstrates, however, that the operations support systems BellSouth offers will result in competing carriers' interactions with endusers taking longer and being more prone to errors than are BellSouth's interactions. We therefore find that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it offers equivalent access to OSS functions for preordering of resale services.  X 4160.` ` In reaching our conclusion that BellSouth does not provide equivalent access to OSS functions for preordering, we examine the record evidence regarding each of the methods suggested by BellSouth for connecting electronically the LENS interface with a competing carrier's operations support systems. BellSouth first contends that new entrants  X4could use CGI to connect their operations support systems to LENS. . yO['ԍAT&T contends that this method is "[t]he only potentially practical alternative for a large CLEC." AT&T Comments at 26. To use CGI, a  Xg4competing carrier would need detailed technical specifications of BellSouth's interface.+Xgx. yO'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 41 & Attach. 3, Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, Alabama Commission Docket No. 25835, Aug. 19, 1997 Hr'g (Alabama Commission Aug. 19, 1997 Hr'g), Tr. at 68687; Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A10 n.16.+ In  XD4the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission determined that a BOC has an obligation "to provide competing carriers with the specifications necessary to instruct competing carriers on how to modify or design their systems in a manner that will enable them to communicate with  X4the BOC's legacy systems and any interfaces utilized by the BOC for such access."C. {O&'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 137. In addition, in the Local Competition Second Reconsideration  {O'Order, the Commission noted that "[i]nformation regarding interface design specifications is critical to enable competing carriers to modify their existing systems and procedures or develop new systems to use these  {O 'interfaces to obtain access to the incumbent LEC's OSS functions." Local Competition Second Reconsideration  {OL!'Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19742.C  X4161.` ` Based on the record evidence, we conclude that BellSouth has not met its obligation to provide updated and complete CGI specifications. In its reply comments and in testimony, BellSouth acknowledges that it has not provided updated and complete"QWP ,>(>(II"  X4specifications.X. yOy'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at paras. 3637; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, Alabama Commission Aug. 19, 1997 Hr'g, Tr. at 687 ("I don't know that I can say that BellSouth completed development of [the CGI specification]."). BellSouth claims, however, that it has not provided such specifications,  X4because competing carriers have not sought to use CGI.. yOv'ԍBellSouth states that it learned of AT&T's decision not to use CGI in a May 5, 1997 letter, and that "there was no interest expressed by any other CLEC at that time." BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 37.  The record evidence, however, demonstrates that competing carriers have expressed and continue to express an interest in  X4using CGI to connect electronically their operations support systems to the LENS interface.@. yO 'ԍALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at paras. 10, 12; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 3345; MCI King Decl. at para. 48. MCI's comments attach letters that it sent to BellSouth on May 16, June 4, June 26, and  XQ4September 5 requesting the technical specifications for LENS."Q. yO'ԍMCI King Decl., Attach. 3, Letters from Bryan Green, Senior Manager, Systems Implementation, MCI Telecommunications Corp., to Ilene Barnett, BellSouth Interconnection Services (May 16, 1997; June 4, 1997;  {O*'June 26, 1997); Id., Attach. 6, Letter from Anna Hopkins, Local Systems Implementation Specialist, MCI Telecommunications Corp., to Cliff Bowers, Sales Director, BellSouth Telecommunications (Sept. 5, 1997). MCI also submits BellSouth's response from July 8, 1997, in which BellSouth states that it is providing the technical specifications that MCI requested beginning on May 16, but that the document "had  X4not been updated to match the current LENS application." . {O'ԍId., Attach. 4, Letter from Ilene Barnett, BellSouth Interconnection Services, to Bryan Green, MCI Telecommunications Corp. (July 8, 1997). In that July 8 letter, BellSouth further states that it will work "to provide [MCI] an updated copy as soon as it is  X4available.". {O/'ԍId. In its reply comments, BellSouth states that, as a result of the September 5 letter from MCI, "BellSouth has agreed to update the previously drafted CGI specification in cooperation with MCI." BellSouth further states that it was not until it received the September 5 letter that "MCI indicated that it was ready to proceed with a joint development effort, which provides a reasonable basis for BellSouth's committing additional resources to this effort [to draft CGI specifications]." BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at 39. BellSouth's position ignores MCI's previous requests for the specifications and BellSouth's July 8 response in which it stated that it would provide updated specifications as soon as they were available. Moreover, as noted above, BellSouth has an obligation to provide to competing carriers detailed, updated, and complete technical  {Oq'specifications. See Ameritech Michigan Order at para.137. We also note that the record does not indicate when  {O; 'BellSouth will complete the drafting of the specifications and provide them to competing carriers. See BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para.39. Thus, contrary to BellSouth's unsupported allegation, the record evidence indicates that at least one carrier, MCI, has been requesting CGI specifications, but that BellSouth has not met its obligation to provide the complete, detailed, and updated specifications that new entrants need to use CGI to connect electronically their operations support systems to BellSouth's interface.  X 4162.` ` As for BellSouth's second proposed method for electronically connecting LENS to a new entrant's operations support systems development of a software program that"XB,>(>(III" utilizes the information underlying each LENS presentation screen we find convincing evidence in the record that use of this method would not provide equivalent access to OSS functions for preordering. Under this alternative, a carrier would need to deploy software to  X4extract the information from each LENS screen as the data are presented. X. yO'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 32, 47; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 43; MCI King Decl. at paras. 4950; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 19091.  Evidence in the record indicates that this method does not enable a new entrant to deploy an integrated preordering and ordering interface that is equivalent to the integrated interface used in BellSouth's retail operation. As MCI points out, and BellSouth acknowledges, this method would require a competing carrier to proceed through each of the LENS presentation screens, just as a person using the system would, rather than being able to use the data independently  X4of the BellSouth screens as with CGI.. yO^ 'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 43; MCI King Decl. at para. 49; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 19091. Given this limitation, a competing carrier would only be able to download information from LENS one screen at a time, thereby resulting in a slower, less efficient process to connect LENS to the competing carrier's operations support systems than would be available through either CGI or a machinetomachine interface. In contrast, BellSouth's retail operation does not face this limitation, because its preordering and ordering are already fully integrated. This slower, less efficient process puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage, because it can lead to delays while the customer is on the line and may limit a new entrant's ability to process a high volume of orders.  X4163.` ` Moreover, evidence in the record indicates that BellSouth has made changes to LENS that would impede the ability of a carrier to develop and use a software program to extract the data underlying each LENS screen. The record indicates that BellSouth has made significant changes to LENS since it became operationally ready in April 1997, and that BellSouth plans to continue to make design changes to the interface, "because the business is changing and there will be new functionality that needs to be added and the interface is going  X4to need to evolve."( @. yO'ԍTestimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 2:30 p.m. Hr'g, Tr.  {Oq'at 55; see also AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 195. Examples of previous modifications include the addition in June of customer service records to LENS and a change in the manner in which the customer's community was listed in LENS. Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 274; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 2:30 p.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 5253. Prior to this latter change, LENS provided the name of the customer's community in  {O[!'standard English, rather than in the abbreviated format that EDI requires to submit an order. Id. at 53. Thus, a carrier would have needed to modify its software program after this change, because prior to June, the carrier needed to translate the community name provided by LENS to submit an order through the EDI interface. ( BellSouth claims that these changes are improvements that make it  X4easier for a new entrant to use LENS to obtain preordering information.. yOZ%'ԍTestimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 2:30 p.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 55. We recognize that development of OSS functions is not a static process, and we encourage BellSouth to continue"rYl,>(>(II" to make improvements to its operations support systems. Nevertheless, because this method requires a competing carrier to develop a software program that would automatically separate the data from the computer code presented on each LENS screen, and then transfer each data field to the appropriate field in another system, any significant change in the way the data is presented can have a substantial impact on a software program's ability to extract the data correctly. Thus, a carrier that develops a software program to extract the information from each LENS screen would have to expend additional resources each time BellSouth makes a  X 4significant change in order to update the program to accommodate those changes. . yO'ԍMCI Comments at 29; MCI King Decl. at para. 50; Sprint Closz Aff. at para. 16. We note that changes in the presentation of data in LENS would not have such a significant impact on the use of CGI, because CGI allows a competing carrier to use the data "independently of the  X4LENS presentation screens."lX. yO 'ԍStacy OSS Aff. at para. 4344.; MCI King Decl. at para. 50.l  X\ 4164.` ` In sum, we conclude that BellSouth's second suggested method of connecting a new entrant's operations support systems or the EDI ordering system to the LENS interface, using software to extract the information provided through each LENS presentation screen, does not provide access to OSS functions for preordering that is equivalent to BellSouth's integrated preordering/ordering interface for its retail operation. In addition, developing such a software program appears infeasible for new entrants given the design changes that BellSouth has made and plans to make to the interface. We further note that a number of parties also contend that BellSouth has not kept them adequately informed of changes to its  XD4OSS functions.D. {O'ԍSee AT&T Comments at 27; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 7476; MCI Comments at 37; Intermedia Comments at 2326. BellSouth disputes such claims, stating that it regularly informs competing  X!4carriers of modifications in advance.T!B. yO'ԍStacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 63. T We need not reach this issue in this Order, but we reiterate that a BOC has an obligation "to provide competing carriers with the specifications necessary to instruct competing carriers on how to modify or design their systems in a manner that will enable them to communicate with the BOC's legacy systems and any interfaces  X4utilized by the BOC for such access."]. {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 137.]  XO4165.` ` As a third option, BellSouth suggests that competing carriers could "cut and paste" the information from LENS into another interface. We conclude that this suggested method would also not provide competing carriers with equivalent access to OSS functions for preordering. This method does not allow new entrants to transfer information electronically to their operations support systems or to BellSouth's EDI ordering interface. Rather, a requesting carrier must highlight separate fields of data that appear on different LENS screens,"Zd ,>(>(II""  X4copy each field, and then transfer each field of data to another interface.. {Oy'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A13; MCI King Decl. at para. 44; see also Florida  {OC'Commission Section 271 Order at 83. As a result, we agree with the Department of Justice, the Florida Commission, and several carriers that this cutting and pasting process leads to increased delays and the risk of human error in  X4transferring the data.$. {Ol'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A13; Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 46; Intermedia Comments at 20; MCI King Decl. at para. 44.  XQ4166.` `  INTEGR2 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that new entrants using LENS cannot readily transfer information electronically from LENS to their operations support systems and deploy an integrated preordering and ordering system. In contrast, BellSouth's retail  X4operation uses an integrated preordering and ordering interface.Z~. {O'ԍSee supra para. RNSDOE95.Z Given that BellSouth has chosen not to deploy a machinetomachine interface for competing carriers and has impeded the efforts of competing carriers to pursue other methods of connecting LENS electronically to their operations support systems and to the EDI interface, we conclude that BellSouth has failed to deploy a system that offers to competing carriers equivalent access to OSS functions for preordering. As discussed above, this lack of parity in the access to OSS functions offered by BellSouth places new entrants at a significant disadvantage, because this deficiency  X 4leads to increased costs, delays, and human errors. . {O'ԍSee discussion supra paras. REAS1156שREAS2159. As a result, a new entrant, through no fault of its own, may be unable to provide service to its customers at a quality level that matches the service provided by BellSouth. We note that BellSouth plans to deploy a  X4machinetomachine interface for preordering in the near future.m. {O'ԍSee BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 42 & Ex. WNS21.m Because a machinetomachine interface allows competing carriers to transfer information electronically to their operations support systems, we expect that successful deployment of this interface will go a long way toward alleviating the problems discussed above.  X'QXX` ` X b.XLack of Equivalent Access to Due Dates (#  X4167.` `  DUE1 In addition to the general lack of parity between LENS and the interfaces used by BellSouth's retail operations, we agree with a number of carriers, the Department of QJustice, and the Florida Commission that BellSouth does not offer to competing carriers  X,4nondiscriminatory access to due dates.$,4 . {O$'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17 to A18; Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 84; AT&T Comments at 27; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 4955; MCI Comments at 35; MCI King Decl. at paras. 7077. The South Carolina Commission found that BellSouth is providing equivalent access to due dates,  {Ok&'but did not elaborate on this finding. See South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 35. A due date is the date on which the order is scheduled to be completed. In particular, we find that BellSouth does not offer equivalent" [ ,>(>(II" access to competing carriers, because new entrants, unlike BellSouth's retail operations, cannot be confident that the due date that the new entrants promise their customers based on the information obtained from LENS will be the actual due date that BellSouth assigns to the order. In addition, although we do not base our decision on this issue, we are concerned about allegations in the record that the method of calculating due dates in LENS is  XQ4discriminatory, whether LENS is used in the inquiry mode or the firm order mode.UZQ. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17 to A18; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 5153; MCI  {O'King Decl. at paras. 7174; see also Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 84; supra para.  MODES91  (describing the inquiry and firm order modes).U  X 4168.` ` Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that BellSouth does not offer nondiscriminatory access to due dates. New entrants do not obtain actual due dates from LENS during the preordering stage. Instead, the actual, firm due date is assigned once  X4BellSouth processes the order through SOCS.XZ. yO='ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18 n.25; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 5051; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff., Ex. WNS48 (LENS User Guide) at 19; MCI King Decl. at para. 74. For a  {O'description of the ordering process and SOCS, see supra para. ORDSYS93.X A new entrant therefore will not be informed  X 4of the actual due date until it receives a firm order confirmation (FOC) from BellSouth. . {O<'ԍSee supra para.  FOCS115 ; see also Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 51.  X\ 4BellSouth states that this same process is used for its retail operations, i.e., it does not provide  X; 4actual due dates for its service representatives until the order is processed through SOCS.; f . {OR'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at paras. 3335; Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 29; see also Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18. This fact, however, does not lead to parity in the access to due dates, because, as explained above, competing carriers are experiencing significant delays in the processing of their  X 4orders.v . {OC'ԍSee supra paras. ORDPROB1104שORDPROB2131. v As a result of these delays, by the time competing carriers' EDI orders are processed, the relevant central office and work center may no longer be accepting orders for the day the new entrant promised its customer. New entrants therefore cannot be confident that the due date actually provided after the order is processed will be the same date that the new entrants promised their customers at the preordering stage based on the information  X#4obtained from LENS.#R . yO&!'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 55; MCI King Decl. at para. 74. In contrast, BellSouth's retail service representatives can be confident of the due dates they quote customers at the preordering stage, because BellSouth does not experience the same delays in processing orders that competing carriers currently  X4experience.j. {O&'ԍSee discussion supra para.  CONF104 .j BellSouth could ameliorate this preordering problem by correcting the deficiencies in its ordering systems and by providing equivalent access to OSS functions"\<,>(>(IIK" through its current systems. We therefore do not suggest that BellSouth must modify its preordering systems to meet the requirement that it offer nondiscriminatory access to due dates. We only conclude that BellSouth's preordering system for providing access to due dates, at the present time, does not offer equivalent access to competing carriers.  XQ4169.` ` We view these inequities in obtaining due dates to be a significant deficiency of BellSouth's OSS functions for preordering. A new entrant using LENS for preordering and EDI for ordering cannot provide its customers a due date during the original customer contact with the same level of confidence and accuracy as BellSouth's retail representatives  X4can during an initial customer contact.. yO> 'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 49, 54; MCI King Decl. at paras. 7475. A new entrant may also be unable to respond to a  X4customer's special scheduling needs while the customer is on the line with the new entrant.P . yOs 'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 54.P At the same time, BellSouth can be confident that it is providing its retail customers with an accurate due date for installing service. Because the ability to provide accurate due date information to a customer is significant from an enduser's perspective, interactions with new entrants will differ in a meaningful manner from interactions with BellSouth. To the customer, the new entrant may appear to be a less efficient and responsive service provider than its competitor, BellSouth, because the new entrant is unable to provide accurate due date information, while BellSouth is able to provide such information. The customer may not understand that the new entrant's inability to provide such information is due to the access that BellSouth provides to OSS functions. We therefore conclude that, at the present time, BellSouth does not deploy systems that provide equivalent access to due dates.  X4170.` ` Having decided that BellSouth does not offer nondiscriminatory access to due dates, we need not decide whether the method of calculating due dates in LENS is discriminatory, as several parties contend. Nonetheless, although we do not base our decision on this issue, we discuss the issue to highlight our concerns and provide guidance for future applications.  X,4171.` ` It is undisputed that LENS does not provide calculated due dates when used in the inquiry mode for preordering. Instead, the inquiry mode of LENS provides carriers with a calendar showing the days that the applicable central office and work center are open and for which BellSouth is still accepting work orders, and a table of projected intervals for  X4different types of services.m". {O"'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17; Florida Commission Section 271 Compliance Order at 84; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 51; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 32; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff, Ex. WNS48 (LENS User Guide) at 1920; BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 29; MCI King Decl. at para. 74.m In addition, the projected service intervals provided to competing carriers by LENS assume that a technician needs to visit the premises to perform"}],>(>(II"  X4the installation.. . yOy'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 53; BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 28; MCI King Decl. at para. 76. BellSouth contends that it is planning to add to LENS on October 6, 1997, the capability for the CLEC "to view the Quickservice or the ConnectThrough indicators in the address validation and due date calendar sections." BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 47. BellSouth states that the Quickservice and ConnectThrough indicators help a new entrant determine the interval necessary for an order to be completed, because they "are used to determine if a technician needs to be  {O)'dispatched." Id. We emphasize, however, consistent with the Commission's decision in the Ameritech Michigan  {O'Order, that we must analyze BellSouth's operations support system at the time of the application. Given the  {O'statutory time constraints, we do not consider postfiling measures. See Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 15253. Moreover, we agree with the Department of Justice that, because BellSouth added this functionality after the date it filed its application, we do not know: (1) whether the change was instituted on time; (2) whether the functionality is available in inquiry mode, or only in firm order mode; and (3) whether this functionality works properly. Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17 n.24. Thus, LENS in this mode requires a competing carrier to determine whether a premises visit is required and to calculate a due date manually. In contrast, BellSouth's retail service representatives are provided with nextavailable due dates that are automatically calculated based on the services on a particular order, the work that must be  Xt4performed, and the availability of the work force for the area."t . yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 50; MCI King Decl. at paras. 70, 75; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 11:00 a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 20910. BellSouth's retail service representatives using RNS are provided with a calendar showing  {O;'the earliest available due date for that specific work order highlighted in green. See BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff., Ex. WNS14; MCI King Decl. at para. 75."  X.4172.` ` Although BellSouth does not contest this apparent lack of parity in access to calculated due dates when LENS is used in the inquiry mode, BellSouth responds that competing carriers can obtain calculated due dates in the same manner as BellSouth representatives simply by using LENS in the firm order mode, rather than in the inquiry  X4mode. p. yO'ԍBellSouth contends that its database containing due date information, the Direct Order Entry Support Application Program (DSAP), will only calculate due dates when there is a complete service order, which occurs only in the firm order mode. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 34; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 2:30 p.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 66. A number of competing carriers contend to the contrary, arguing that the use of this  X 4mode for preordering leads to several problems.C X. yO'ԍAs a result of these problems, the Department of Justice and several parties contend that the inquiry mode is the principal mode when LENS is used for preordering and EDI is used for ordering, as BellSouth recommends, and that the firm order mode appears designed for carriers that use LENS for both preordering and  {O!'ordering. See Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A17; AT&T Comments at 27; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 51, 8083; MCI Comments at 33 n.17, 35; MCI King Decl. at para. 51 n.7.C The firm order mode, in contrast to the inquiry mode, requires a carrier to proceed through every preordering function, screen after"\ ^ ,>(>(II "  X4screen, as if the carrier were placing an order. . yOy'ԍAT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 82; BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 11; MCI Comments at 35; MCI King Decl. at para. 51 n.7. In contrast, the inquiry mode allows a competing carrier to access only those preordering functions that the carrier needs for that customer. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 19; BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 25. Thus, a carrier that only needed to access certain preordering functions would need to proceed through unnecessary screens and input additional information, thereby requiring a greater number of steps and amount of time to  X4complete the transaction with the customer on the line.". yO'ԍFor example, MCI claims that a carrier using the firm order mode would need to "enter a purchase order number, tax codes, [its] own name, and other order related information as if [it] were using LENS to place an  {O 'actual order. " MCI King Decl. at para. 51 n.7; see also AT&T Bradbury Aff. at 8283; MCI Comments at 33 n.17. Instead of then placing the order, however, a carrier using LENS in the firm order mode for preordering and then EDI for  XQ4ordering, as BellSouth suggests,ZQ. yO'ԍAs discussed above, because BellSouth claims that EDI is the primary ordering interface and relies on its EDI interface to demonstrate compliance with the section 271 requirements, we analyze the use of LENS for  {O,'preordering and the EDI interface for ordering. See supra paras. EDIDESC92שLENSORDER94. would need to cancel the LENS order and then reenter all  X.4of the information into the EDI ordering interface.B. . yO'ԍAT&T and MCI contend that, because a carrier using the firm order mode for preordering and EDI for ordering must cancel the LENS order prior to submitting it, the carrier would lose the benefits of certain other functions. AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 83; MCI King Decl. at para. 51 n.7. For example, these parties claim that the carrier would lose any telephone numbers that it had reserved for the customer. AT&T Bradbury Aff. at 58 n.42, 83; MCI King Decl. at para. 51 n.7. BellSouth disputes this contention, asserting that numbers selected in firm order mode remain reserved, even if the new entrant does not submit the order through LENS. BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff at para. 23. The issue of telephone number reservation is discussed more fully  {O'below. See infra paras.  RES1177 ש RES2179 . At least one new entrant states the extra steps required to use the firm order mode are so burdensome that it uses the inquiry mode,  X4even though that eliminates its ability to obtain calculated due dates.P. yO_'ԍMCI King Decl. at para. 51 n.7.P We note that BellSouth's retail operation does not face these same problems, because its preordering and ordering functions are integrated. We do not base our decision on this issue, however, because there is inadequate evidence in the record for us to assess the impact on a competing carrier of having to go through these extra steps. Thus, we are unable to determine whether a competing carrier can access the same OSS functions in substantially the same time and manner as BellSouth's retail representatives when the competing carrier is using the firm order mode. Nevertheless, because it is reasonable to assume that these extra steps have some impact on competing carriers, we will examine similar allegations carefully in future section 271 applications.  Xg4173.` `  DUE2 Finally, we are concerned about evidence in the record suggesting that the due date calculation provided in the firm order mode of LENS is not accurate for some order types. MCI submits a letter it received from BellSouth dated September 2, in which BellSouth states:"_V,>(>(II"ԌXIn addition to providing the installation calendar, LENS provides an alternative due date function in the firm order mode. . . . CLECs issuing LENS orders for conversions "as specified" and new installations should be aware that the LENS firm order due date function may not always be calculating the correct due date for those order types for some locations. . . . We will notify you promptly of  XQ4the results of our evaluation.Q. {O'ԍId., Attach. 14, Letter from J.M. Baker, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., to CLEC Customers (Sept.  {O'2, 1997); see also id., Attach. 7, Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, Florida Commission Docket No. 960786TL, Sept. 4, 1997 Hr'g (Florida Commission Sept. 4, 1997 Hr'g), Tr. at 1327 ("All of the users of LENS have been notified by an industry letter that we have received some unexpected results on due date calculation in the firm order mode . . . . Again, BellSouth is not relying on the ordering capabilities of LENS; we are relying on the industry standard EDI ordering method, and this is a problem that we had identified.").    X 4MCI claims that it has not received any further notification.D D. yO'ԍMCI Comments at 35.D BellSouth claims that it corrected a problem with its appointment calendars in early September and has not  X4experienced any problems since then.V. yOJ'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 36.V Because BellSouth appears to have taken steps to correct the problem with its appointment calendars, we do not base our decision on this issue. We will examine carefully in future applications any allegations that this problem continues to exist, because it would indicate that competing carriers are unable to rely on the dates provided by LENS when used in the firm order mode.  X 4 XX` ` X c.XOther Concerns (#  X'XX` ` X X (1)XhhCParity of Particular Functions(#h  X4  Xg4174.` ` Beyond access to due dates, parties raise factual issues on the record regarding BellSouth's provision of access to other OSS functions. We are concerned by allegations that  differences between LENS and BellSouth's retail interfaces mean that a significantly greater amount of time is required to use LENS to access and review the same preordering information. For example, MCI claims, and the Florida Commission found that if a customer wants to order a specific product or service, or choose a specific interexchange carrier, the new entrant must scroll through a lengthy list of available products and services and a random  Xr4listing of numerous interexchange carriers to find one.rd . {O!'ԍFlorida Commission Section 271 Order at 8384; MCI Comments at 36; MCI King Decl. at paras. 7881. In contrast, MCI contends that BellSouth's retail interfaces allow its customer service representatives to find quickly a specific product or service, or an interexchange carrier, simply by typing in the first few  X 4letters of the name.  . {Ox&'ԍMCI Comments at 36; MCI King Decl. at paras. 78, 80; see also Florida Commission Section 271  {OB''Order at 8384. BellSouth responds that the interface its retail operations use for pre" `,>(>(II~"ԫordering and ordering for business customers requires carriers to scroll through interexchange carriers, but does not indicate whether its newer interface for residential customers requires carriers to scroll through the list of interexchange carriers, or whether either system requires carriers to scroll through a list of services and features.  XQ4175.` `  VALID In addition, the Department of Justice and several carriers contend, and the Florida Commission found, that a competing carrier using LENS in the inquiry mode must  X 4validate a customer's address prior to accessing each preordering function. . {O'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18 to A19; Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83; AT&T Comments at 27; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 56; MCI Comments at 33, MCI King Decl. at para. 51. For example, these parties contend that a carrier that wants to view the available features and services, reserve a telephone number, and view the installation calendar would need to validate the customer's address through LENS before each function. Parties argue that they may need to validate an address four times in order to complete preordering  X4transactions for one customer in the inquiry mode.z. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A18 to A19; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 56; MCI King  {O'Decl. at para. 51; see also Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83. In contrast, these parties contend that  X4BellSouth's retail service representatives need only validate an address one time.k\. yO''ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A19; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 56; MCI King Decl. at  {O'para. 52; Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, Florida Commission Sept. 4, 1997 Hr'g, Tr. at 128788; see  {O'also Florida Commission Section 271 Compliance Order at 83.k As a result, the Department of Justice contends that this process, "for no apparent reason, can  X\ 4nearly double the number of steps [for a new entrant] to accomplish the same result."c\ . yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A19. c The Department of Justice, echoing other parties, further states that "it will take [new entrants]  X 4substantially longer to reach the same result."yh  . {OO'ԍId., App. A at A20; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 56; MCI King Decl. at paras. 51, 53; see also  {O'Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83. We note that BellSouth has submitted data for a limited period of time showing that, on average, accessing the database for address validation took between 2 and 3 seconds during the period of time between July 7 and August 14, 1997, and between September 13 and September 15. BellSouth Stacy OSS Aff, Ex. WNS37. These data, however, show only the response time for accessing the database. Because LENS does not reuse information between screens in the inquiry mode, a new entrant would need to reenter the address or telephone number at each step. Thus, these data do not include the time necessary to enter the address or telephone number at each screen or take into account the possibility of errors in entering such information. Moreover, we are concerned that the response time may slow as the load on the system increases from more competing carriers entering the local markets in each state in BellSouth's region and use of  {O#"'LENS approaches the capacity of the system. See Department of Justice Evaluation at A29. For a discussion of  {O"'our concerns about the capacity of LENS, see infra para. CAPACITY181.y BellSouth responds that a new entrant could  X 4avoid the need to revalidate an address by using LENS in the firm order mode.\ . yO\%'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 25.\ " aH,>(>(IIl"Ԍ X4176.` ` We do not determine the merits of these allegations at this time, because the record does not contain adequate evidence for us to quantify the impact of these differences between LENS and BellSouth's retail interfaces on competing carriers. Nevertheless, we will examine carefully any allegations that preordering functions for competing carriers using LENS is a slower, less efficient process than using BellSouth's retail interfaces. If further evidence comes to light showing that competing carriers are unable to perform OSS functions in substantially the same time and manner as BellSouth's retail operation due to the need to perform a greater number of steps, we would find LENS deficient. At the same time, we would expect BellSouth to present evidence to demonstrate that any differences in the interfaces do not have a significant impact on a competing carrier's access to OSS functions. We are especially troubled by these allegations, because a slower, less efficient interface would not provide equivalent access to OSS functions. Such an interface could limit a new entrant's ability to process orders as quickly as BellSouth and may therefore impede the new entrant's ability to engage in an aggressive marketing campaign. As a result, a less efficient interface may have a significant impact on a new entrant's ability to compete effectively in the local exchange market.  X'QXX` ` X X (2)XhhCAccess to Telephone Numbers (#h  Xg4177.` `  RES1 We next address complaints in the record that BellSouth does not provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions for preordering, because BellSouth restricts new  X!4Qentrants' access to telephone numbers.!. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A15 to A16; AT&T Comments at 27; AT&T Bradbury  {Ob'Aff. at paras. 5869; see also Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83. BellSouth acknowledges that it limits the quantity of telephone numbers that a competing carrier can reserve in a central office to 100 numbers or  X45 percent of the numbers available in that central office, whichever is less.V". yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 25.V BellSouth does  X4not impose such a restriction on its retail operation. . {O'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at A15 to A16; Florida Commission Section 271 Order at 83; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at para. 58.  Xr4178.` ` The Department of Justice and AT&T contend that this practice of restricting access to telephone numbers may place a burden on a new entrant's ability to handle a large volume of orders in a particular area or to conduct marketing campaigns, because a new  X 4entrant may reach the limit and be unable to reserve numbers for additional customers.   . yO!'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 15; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 5962. BellSouth responds that this limit on numbers only applies to numbers reserved in the inquiry  X4mode of LENS, and then only until the order is actually placed.\ . yO%'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 23.\ Thus, BellSouth contends that a new entrant can avoid this limit altogether by using the firm order mode of LENS for"b, ,>(>(II""  X4preordering.i . {Oy'ԍId. AT&T and MCI contend that, because a carrier using the firm order mode for preordering and EDI for ordering must cancel the LENS order prior to submitting it, the carrier would lose any telephone numbers that it had reserved for the customer in the firm order mode. AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 58 n.42, 83; MCI King Decl. at para.51 n.7. BellSouth disputes this contention, asserting that numbers selected in firm order mode remain reserved, even if the new entrant does not submit the order through LENS. BellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 23. i Moreover, although BellSouth claims that it implemented this practice "as a  X4means to administer the finite pool of numbers for the benefit of all,"  B. yO'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 25. BellSouth states that it instituted this policy in its role of interim  {O 'number administrator. Id.; see also Department of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 16.  BellSouth has  X4expressed its willingness to remove this limit.\. yO 'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 21.\  Xt4179.` `  RES2 We are troubled by the impact that this limitation may have on competing carriers. A carrier that wants to market its services in a particular area or conduct a large marketing campaign may face a situation where it is no longer able to reserve numbers  X 4through LENS, at least when used in the inquiry mode. , . yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 15; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 5962. The impact of this restriction on access to telephone numbers is aggravated because BellSouth removes a telephone number  X4from the list of reserved numbers only when it processes the order through SOCS.d . yO2'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation, App. A at 1516. d Given  X4the delays in processing orders submitted through EDI, as discussed above,L . {O'ԍSee supra paras. ORDPROB1104שERROR2114, ERROR3120. a significant period of time after the new entrant submits the order may pass before the number is taken off the list of reserved numbers. Nevertheless, we need not reach this contested factual issue of when a number counts against this limit, given BellSouth's statements that it would remove this limit. If, however, BellSouth does not remove this limit, we will examine carefully any complaints about access to telephone numbers in future BellSouth applications. We further note that BellSouth imposed this decision in its role as interim number administrator, and that this issue should be resolved, in any event, following the transition to a neutral permanent number administrator.  XD'QXX` ` X X (3)XhhCOperational Readiness (#h  X4180.` ` We are also concerned about the operational readiness of BellSouth's OSS functions for preordering. A number of carriers, both large and small, contend that LENS Qregularly "locks up," requiring them to log off, log back on, and restart the transaction with"c,>(>(IIT"  X4the customer.X. yOy'ԍALTS Comments at 23; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 9; ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Reply Aff. at para. 3; AT&T Reply Comments at 12; Hyperion/KMC Comments, Attach. B, Declaration of Larry E. Miller (Hyperion/KMC Miller Decl.) at para. 18. BellSouth claims that it has not found any general problems with LENS and  X4that it responded quickly to resolve one problem faced by AT&T.\. yOv'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Reply Aff. at para. 46.\ Because such problems with the system can directly and negatively affect a carrier's interaction with its customers, we expect BellSouth to respond expeditiously to such complaints whenever they arise. Moreover, as the number of transactions in the region increase, we would be concerned if these incidents increased.  X 4181.` ` Several parties also raise  CAPACITY general concerns about the capacity of BellSouth's  X4interface for preordering.x. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 29 and App. A at 28; AT&T Bradbury Aff. at paras. 24750; TRA Comments at 2829. The evidence in the record indicates that BellSouth designed LENS to handle 15,000 preordering transactions per day for the ninestate BellSouth  X4region.. yO#'ԍTestimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997, 2:30 p.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 69. We note that a single interaction with a customer may involve multiple preordering transactions on LENS. For example, BellSouth states that a separate transaction occurs each time a carrier validates a  {O{'customer's address. Id., Tr. at 69 (Testimony of Gloria Calhoun, BellSouth). As discussed above, a carrier must validate a customer's address multiple times when obtaining preordering information in the inquiry mode of  {O 'LENS. See supra para. VALID175.  We are concerned that, as more carriers enter the local market and provide service to a greater number of customers, the number of preordering transactions could rapidly exceed the capacity of LENS. BellSouth claims that it has relied on forecasts from competing  X9 4carriers to ensure that it has adequate capacity.W9 L . yO6'ԍBellSouth Stacy OSS Aff. at para. 120.W We encourage BellSouth to continue working with competing carriers to ensure that LENS has adequate capacity to handle current,  X 4and reasonably foreseeable, demand volumes.] . {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 138.]  X' X C.X` ` Access to Unbundled Network Elements (#`  Xg'XX` ` 1.X Summary (#  X!4182.` ` Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, item (ii) of the competitive checklist, requires a section 271 applicant to show that it offers "[n]ondiscriminatory access to network  elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)." Section 251(c)(3) in turn establishes an incumbent LEC's "duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically"rdn,>(>(II" feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of [section 251] . . . and section 252." Section 251(c)(3) further provides that an incumbent LEC "shall provide such unbundled elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service." Based on our review of the record on this issue, we conclude that BellSouth does not meet this checklist item because BellSouth has not demonstrated that it can make available as a legal and practical matter access to unbundled network elements in a manner that allows competing carriers to combine them. In particular, BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it can provide access to such elements through the one method that it has identified for such access collocation. We emphasize that our review of collocation as the means of access to unbundled network elements for the purpose of combining is predicated on BellSouth's position that this is the primary method that it will make available to new entrants.  X 'S` ` 2. Background (#  X 4183.` ` In the Local Competition Order, the Commission ruled that new entrants may provide telecommunications service wholly through the use of unbundled network elements Spurchased from incumbent LECs. The Eighth Circuit agreed. In its July18, 1997 opinion, the Court wrote: "we believe that the plain language of subsection 251(c)(3) indicates that a requesting carrier may achieve the capability to provide telecommunications services  X#4completely through access to the unbundled elements of an incumbent LEC's network."X#. {O'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 814.X The court also ruled, however, that the Act does not require incumbent LECs to combine the network elements that new entrants purchase, and vacated the Commission's rules requiring  X4incumbent LECs to combine elements.BZ. {O'ԍId. at 813.B In a subsequent ruling on rehearing, decided on October14, 1997, the court vacated the Commission's rule that had barred incumbent LECs  Xt4from separating network elements that were already combined in their network.Et. yO'ԍThat rule, 47 C.F.R. 51.315(b), provided that: "[e]xcept upon request, an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines." The Court ruled that section "251(c)(3) does not permit a new entrant to purchase the incumbent LEC's assembled platform(s) of combined network elements (or any lesser existing combination of two or more elements) in order to offer competitive  {O1'telecommunications services." Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order.E The Court reiterated that incumbent LECs must offer unbundled network elements in a manner that  X.4allows new entrants to combine them to provide a finished telecommunications service.e.. {O}"'ԍIowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order.e  X4184.COLLO CHOICE` ` In the Local Competition Order, the Commission identified the methods by  X4which new entrants may obtain access to unbundled network elements.h0 . {O&'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15776807.h It concluded that"e ,>(>(II+" "any requesting carrier may choose any particular method of technically feasible . . . access to unbundled network elements," including physical or virtual collocation. The Commission noted that physical and virtual collocation were the only methods of access to unbundled  X4network elements "specifically addressed in section 251.". yO'ԍThe requirements governing an incumbent LEC's duty to provide collocation space to new entrants are contained in section 251(c)(6) of the Act. It imposes on all incumbent LECs the duty to provide for "physical  {O'collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier, except that the carrier may provide for virtual collocation if the [LEC] demonstrates to the State commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations." 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(6) (emphasis added). This finding was reflected in our rules which provide that technically feasible methods of obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements include, but are not limited to, physical and virtual collocation at  X.4the premises of an incumbent LEC.J.B. yO! 'ԍ47 C.F.R. 51.321(b).J The Commission has previously defined physical collocation as an offering that enables a requesting carrier to locate its own transmission equipment in a segregated portion of the LEC's central office. The requesting carrier must typically pay for the construction of a collocation cage to house the equipment in the LEC's central office. The other carrier pays the LEC for the use of that central office space, and  X 4may enter the central office to install, maintain, and repair the equipment.4\ . {O'ԍLocal Exchange Carriers' Rates, Terms, and Conditions for Expanded Interconnection through Physical  {O'Collocation for Special Access and Switched Transport, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 93162 (rel. June13, 1997) at para.7.4 The Commission has previously defined virtual collocation as an offering in which the LEC owns or leases, and exercises exclusive physical control over, the transmission equipment located in the central office that terminates the requesting carrier's circuits. The LEC dedicates this equipment to the exclusive use of the requesting carrier, and provides installation, maintenance, and repair  X 4services.  . {Ow'ԍExpanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, Memorandum Opinion and Order,  {OA'9 FCC Rcd 5154, 5158 (1994) (Expanded Interconnection Memorandum Opinion and Order).  X4   X4185.SGAT COMBO` ` When BellSouth filed its application on September30, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had not yet issued its ruling on rehearing that invalidated the Commission's rule that incumbent LECs could not separate already combined elements and require new entrants to recombine them. Nonetheless, BellSouth's SGAT provides that new entrants must combine all network elements, even those already combined  X4in the incumbent LEC's network.! R . yO"'ԍThis provision of the SGAT was the subject of a motion to dismiss filed by AT&T and LCI. AT&T and LCI argued that this provision violated the Commission's subsequently vacated rule barring incumbent LECs  {On$'from separating combined elements. AT&T/LCI Motion to Dismiss at 814. As noted supra note MOTION2 , we treated this motion as early filed comments. In addition, MCI argues that BellSouth does not offer nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements, because, on the date BellSouth filed its application, the Commission's rules required incumbent LECs to provide access to combinations of network elements that already exist in the"& ,>(>(&" incumbent's network. MCI Comments at 58. Although we expect BOCs to submit applications that comply with our existing rules at the time the application is submitted, we do not rely on this deficiency as a basis for our decision, because, as discussed below, BellSouth has not demonstrated that it is offering nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in any event. The SGAT's provisions relating to the terms and"f!,>(>(IIC" conditions by which BellSouth will provide unbundled network elements to new entrants in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them is found in section II(F) of the SGAT. It provides in full:  Xt4QF. CLECCombined Network Elements  X.4XX` ` 1. CLEC Combination of Network Elements. CLECs may combine BellSouth network elements in any manner to provide Qtelecommunications services. BellSouth will physically deliver unbundled network elements where reasonably possible, e.g., unbundled loops to CLEC collocation spaces, as part of the network element offering at no additional charge. Additional services desired by CLECs to assist in their combining or operating BellSouth unbundled elements are available as negotiated. `  X 4XX` ` 2. Software Modifications. Software modifications, e.g., switch translations, necessary for the proper functioning of CLECcombined BellSouth unbundled network elements are provided as part of the network element offering at no additional charge. Additional software modifications requested by CLECs for new features or services may be obtained through the bona fide  XD4request process.A"D. yO'ԍSGAT II(F).A(#` The terms and conditions contained in the SGAT concerning collocation are found in section II(B)(6). The SGAT's collocation offering states in full:  X4XX` ` Collocation. Collocation allows CLECs to place equipment in BellSouth facilities. Physical and virtual collocation are available for interconnection and access to unbundled network elements as described in SectionII. BellSouth will provide physical collocation for CLEC equipment unless BellSouth demonstrates to the [state] Commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or space limitations. Detailed guidelines for collocation  X4are contained in BellSouth's Handbook for Collocation.D#@. yO"'ԍSGAT II(B)(6).D(#` Attachment A to the SGAT also provides interim rates for physical and virtual collocation. For one rate category, the space preparation fee for physical collocation, the schedule does not"Zg#,>(>(II" include any rates but rather provides that this fee will be subject to negotiation on an  X4individual case basis.K$. {OV'ԍId., Attach.A at 1.K  X'QX` ` 3. Evidence in the Record(#  XQ4 186.` ` To satisfy its obligation to provide unbundled network elements to new entrants in a manner that allows them to be combined, BellSouth offers only the terms and conditions  X 4Qof sectionII.F. of the SGAT, i.e., that BellSouth will physically deliver certain elements, including the loop, to "CLEC collocation spaces" at no additional charge and undertake necessary software changes at no additional charge. Any other arrangement would be subject to negotiation. The record supplied by BellSouth with its initial application provides no  X 4further information.}% Z. yO 'ԍBellSouth Milner Aff. at para.2730; BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 6780.}  X; 4187.` ` The South Carolina Commission found that BellSouth had met checklist item(ii), concluding that the SGAT "provides CLECs with nondiscriminatory access to  X 4network elements in accordance with the requirements of the Act."& . {O'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 31 (quoting South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 40). The Department of Justice contends, however, that the South Carolina Commission did not address the specific issue of whether BellSouth is offering unbundled network elements in a manner that allows  X4them to be combined. According to the Department of Justice, at the time the South Carolina  Xk4Commission Compliance Order was issued, the SGAT did not permit competitors to combine network elements to provide finished services. Thus, there was no basis for presenting evidence in the state proceeding concerning the manner in which BellSouth would provide separated network elements so that new entrants could combine them, or whether BellSouth had the practical ability to do so. After the Eighth Circuit held in its July18, 1997, decision that unbundled network elements must be provided in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements, the South Carolina Commission, without additional hearings, approved a revised SGAT (which forms the basis of this application) in an order that contains no discussion or specific findings that the SGAT's provisions would allow requesting carriers  X24to combine network elements in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner.'2|. {O_'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 1719. See also infra para.SC PROCEEDING31. BellSouth counters that the South Carolina Commission granted parties an additional opportunity to comment after the Eighth Circuit's July18, 1997 ruling, and approved the revised SGAT after  X4considering the information provided by opposing parties in their written submissions._(. yO#'ԍBellSouth Varner Reply Aff.at paras. 2830. _  X4188.` ` In their comments, several parties and the Department of Justice maintain that BellSouth's SGAT fails to state adequately the terms and conditions by which BellSouth will make available unbundled network elements in a manner that allows new entrants to combine"=h(,>(>(II" them, and has failed to demonstrate that it was operationally capable of providing elements in this manner. They thus argue that the Commission should find that BellSouth fails checklist  X4item (ii).). yO3'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 1625; AT&T Comments at 2223; AT&T Reply Comments at 510; CompTel Comments at 1416; LCI Comments at 1114; MCI Comments at 5961. More specifically, the Department of Justice finds that the SGAT is legally  X4insufficient, because it does not adequately "specify what BellSouth will provide, the method  Xv4in which it will be provided, or the terms on which it will be provided, and therefore there is no basis" for a finding that BellSouth is offering nondiscriminatory access as the checklist  X24requires.o*2 . yO 'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 20 (emphasis in original).o It also notes that the SGAT does not "even specify what combinations of network elements it proposes to separate and require the CLEC to combine, a defect that will make it  X4exceedingly difficult for a CLEC to plan for the use of such elements."A+. {OM 'ԍId. at 21.A The Department of Justice finds that the SGAT's lack of "critical details" requires that much will be left for future negotiation, which is inconsistent with the Department of Justice's view that the SGAT  X 4must offer "specific and legally binding commitments."D, B. {Ov'ԍId. at 2122.D The Department of Justice also concludes that BellSouth had not demonstrated that it possesses the technical capability to provide unbundled network elements in a way that allows new entrants to combine them. The Department of Justice concludes by noting the importance of unbundled network elements as an entry strategy and the competitive consequences of BellSouth requiring new entrants to establish collocation facilities and thus incur "substantial cost and delay .. to use  X4combinations of elements."A-. {O6'ԍId. at 25.A  Xk4189.` `  UNE1 In its reply, BellSouth provides further information on the manner by which it intends to provide unbundled network elements and identifies certain elements which it will continue to offer in combination and not separate and require new entrants to combine. BellSouth also makes clear that it will not allow new entrants supervised physical access to BellSouth's central office equipment and facilities in order to reconnect network elements  X4directly, arguing that such access would pose serious risks to the network.P.f . yO'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 33.P Instead, BellSouth argues that the Act "indicates that an incumbent LEC will provide access to its unbundled network elements at a dedicated collocation space located at the premises of the  XS4incumbent LEC."V/S . {O#'ԍId. (citing section251(c)(6)).V BellSouth argues that section251(c)(6) is the Act's only statutory authorization for entry by new entrants onto the premises of an incumbent LEC for purposes of combining elements, and that, lacking any other statutory authority, the Commission may not require further access by new entrants to the central office or other facilities of incumbent"i /,>(>(II"  X4LEC.P0. yOy'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 34.P BellSouth further notes that, under the Act, if an incumbent LEC shows that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or space limitations, the incumbent LEC may  X4instead offer virtual collocation.A1X. {O'ԍId. at 33.A  Xt4190.` ` BellSouth states that it will provide new entrants access to unbundled network elements primarily through physical collocation. BellSouth more specifically describes the manner in which it will make unbundled network elements available to collocation space: XCLECs can obtain access to and combine unbundled network elements, for example unbundled local switching and unbundled loops, through the use of a collocation arrangement. Such combining of unbundled network elements by the CLEC may also include equipment or facilities which the CLEC provides for itself. BellSouth will extend unbundled network elements to a CLEC's physical collocation arrangement and will terminate those unbundled network elements in such a way as to allow the CLEC to provide any cross connections or other required wiring within the collocation arrangement in order to effect the combination. As mentioned above, a CLEC might combine individual unbundled network elements such as an unbundled loop with an unbundled switch port. Both the loop and the switch port are normally terminated on the Main Distributing Frame (MDF) within the BellSouth central office. Upon request of the CLEC, BellSouth will wire the loop from the MDF to the CLEC's collocation arrangement. The CLEC may then combine any unbundled loop it has acquired from BellSouth with any unbundled switch port it has acquired from BellSouth, subject to the technical parameters of the loop and the port. By technical parameters I refer to the characteristics and functionality provided by given unbundled network elements. For example, a twowire analog unbundled loop will normally be combined with a twowire unbundled switch port. The CLEC is responsible for making any necessary cross connections within the physical collocation arrangement. Other UNEs which the CLEC acquires from BellSouth may be combined by the CLEC in like  X4manner.Y2. yO'ԍBellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para.13.Y   X4191. UNE4 ` ` In its reply, BellSouth also for the first time identifies those elements that it  X}4will offer in combination, i.e., that it will not separate and require incumbent LECs to recombine. As BellSouth notes, some of these elements technically cannot be separated. According to an affidavit filed by BellSouth, it will provide the following element combinations and will coordinate orders for them: loop and cross connect, port and cross connect, port and cross connect and common transport, loop distribution and network interface device (NID), port and vertical features, loops with loop concentration, port and common" jz2,>(>(II!"  X4transport, loops and local number portability (LNP).Y3. yOy'ԍBellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para.21.Y BellSouth also represents that: "[i]n states where the loop and NID are priced separately, a loop and NID combination and loop, NID, cross connect combination will be offered. The price for each of these combinations is  X4the sum of the individual element prices.";4X. {O'ԍId. ;  XQ4192.` ` BellSouth denies the Department of Justice's argument that the SGAT insufficiently describes the terms and conditions by which BellSouth will provide unbundled network elements for combination. It contends that "[t]here are no different methods or terms for the provision of UNEs when a new entrant uses the UNEs individually or combines them  X4with other UNEs or its own facilities."G5. {O` 'ԍId. at para.32.G Thus, according to BellSouth, the SGAT does describe the terms and conditions of its unbundled network element offering. BellSouth further states that "[i]f a UNE can be physically separated, BellSouth will deliver it on a separated basis. If a UNE cannot be physically separated, access will be provided in the same  X9 4manner as for use on an uncombined basis."G69 |. {Of'ԍId. at para.21.G  X 4193.` ` Because BellSouth relies on collocation as the primary means by which new entrants can combine unbundled network elements, and collocation is the only means explicitly identified in the SGAT, we also review the SGAT's provisions relating to  X4collocation.7". yOI'ԍAs noted, the section of the SGAT addressing combinations of unbundled network elements offers to deliver unbundled network elements physically to new entrants' collocation spaces. Other arrangements apparently could be negotiated. The SGAT provides that "[a]dditional services desired by CLECs to assist in  {O'their combining or operating BellSouth unbundled elements are available as negotiated." Id. II(F). The SGAT's collocation terms and conditions were quoted above and essentially repeat the statutory language found in section 251(c)(6). In addition, the SGAT refers to "[d]etailed guidelines for collocation [that] are contained in BellSouth's Handbook  X!4for Collocation."I8! . {O'ԍId. II(B)(6).I The Handbook for Collocation (Collocation Handbook) to which the SGAT refers contains general information regarding the terms and conditions, ordering,  X4provisioning and maintenance of BellSouth's physical collocation offering.9x\ . yO"'ԍAs noted by BellSouth, the Collocation Handbook: X[b]y design . . . does not contain detailed descriptions of network interface qualities, network capabilities, local interconnection or product service offerings. This document does not represent a binding agreement in whole or in part between BellSouth and subscribers of BellSouth's Collocation services. For actual Terms and Conditions for BellSouth's Physical Collocation offering, please refer to BellSouth's Master Collocation Agreement. "&8,>(>(&"Ԍ {O'ԙBellSouth Varner Aff., Ex. AJV4 (Collocation Handbook) at 3; Ex Parte Letter from William (Whit) Jordan, Vice President Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications  {O"'Commission (Nov.6, 1997), at 1 (BellSouth Nov.6, 1997 Ex Parte). The Collocation"k9,>(>(IIw" Handbook in turn refers to a Master Collocation Agreement (Master Agreement) for the  X4"actual Terms and Conditions for BellSouth's Physical Collocation offering."W:. yOz'ԍBellSouth Varner Aff., Ex.AJV4 at 3.W This Master Agreement is a model for a new entrant to use to negotiate a regionwide collocation agreement with BellSouth, a necessary step before BellSouth will implement a collocation request. Neither the Collocation Handbook (although referenced in the SGAT), nor the Master Agreement, is included among the attachments to the SGAT. In addition, the Master  X.4Agreement was not submitted to the South Carolina Commission for review.;.|. yO[ 'ԍBellSouth also did not include the Master Agreement with its original filing in this proceeding but filed  {O# 'it later in an ex parte at the request of staff. BellSouth Nov.6, 1997 Ex Parte at 1.  X4194.` `  UNE2 BellSouth states that its ability to provide collocation to competing carriers is evidenced by the fact that, as of the date of the application, there were 14 physical collocation arrangements in place in BellSouth's region, and 86 in progress, including one in South  X 4Carolina.< . yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 3435, BellSouth Milner Aff. at para.20 & Ex.WKM2. BellSouth also claims that, as of August31, 1997, there were 145 virtual collocation arrangements across BellSouth's region, including five in South Carolina, and 43  X9 4in progress, of which one was in South Carolina.=9 f . yOP'ԍBellSouth Application at 3435, BellSouth Milner Aff. at paras.2526 & Ex. WKM2. The South Carolina Commission  X 4concluded that BellSouth has demonstrated its ability to provide collocation.k> . {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 3132.k The South Carolina Commission also found that BellSouth's witnesses testified in the state proceeding that BellSouth has technical service descriptions and procedures in place for the ordering,  X4provisioning, and maintenance of its collocation services.E? . {O'ԍId. at 3132. E We note that BellSouth has made no claim, and there is no evidence in the record, that any of the current physical collocation arrangements, or those in progress, are for the purpose of permitting new entrants to combine unbundled network elements as contemplated in sectionII(F)(1) of the SGAT.  X'tXX` ` 4. Discussion (#`  X4195.` ` The use of unbundled network elements, as well as the use of combinations of unbundled network elements, is an important entry strategy into the local telecommunicationst market. In the 1996 Act, Congress sought to hasten the development of competition in local telecommunications markets by including provisions to ensure that new entrants would be able to choose among three entry strategies construction of new facilities, the use of unbundled",l?,>(>(II"  X4elements of an incumbent's network, and resale.B@Z. {Oy'ԍSee Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 816 ("Congress clearly included measures in the Act, such as the interconnection, unbundled access, and resale provisions, in order to expedite the introduction of pervasive competition into the local telecommunications industry."). B Congress included the second entry strategy because it recognized that many new entrants will not have constructed local  X4networks when they enter the market.A". {OU'ԍSee id. ("Congress recognized that the amount of time and capital investment involved in the construction of a complete local standbeside telecommunications network are substantial barriers to entry, and thus required incumbent LECs to allow competing carriers to use their networks in order to hasten the influence of competitive forces in the local telephone business.").  As a result, the ability of new entrants to use unbundled network elements, as well as combinations of unbundled network elements, is integral to achieving Congress' objective of promoting competition in the local telecommunications market. In particular, a new entrant using unbundled network elements has the incentive and ability to package and market services in ways that differ from the BOCs' existing service offerings in order to compete in the local telecommunications market. In contrast, carriers reselling an incumbent LEC's services are limited to offering the same  X4services that the incumbent offers at retail.TB. {OJ'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(4).T Moreover, competing providers may combine unbundled network elements with facilities they construct to provide a wide array of competitive choices.  X9 4196.` ` To achieve its objective of ensuring that new entrants would have access to unbundled network elements, as well as the ability to combine such elements, Congress adopted section 251(c)(3). Congress further required the Commission to verify that a section271 applicant is meeting its obligation to offer nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements prior to granting inregion, interLATA authorization to the applicant. Because the use of unbundled network elements, as well as the use of combinations of unbundled network elements, is an important entry strategy into the local telecommunications market, we emphasize the importance of ensuring that BOC applicants comply with the requirement that they provide nondiscriminatory access to network elements in a manner that allows competing providers to combine such network elements.  X4197.` ` After reviewing the evidence in the record, we conclude that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with section251(c)(3) of the Act, and therefore fails to meet item(ii) of the competitive checklist. Pursuant to section251(c)(3), BellSouth must offer unbundled network elements to new entrants in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them to provide a telecommunications service. We recognize that we and the industry are still in the early stages of evaluating the implications of the Eighth Circuit's ruling that, although competing carriers may offer services solely through the use of unbundled network elements, the competing carriers must combine those elements themselves. Various methods of combining elements are being discussed by the industry. In this Order, we focus only on the one method of recombining that BellSouth offers in this application -- collocation -- and conclude that"Zmf B,>(>(II" BellSouth has not demonstrated that new entrants may obtain and recombine network elements pursuant to its collocation offering. We find that the SGAT is deficient because it fails to include definite terms and conditions for recombining network elements. As noted above, the SGAT's provisions relating to the terms and conditions by which BellSouth will provide unbundled network elements to new entrants in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them consists of two brief paragraphs that lack crucial details such as which elements  X.4will be separated and which will be provided in combination, and how and at what cost._C.. {O'ԍSee supra para. SGAT COMBO185._ Because the SGAT does not adequately specify what BellSouth will provide, the method in which it will be provided, or the terms upon which it will be provided, there is no basis for a  X4finding that BellSouth is offering nondiscriminatory access as the checklist requires.bDZ. {O 'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation at 20.b The SGAT provides nothing more than an offer to negotiate many of the terms of combining network elements. An offering composed of vague terms that merely form the starting point  X\ 4for negotiation over the specific details undercuts the rationale for the SGAT.HE\ . {O'ԍSee id. at 2122.H As stated by the South Carolina Commission, the SGAT "can provide the proper vehicle for CLECs to use to enter the local market quickly without having to negotiate an interconnection agreement with an incumbent LEC. The Statement may be particularly useful to smaller carriers that wish to do business with the incumbent LEC without becoming involved with formal  X4negotiations."hF~. {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 24.h That BellSouth provided additional details on recombining network elements in its reply does not alter our conclusion that the SGAT is too indefinite. These additional details are not binding on BellSouth. BellSouth's reply, therefore, does not correct the  XD4problem that the SGAT's terms are too vague and therefore legally insufficient.eGD. {O'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation at 2022.e  X4198.` ` Even after assessing the additional information concerning BellSouth's offering contained in its reply, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it can practically and legally make available unbundled network elements in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it offers in its SGAT, or can timely provide in actual practice, collocation as the means for new entrants to combine unbundled network elements consistent with the requirements of the Act.  X4199.` ` We do not reach in this Order the question of whether or not BellSouth's proposed method of permitting competing providers to rebundle unbundled network elements, assuming the problems with its provision of collocation identified above were resolved, would be consistent with sections251(c)(3) and 252(d)(2), or whether other methods of recombining must be offered. We note in this regard that the Eighth Circuit has ruled that "a requesting carrier may achieve the capability to provide telecommunications services completely through"7nG,>(>(II"  X4access to the unbundled elements of an incumbent LEC's network."WH. {Oy'ԍIowa Utils Bd., 120 F.3d at 815.W The court further concluded that a competing carrier is not required "to own or control some portion of a  X4telecommunications network before being able to purchase unbundled elements.":IZ. {O'ԍId.: Finally, the court found that, because the incumbent LECs objected to the Commission's rule that the incumbent LECs must combine network elements, the incumbent LECs "would rather allow entrants access to their networks than have to rebundle the unbundled elements for [the  X.4competing carriers]."BJ.. {O 'ԍId. at 814.B As we noted above, we are still evaluating the implications of these rulings and whether they may compel a result that would require methods other than or in addition to collocation for combining network elements.  X4200.` ` Although collocation is not a separate checklist item, BellSouth has identified collocation as the primary means by which it provides nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them as required by the  X9 4Act.K 9 ~. yOh'ԍ BellSouth indicates on reply that new entrants may combine certain unbundled network elements at another appropriate location where obtaining access at the new entrant's collocation space is not practical. As an example, BellSouth states that new entrants could access the NID on an unbundled basis at the end user's premises, as well as in combination with other subloop elements that BellSouth offers. BellSouth Reply Comments at 3334. The NID provides a single line termination device or that portion of a multiple line termination device required to terminate a single line or circuit. The NID, located on the customer's premises, establishes the official network demarcation point between a telecommunications company and its end user customer. BellSouth Varner Aff. at para.91. We understand this offer to mean that new entrants could combine  {O'the loop with the NID. See BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para.21. Our assessment of BellSouth's claim to have satisfied this statutory requirement thus necessarily involves an assessment of whether BellSouth makes available collocation for this  X 4purpose as a legal and practical matter e.g., whether it offers collocation on concrete terms  X 4and conditions.L^ P . {O'ԍSee supra para. CONCRETE TERMS81 (a BOC has a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish a checklist item upon  {O'request pursuant to its SGAT). As we noted in the Local Competition Order, collocation is a method of  {Og'interconnection and access to unbundled network elements. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779. In this regard, we believe collocation is analogous to access to OSS functions in that it is essential to the provision of unbundled network elements. This is particularly the case where the BOC relies on collocation as the means by which network elements that have been physically separated may be recombined.  X#4201.` ` We do not believe BellSouth or the South Carolina Commission would dispute our conclusion that collocation is an essential prerequisite to checklist compliance for certain checklist items. In demonstrating compliance with checklist item (i), interconnection, for example, BellSouth describes its collocation offering for that purpose and seeks to"ovL,>(>(II:"  X4demonstrate that it makes collocation practically available for interconnection purposes.PM. yOy'ԍBellSouth Application at 3435.P The South Carolina Commission assesses BellSouth's collocation offering in the context of  X4access to network elements.gNDX. {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 29, 3132;  see also Florida Commission Section 271  {O'Order at 43 ("Although collocation is not a separate checklist item, it is included as one of the six requirements, along with interconnection, unbundled access, and resale, in section251(c). The collocation requirement consists of the duty to provide for physical collocation of [new entrant] equipment that is necessary for interconnection or access to UNEs at the RBOC premises, under rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.... a carrier's request must be satisfied, and operating pursuant to section252(c)(6) and individual carrier agreements, before the checklist items for either interconnection or unbundled network elements are satisfied.")g It thus appears that both BellSouth and the South Carolina Commission recognize that BellSouth must show that collocation is available in order to demonstrate that it offers interconnection or access to unbundled network elements consistent with competitive checklist items (i) and (ii).  X 4202.` ` Having determined that BellSouth must demonstrate that it can make available collocation in order to show compliance with the competitive checklist, we assess BellSouth's collocation offering for the purpose of allowing new entrants to combine network elements. We conclude that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it can provision physical collocation in a timely manner that permits new entrants to combine unbundled network elements to provide telecommunications services. BellSouth's SGAT does not commit BellSouth to any particular interval for entertaining and implementing requests for collocation. Moreover, BellSouth provides no evidence in the record concerning its actual physical collocation installation intervals. At most, it presents testimony concerning its "anticipated"  X 4implementation interval of two to four months.O d . yO'ԍAlthough a BellSouth witness testified before the South Carolina Commission that it is "anticipated that installation [of physical collocation] will take two to four months from a firm order to equipment installation," this is a projection rather than a commitment on BellSouth's part. This language is not contained in the  {O='Collocation Handbook, much less the SGAT. See BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.4, Tab60, Prefiled Apr. 1, 1997 Testimony of Robert C. Scheye, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission Docket No.97101C, July8, 1997, 9:00a.m. Hr'g (South Carolina Commission July8, 1997, 9:00a.m. Hr'g), Tr. at 185. BellSouth's failure to include a commitment in its SGAT for installation intervals for physical collocation, coupled with the evidence in the record concerning the length of time it is taking to install physical collocation, creates concern that there may be unreasonable delays in providing collocation space. Because all carriers must apparently now use collocation in order to provide telecommunications service through a combination of BellSouth's unbundled network elements, or at least for combining the loop and the switch, unreasonable delays in provisioning collocation space create a formidable entry barrier. We concur with the Department of Justice that the substantial delays of establishing collocation facilities for new  X4entrants wishing to use combinations of elements would impede competitive entry.[P. yO$&'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 2325.[ "rpnP,>(>(II"Ԍ X4203.` ` Our concern with BellSouth's failure to commit in the SGAT to provisioning collocation within a definite interval is heightened by BellSouth's failure to demonstrate that it is in fact offering collocation in a timely manner. BellSouth does not provide any information to counter reports from other sources indicating that BellSouth is not meeting  Xt4even its nonbinding projected implementation interval of two to four months.Qt. {O'ԍ See Testimony of Robert C. Scheye, BellSouth, South Carolina Commission July8, 1997, 9:00a.m. Hr'g, Tr. at 185. These reports include findings by the Florida Commission that BellSouth has repeatedly failed to meet the three month timeframe required by its interconnection agreements and by the Florida  X 4Commission for implementing collocation arrangements.R ". {O 'ԍFlorida Commission Section 271 Order at 45, 48, 58. The Florida Commission also found BellSouth's  {O 'Florida SGAT deficient for not including physical collocation installation intervals. Id. at 48, 59, 194. Another report comes from DeltaCom, a carrier that is seeking to obtain physical collocation from BellSouth in South Carolina. DeltaCom submits an affidavit in this proceeding outlining its experience in obtaining collocation from BellSouth. It states that it took six months to negotiate a regionwide collocation agreement with BellSouth, the necessary first step to obtain any collocation  X\ 4arrangement from BellSouth.XS\ ~. yO'ԍALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para.19.X Pursuant to that agreement, once DeltaCom makes a request for collocation, BellSouth has two months to consider that request. DeltaCom states that BellSouth then takes five to eleven months to implement the request, based on DeltaCom's  X 4regionwide BellSouth experience.;T . {O'ԍId. ; Although we do not make any ruling here on what constitutes a reasonable timeframe for implementing collocation, the evidence creates a concern that there may be significant delays as new entrants wait for collocation space to be constructed, and BellSouth has submitted nothing to allay this concern. This potential delay may hinder the "rapid" introduction of competition through the use of unbundled network  XD4elements contemplated by Congress and noted by the Eighth Circuit.U\D. yO'ԍIn its discussion of the Commission's unbundling rules, the Eighth Circuit concluded that "the Act itself  {O]'calls for the rapid introduction of competition into local phone markets by requiring incumbent LECs to make  {O''their networks available to their competing carriers." Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 817 (emphasis added).  X4204.` ` Several commenters have also raised concerns that, if new entrants must construct physical collocation cages in BellSouth central offices in order to combine elements, then they will incur, unnecessarily, higher costs to obtain unbundled network elements. Although we do not reach here the question of whether a requirement that physical collocation  Xr4per se imposes unreasonable costs, we do find that BellSouth has failed to provide sufficient information on whether its physical collocation costs, as contained in the SGAT, are "just,  X.4reasonable, and nondiscriminatory."JV. . yO%'ԍ47 U.S.C. 251(c)(6).J We find BellSouth's SGAT deficient because its collocation rates do not include any rates for the space preparation fee. That component of" qT V,>(>(II"  X4cost is left to further negotiation on an individual case basis.T W. yOy'ԍBellSouth's nonrecurring construction charges are separated into three rate elements: application fee  {OA'($3850), space preparation fee (ICB, i.e., negotiated on an individual case basis), and space construction fee ($4500 per 100 square feet). SGAT Attach. A at 1. BellSouth provides insufficient information for us to gauge the magnitude of space preparation costs in relation to other costs. Because BellSouth does not provide adequate  {O'detail in its application as to the elements in its collocation offering, we must assume that the elements, e.g., the collocation cage, are comparable in order to make any type of estimate. Some interconnection agreements filed  {O-'in this record contain a space preparation fee ranging from $1,800 to $8,500. See, e.g., BellSouth Application, App. B, Vol.3, Tab22, Interconnection Agreement Between FiberSouth and BellSouth (BellSouth/FiberSouth Interconnection Agreement), Attach. C1. BellSouth's former expanded interconnection tariff sets the space preparation fee at approximately $2000. BellSouth Letter from W.W. (Whit) Jordan, BellSouth Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Ex.2 (Apr.26, 1994) (BellSouth Apr.26, 1994 Physical Collocation Tariff Letter). However, we cannot determine whether the space preparation fees are likely to be comparable to those in the tariff or the interconnection agreements because it is not clear whether some of the costs included as space construction costs under BellSouth's former tariff or its interconnection agreements are instead included in the space preparation fee to be negotiated in the SGAT. BellSouth's space construction costs under the interconnection agreements range  {O'from approximately $8,500 per 100 square feet (e.g., agreement with 360 Communications Company) to  {O'approximately $29,000 per 100 square feet (e.g., agreement with FiberSouth). See BellSouth Application, App.B, Vol.3, Tab25, Interconnection Agreement Between 360 Communications Company and BellSouth, Attach. C13 at 17; BellSouth/FiberSouth Interconnection Agreement, Attach. C1. BellSouth's space construction costs in its former tariff amounted to over $20,000 per 100 square feet. BellSouth Apr.26, 1994, Physical Collocation Tariff Letter, Ex.2. In contrast, BellSouth's SGAT specifies space construction costs of only $4,500 per 100 square feet. SGAT Attach.A at 1. Thus, either BellSouth is charging dramatically less for collocation under the SGAT, or it expects to recover some of the space construction costs through the negotiated space preparation fee. BellSouth does not provide us with sufficient information to ascertain this.T The absence of any space preparation rates creates uncertainty for new entrants and requires further negotiation, undermining the premise of an SGAT, which is to contain sufficiently specific terms and conditions such that checklist items are generally offered and available to all interested  Xt4carriers at concrete terms,bXt". {OG'ԍSee Department of Justice Evaluation at 13.b rather than left largely to future negotiation.EYt. {O'ԍSee id. at 21.E We note the  XQ4contrast with BellSouth's previous Expanded Interconnection Physical Collocation tariff  X04filing.'Z0F. yO''ԍBellSouth withdrew this filing after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia  {O'Circuit held that the Commission could not require carriers to implement physical collocation, see Bell Atlantic  {O 'Telephone Companies v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994), and the Commission ordered LECs to implement  {O!'virtual collocation instead. Expanded Interconnection Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5161, 516768.' In that tariff filing, BellSouth identified the charges and the costs for each physical collocation rate element, including rate elements associated with space preparation, so that the Commission could evaluate the charges for each rate element. That tariff filing left no costs"rZ,>(>(II6"  X4open to future negotiation.[J. {Oy'ԍSee BellSouth Apr.26, 1994, Physical Collocation Tariff Letter, Ex.2. BellSouth, along with other  {OC'incumbent LECs (e.g., Ameritech, SNET, Nevada Bell), specified regionwide averaged construction costs in its  {O 'Expanded Interconnection tariffs. Id. Alternatively, because total prices for different competing carriers may vary due to different preferences for installation, maintenance, and repair, the Commission concluded in the  {O'Expanded Interconnection proceeding that BOCs should, at a minimum, provide per unit labor and material rates at a particular central office rather than average construction costs. Similarly, we conclude that BellSouth can do  {O1'the same in its SGAT. See Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7369, 7442 (1992). Accordingly, it is possible for BellSouth to offer generally available terms and conditions, that require no further negotiation, for facilities that appear comparable to those BellSouth would require for combining unbundled network elements.  Xt4205.` ` Quite apart from concerns relating to the timeliness of implementing physical collocation arrangements, we find that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it can timely deliver unbundled network elements to such spaces, once completed, for combining, or that the provision of those combined elements will be at an acceptable level of quality. As discussed above, a BOC is generally offering a checklist item in its SGAT if that item is both  X4legally and practically available.b\. {OP'ԍSee supra para. CONCRETE TERMS81.b We held in the Ameritech Michigan Order that, in determining availability of a checklist item, evidence of actual commercial usage of that item is most probative, but a BOC may also submit evidence such as carriertocarrier testing, independent third party testing, and internal testing to demonstrate its ability to provide a  X; 4checklist item.]]; l . {OX'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para.110.] BellSouth has made no showing that there is actual commercial usage of physical collocation anywhere in its region for the purpose of recombining unbundled network elements. Although BellSouth claims experience in providing physical collocation, it makes no showing that any of the existing collocation arrangements are or can be used to combine  X4unbundled network elements as contemplated in sectionII(F)(1) of the SGAT. ^ . yO^'ԍOn an even more fundamental level, BellSouth has not even proven to us that it has significant experience in successfully providing physical collocation. As of August 31, 1997, BellSouth had completed no physical collocations in South Carolina and only fourteen throughout its ninestate region. BellSouth does not  {O'represent that these collocations were completed within whatever timeframe was committed to by BellSouth. See MCI Comments at 62.  BellSouth has also made no showing that it has performed any testing of physical collocation for the purpose of recombining network elements. Nor does the record indicate that BellSouth has tested its ability to accept orders for various elements and coordinate those orders in a way that would provide unbundled network elements for combination by new entrants in collocation space. Although BellSouth argues that there should be no difference between running an unbundled loop to a collocation space to be attached to a new entrant's equipment for transmission to a new entrant's switch and running a loop and a switch port to the same  X4space for combining,c_. {O&'ԍSee BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para.13.c BellSouth has provided no evidence to substantiate this allegation."sB_,>(>(II"Ԍ X4ԙ206.` ` We thus conclude, based on our review of the record on this issue, that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it can make available, as a legal and practical matter, access to unbundled network elements in a manner that allows competing carriers to combine them through the one method that it has identified for such access collocation. As discussed above, BellSouth has not demonstrated that it can provision physical collocation in a timely manner, or that a new entrant can utilize unbundled network elements delivered to its collocation space at an acceptable level of quality. Moreover, the SGAT's collocation offering fails to state with sufficient specificity the terms and conditions under which new entrants can obtain collocation. Therefore, we find BellSouth does not meet its requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements pursuant to the competitive checklist.  X\ 4207.` ` We are also concerned that BellSouth's application is ambiguous as to whether it makes available virtual collocation for the purpose of combining network elements, but we do not base our decision on this ground. Although the SGAT provides that "[p]hysical and virtual collocation are available for ... access to unbundled network elements as described in  X 4SectionII,"` . yOI'ԍSGAT  II(B)(6). Section II(F) of the SGAT sets forth BellSouth's offering for "CLECCombined  {O'Network Elements." See supra para.SGAT COMBO185. it is unclear from the record whether BellSouth will offer carriers a choice of either physical or virtual collocation in the first instance, or whether virtual collocation would  X4be available, if at all, only if there is no more space for physical collocation.}a ". yO]'ԍAlthough the SGAT states that, "[p]hysical and virtual collocation are available," it subsequently states that, "BellSouth will provide physical collocation for CLEC equipment unless BellSouth demonstrates to the Commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or space limitations." SGAT II(B)(6).} We are thus concerned that the SGAT could be read to not offer virtual collocation as a choice in the first  XD4instance, which would be inconsistent with the Commission's rules as set forth in the Local  X#4Competition Order.ab# . {O'ԍSee supra para. COLLO CHOICE184.a The Commission concluded in the Local Competition Order that new entrants have a choice of method for access to unbundled network elements, and that this  X4choice must include (though is not limited to) either physical or virtual collocation.c. {O,'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1577981; see also 47 C.F.R. 51.321(b). Therefore, new entrants must be able to choose virtual collocation as a method of combining network elements, regardless of whether physical collocation is practically available. We note, moreover, that new entrants should have the option of virtual collocation because it may be a less costly, timeconsuming, and burdensome method of access to unbundled network elements.  X4208.` ` Even assuming that BellSouth offers virtual collocation as an option for combining network elements, we are still concerned that BellSouth has not provided any details by which we could determine that its virtual collocation offering actually permits nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that allows new entrants"t. c,>(>(II" to combine them. BellSouth provides no information about how virtual collocation would be provided for this purpose. Evidence from the Florida Commission's section271 proceeding indicates that BellSouth at least had considered the possibility of using virtual collocation for this purpose. The Florida Commission, however, also noted that BellSouth had failed to provide sufficient information regarding its virtual collocation offering in that state. The Florida Commission stated: X[b]y definition, virtual collocation requires that only BellSouth personnel have access to the [new entrant's] collocation space. Thus, only BellSouth can actually perform the functions at the collocation that are necessary to establish and provide service to [a new entrant's] customers.... BellSouth has indicated that it will only negotiate with [new entrants] pursuant to its Bona Fide Request (BFR) process in an attempt to establish socalled "glue" charges, which are charges for combining UNEs at virtual collocations. BellSouth witness Scheye  X 4stated that BellSouth will not commit to providing the combining activity.d" . {O'ԍFlorida Commission Section 271 Order at 58. CompTel similarly charges that "BellSouth forces CLECs either to accept those network elements that can be delivered to a collocation cage (and incur the substantial costs of establishing collocation arrangements) or rely on BellSouth's undefined pledge to negotiate a 'glue charge' for BellSouth to recombine the elements." CompTel Comments at 14.  We are thus concerned that BellSouth has also failed to provide sufficient information on whether it will provide virtual collocation in a manner that permits new entrants to combine unbundled network elements.  XD4209.` ` Finally, we wish to emphasize that BellSouth provided no information on the record on the details concerning this immensely important issue regarding the recombination of unbundled network elements until the reply stage of comments. Although we do not find BellSouth's showing with respect to this issue to be deficient because of the failure to include necessary information with its initial application, we believe it is important to reemphasize the Commission's repeated admonition that section271 applications must be complete when submitted. Submitting information on reply affords the Department of Justice no opportunity  XO4to assess the offering before it submits its evaluationeO. yO'ԍUnder our procedural rules, the Department of Justice must submit its evaluation before a BOC's reply  {Oz'comments are due. See Sept. 19th Public Notice at 67. an evaluation to which the Act requires us to give substantial weight. In addition, other interested parties and this  X 4Commission have little time to assess the information provided.f"  . yO!'ԍWe note that a number of parties, lacking the benefit of the further information submitted by BellSouth upon reply, argued that BellSouth's application was deficient because BellSouth did not explain adequately which  {OV#'combinations of network elements it would provide. See, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 6; CompTel Reply Comments at 1719. This is not a situation where an applicant is simply providing information on reply to respond to comments.  X4BellSouth must make a prima facie showing in its application that it meets each checklist"u f,>(>(II"  X4item.\g. {Oy'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 49.\ As the Department of Justice found, BellSouth's application did not meet this  X4requirement.[hZ. yO'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 1231.[ It cannot correct its initial failure to provide sufficient proof to make out a  X4prima facie case by providing that information on reply and claiming it should be considered responsive to criticism that it failed to provide the information in the first place.  XS'QXX` ` 5.X Other Concerns (#  X 4210.` ` We are troubled by allegations that BellSouth is not charging costbased rates for unbundled network elements that, when combined, can be used to offer a service  X4Qequivalent to a BellSouth retail service.i. yOb 'ԍLCI Comments at 14; LCI Comments, Tab4, Declaration of Kay D. Speerstra (LCI Speerstra Decl.) at para. 14; Sprint Reply Comments at 27; WorldCom Comments at 1516. LCI's comments contain a letter from BellSouth dated October 7, 1997, that states: "In all states, when LCI orders individual network elements that, when combined by LCI, duplicate a retail service provided by BellSouth,  X^ 4BellSouth will treat, for purposes of billing and provisioning, that order as one for resale."j"^ B. yOQ'ԍLCI Speerstra Decl., Ex. E at 2 (Letter of Fred Monacelli, BellSouth, to Anne K. Bingaman, LCI, Oct.7, 1997). We note that LCI and BellSouth do not appear to have entered into an interconnection agreement  {O'for unbundled network elements in South Carolina. See BellSouth Application, App.B (collection of interconnection agreements signed by BellSouth in South Carolina). On the other hand, in its application, BellSouth states that it "permits CLECs to recombine [unbundled network elements] on an endtoend (or any other basis) thereby creating the  X 4equivalent of one of BellSouth's retail services or a different service of their own."k" , . yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 39. BellSouth's SGAT states that "CLECs may combine BellSouth network elements in any manner to provide telecommunications services," but is silent with respect to the rate charged under the SGAT when a new entrant duplicates a BellSouth retail service through the combination of network  {O*'elements obtained from BellSouth. See SGAT II(F).  X4211.` ` Although we do not base our decision on this issue, we are concerned about this letter from BellSouth that was sent to a competing carrier a week after BellSouth filed its application. We emphasize that BellSouth is obligated to charge costbased rates for  XF4unbundled network elements, even if they replicate a BellSouth service when combined.lF. yO !'ԍThe only statement in the South Carolina Commission Comments on this issue is the following: "The [South Carolina] Commission also determined in the AT&T arbitration that it is appropriate for BellSouth to charge the retail rate less the 14.8% discount where a CLEC wishes to order unbundled network elements in a manner that produces an existing BellSouth retail service and the CLEC does not wish to undertake the job of combining the elements." South Carolina Commission Comments at 9. As  X#4discussed above, the Commission concluded in the Local Competition Order that section 251(c)(3) does not require a new entrant to construct local exchange facilities before it can"vl,>(>(II"  X4use unbundled network elements to provide a telecommunications service.m$. {Oy'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15666. The Commission determined that such limitations on access to combinations of unbundled network elements would seriously inhibit the ability of potential competitors to enter local telecommunications markets through the use of unbundled elements, and would therefore  {O'significantly impede the development of local exchange competition. Id. The Eighth  X4Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board also held that "under section 251(c)(3) a requesting carrier is entitled to gain access to all of the unbundled elements that, when combined by the requesting carrier, are sufficient to enable the requesting carrier to provide telecommunications  Xv4services."Xnv. {O 'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 815.X Because the use of unbundled network elements, as well as the use of combinations of unbundled network elements, is an important entry strategy into the local telecommunications market, we will examine carefully any similar allegations in future applications.  X' XD.X` ` Resale of Contract Service Arrangements (#`  X ' XX` ` 1.X Background (#  X; 4212.` ` Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the competitive checklist requires that telecommunications services be "available for resale in accordance with the requirements of  sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3)." Section 251(c)(4), in turn, imposes upon incumbent LECs the duty "to offer for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications service that the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers; and . . . not to prohibit, and not to impose unreasonable or discriminatory conditions or limitations on, the  Xi4resale of such telecommunications service. . . ." The Commission concluded in the Local  XH4Competition Order that resale restrictions are "presumptively unreasonable."doHF. {O?'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15966.d The Commission also explicitly held that services offered through customerspecific contract service arrangements (CSAs) are "telecommunications services" subject to the wholesale discount resale requirement of section251(c)(4)(A): XSection251(c)(4) provides that incumbent LECs must offer for resale at wholesale rates "any telecommunications service" that the carrier provides at retail to noncarrier subscribers. This language makes no exception for promotional or discounted offerings, including contract and other customerspecific offerings. We therefore conclude that no basis exists for creating a general exemption from the wholesale requirement for all promotional or  X4discount service offerings made by incumbent LECs.p. {OR$'ԍId. at 15970; see AT&T/LCI Motion to Dismiss at 15 & n.12.   CSAs are contractual agreements made between a carrier and a specific, typically highvolume, customer, tailored to that customer's individual needs. CSAs may include volume"`wj p,>(>(II" and term arrangements, special service arrangements, customized telecommunications service agreements, and master service agreements.  X4213. ` ` The Commission's rules on resale restrictions provide that, "[e]xcept as provided in  51.613 of this part, an incumbent LEC shall not impose restrictions on the resale by a requesting carrier of telecommunications services offered by the incumbent  X.4LEC."Jq.. yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.605(b).J Rule 51.613 provides in pertinent part that, "[w]ith respect to any restrictions on resale not permitted under paragraph (a), an incumbent LEC may impose a restriction only if  X4it proves to the state commission that the restriction is reasonable and nondiscriminatory.",rX. {O 'ԍId.  51.613(b). The resale restrictions permitted under subparagraph (a) do not involve CSAs. Those  {O 'permissible restrictions relate to crossclass selling and short term promotions. Id.  51.613(a)(1), (a)(2)., The Eighth Circuit specifically held that determinations on resale restrictions are within the Commission's jurisdiction and upheld our resale restriction rules as a reasonable interpretation  X 4of the 1996Act's terms.Dsd  . {O'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 81819. The Eighth Circuit held: X[W]e believe that the FCC has jurisdiction to issue these particular rules and that its determinations are reasonable interpretations of the Act.... [S]ubsection251(c)(4)(B) authorizes the Commission to issue regulations regarding the incumbent LECs' duty not to prohibit, or impose unreasonable limitations on, the resale of telecommunications services.... [47 C.F.R. 51.613] is a valid exercise of the Commission's authority under subsection251(c)(4)(B) because it restricts the ability of incumbent LECs to circumvent their resale obligations under the Act simply by offering their services to their subscribers at perpetual "promotional" rates.   {O~'Id. at 819.D  X9 4214. ` ` BellSouth states clearly that it will not make CSAs available at a wholesale  X 4discount.t . {O'ԍSee SGAT  XIV(B)(1); see also BellSouth Application at 53; see also BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras.191192. BellSouth's SGAT provides that "BellSouth's contract service arrangements are available for resale only at the same rates, terms and conditions offered to BellSouth end  X 4users."Eu :. yO 'ԍSGAT  XIV(B)(1).E  X'Q` ` 2. Discussion  XD4215.` ` We find that BellSouth fails to comply with item fourteen of the competitive checklist by refusing to offer CSAs at a wholesale discount. Moreover, based on evidence Qpresented in the record, we are concerned that BellSouth's failure to offer CSAs for resale at"xu,>(>(II" a discount impedes competition for its largevolume customers and thus impairs the use of resale as a vehicle for competitors to enter BellSouth's market.  X4216. ` ` There is no dispute that, pursuant to the terms of the SGAT, BellSouth refuses to resell CSAs at a discount. Nor is there any dispute that CSAs constitute a retail service. The issue, therefore, is whether BellSouth's refusal to offer this particular retail service at a  X.4wholesale rate constitutes a "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" restriction.*vZ.. yO'ԍBellSouth's refusal to offer CSAs at a wholesale discount was the subject of a motion to dismiss filed  {Oo'by AT&T and LCI. AT&T/LCI Motion to Dismiss at 14. As noted above, we have treated the motion as early filed comments.* In this regard, BellSouth states that the SGAT "offers CLECs wholesale rates for any services that BellSouth offers to its retail customers, with the exception of those excluded from resale requirements in accordance with the Commission's rules and the orders of the [South Carolina Commission] . . . includ[ing] . . . contract service arrangements (which are available for resale at the same  X 4rates, terms and conditions offered to BellSouth's end user customers)."Mw . yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 53.M BellSouth provides no explanation in its Brief in Support of its refusal to offer CSAs at wholesale rates, nor any rationale for considering the refusal reasonable or nondiscriminatory. BellSouth's supporting  X 4affidavits note that the South Carolina Commission concluded in the AT&T Arbitration Order  X 4that "the wholesale discount would not be applied to CSAs."x z. yO 'ԍBellSouth Varner Aff. at para. 192. We note that BellSouth's failure to articulate in its Brief in Support its justification for the CSA restriction violates the procedural rules the Commission has promulgated to govern section 271 applications. The Commission has directed parties to present substantive arguments in their Brief in  {Ox'Support. Such arguments should not be contained solely in affidavits or supporting documentation. Sept. 19th  {OB'Public Notice; see also Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 60 (arguments must be clearly stated in the brief with appropriate references to supporting affidavits).  In the AT&T Arbitration  X 4Order, the South Carolina Commission stated that CSA's "should not receive a further  X4discount below the contract service arrangement rate."Sy . {OZ'ԍAT&T Arbitration Order at 4.S The state commission justified this conclusion by arguing that "CSAs are designed to respond to specific competitive challenges on a customerbycustomer basis. As BellSouth argued, the contract price for these services  XJ4has already been discounted from the tariffed rate in order to meet competition."BzJ . {O'ԍId. at 45.B  X4 217. ` ` By offering CSAs only at their original rates, terms and conditions, BellSouth  X4has created a general exemption from the wholesale requirement for CSAs. The Local  X4Competition Order, however, made clear that the language of section 251(c)(4) "makes no exception for promotional or discounted offerings, including contract and other customerspecific offerings" and that, therefore, "no basis exists for creating a general exemption from the wholesale requirement for all promotional or discount service offerings made by"Yyz,>(>(II"  X4incumbent LECs."d{. {Oy'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15970.d BellSouth's justification for the general exemption is that the South  X4Carolina Commission ruled in the AT&T Arbitration Order that the wholesale discount need not be applied to CSAs because they are already discounted. In the Local Competition proceeding, however, incumbent LECs raised the same argument with respect to volume discounts that the wholesale rate obligation should not apply to high volume rate offerings  XS4because they are already discounted.D|SZ. {O^'ԍId. at 15968.D The Commission specifically considered and rejected  X04this argument in the Local Competition Order, concluding that any service sold to end users is a retail service, and thus is subject to the wholesale discount requirement, even if it is already  X4priced at a discount off the price of another retail service..}. {O 'ԍId. at 15971 ("If a service is sold to end users, it is a retail service, even if it is priced as a volume {OS 'based discount off the price of another retail service."); see also AT&T/LCI Motion to Dismiss at 15 & n.12.. Thus the only justification that BellSouth offered in its application for the SGAT's general exemption for CSAs is one which this Commission has specifically rejected.  X` 4218.` ` The Commission's rules require a BOC to prove to the state commission that a  X= 4resale restriction is reasonable for section 251 purposes.\~Z= H. yO6'ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.613(b). The Eighth Circuit held that determinations on resale restrictions are within the Commission's jurisdiction, and that our resale restriction rules are a reasonable interpretation of the terms of the  {O'1996 Act. Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 81819.\ The rule does not contemplate, however, that a state commission can create a general exemption of all CSAs from the Act's requirement that retail offerings be available for resale at a discount from the retail price.  X 4Indeed, the Local Competition Order specifically found that the Act does not permit a general exemption from the wholesale requirement for promotional or discounted offerings, including  X4CSAs.lj . {O'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15966, 15970. l In adopting section 51.613(b) of the Commission's rules, the Commission explained that 51.613(b) was intended to and grants state commissions the authority only to approve "narrowlytailored" resale restrictions that an incumbent LEC proves to a state commission are  X'4reasonable and nondiscriminatory.D' . {O'ԍId. at 15966.D To interpret the rule to allow states to create a general exemption from the wholesale requirement for all CSAs would run contrary to the Act. Thus, BellSouth's general restriction on the provision of CSAs at wholesale rates is unlawful.  X4219.` ` Following BellSouth's application, and AT&T's and LCI's motion to dismiss in part on CSA grounds, the South Carolina Commission, in their comments, and BellSouth in its reply, have provided further justifications for the CSA restriction. BellSouth and the South Carolina Commission contend, for example, that the South Carolina Commission's approval of the CSA exemption is a local pricing matter within the South Carolina Commission's"z ,>(>(II"  X4intrastate jurisdiction.z. yOy'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 60; South Carolina Commission Comments at 11.z This contention is erroneous. The Commission's conclusions in the  X4Local Competition Order regarding the scope of the resale requirement as it applies to  X4promotions and discounts, including CSAs, was upheld by the Eighth Circuit.XX. {O'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 819.X In upholding the Commission's determination, the court stated that the Commission's rules requiring the resale of promotions and discounts concern the "overall scope of the incumbent LECs' resale obligation" rather than "the specific methodology for state commissions to use in  X04determining the actual wholesale rates.":0. {O 'ԍId.: Additionally, in establishing BellSouth's exemption from offering CSAs to resellers at wholesale rates, the South Carolina Commission  X4analyzed the matter as a resale restriction rather than as a pricing issue. Z|. {O'ԍSee AT&T Arbitration Order at 45 ("The Act indeed permits reasonable and nondiscriminatory conditions or limitations on the resale of telecommunications services, and we therefore condition our ruling with respect to CSAs.").  BellSouth's own  X4arguments concerning the resale of CSAs similarly analyze the issue as a resale restriction.Z. {O'ԍSee BellSouth Reply Comments at 60.Z Allowing incumbent LECs to set the wholesale discount for services that must be resold at a discount of zero would wholly invalidate such a wholesale pricing obligation. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the South Carolina Commission conducted an analysis to determine that the appropriate discount for CSAs should be zero.  X 4220. The South Carolina Commission also contends that its policy with respect to pricing for CSAs is the only reasonable way to implement the Act's resale provisions. The South Carolina Commission states that BellSouth does not bear ordinary marketing costs for CSAs because they are individually negotiated arrangements, and that therefore the 14.8 percent resale discount applicable to BellSouth's generally available retail offerings would greatly overstate the costs avoided by BellSouth. Moreover, the South Carolina Commission contends that it would be impossible to determine on a casebycase basis what discount is  X4necessary to account for BellSouth's potential cost savings with respect to a particular CSA.\0 . yO'ԍ South Carolina Commission Comments at 10.\ We do not believe, however, that such a process would be necessary. Because similar marketing, billing, and other costs would be avoided for all CSAs, we believe that it would be feasible, and sufficiently accurate, to calculate a single discount rate that would apply to all  Xt4CSAs.t . {O#'ԍ In the Local Competition Order, the Commission concluded that the discount rate could vary by service.   {O$'Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1595758. A single discount rate based on the costs avoidable through offering CSAs at wholesale could be applied easily and would ensure that BellSouth was made no worse off by the resale of its services. AT&T states that neither BellSouth nor the South Carolina Commission has provided any analysis to show that the 14.8 percent discount rate would" {,>(>(II" overstate the avoided costs of CSAs, and in fact no such analysis appears in the record  X4presented to us.(X. yOV'ԍAT&T Reply Comments at 21. AT&T asserts that CSAs might require a higher discount rate because certain costs, such as those associated with the special billing arrangements often required by highvolume end users, are typically quite substantial.(  X4221. ` ` BellSouth also argues in reply that, if it were to be required to offer CSAs to resellers at a wholesale discount, it would lose customers and their contribution to total cost recovery. This, according to BellSouth, would affect its ability to meet the goal of  X.4"maximizing access by lowincome consumers to telecommunications services."P.. yO 'ԍBellSouth Reply Comments at 61.P We find unpersuasive BellSouth's claims regarding contribution loss resulting from wholesalepriced resalebased competition. Claims of lost contributions to highcost subsidies do not justify an exception from either the resale requirements or the requirement to offer unbundled network elements of sections 251 and 271.  X\ 4222. ` ` AT&T and LCI have also raised the issue of cancellation penalties that may  X9 4apply when a new entrant seeks to resell the CSA contract.X9 x. {Ob'ԍAT&T/LCI Motion to Dismiss at 18.X They contend that such penalties have the effect of "insulat[ing] substantial portions of the market from resale  X 4competition." . yO'ԍAT&T Comments, App., Ex. G, Affidavit of Patricia A. McFarland (AT&T McFarland Aff.) at para 35. There is insufficient evidence in the record concerning the exact nature of the cancellation or transfer penalties BellSouth is charging, or seeks to include in its CSAs during negotiations with potential customers, for us to conclude at this time that such fees create an unreasonable condition or limitation on resale of the service. We are sensitive that CSAs represent agreements that provide both the LEC and the CSA customer with various benefits. Because, depending on the nature of these fees, their imposition creates additional costs for a CSA customer that seeks service from a reseller, they may have the effect of insulating portions of the market from competition through resale. We, therefore, would want to review such fees and request that BOCs provide information justifying the level of cancellation or transfer fees in future applications.  Xr4223.` ` We conclude by reemphasizing the important policy concerns that make restrictions on resale undesirable. BellSouth's CSA restriction may have significant competitive effects. Resale is one of the three mechanisms Congress developed for entry into the BOCs' monopoly market. BellSouth's restriction on CSAs may have the effect of  X4impeding this entry vehicle. The Commission found in the Local Competition Order that: Xthe ability of incumbent LECs to impose resale restrictions and conditions is likely to be evidence of market power and may reflect an attempt by incumbent LECs to preserve their market position. In a competitive market, an individual seller (an incumbent LEC) would not be able to impose significant restrictions"9|,>(>(II" and conditions on buyers because such buyers turn to other sellers. Recognizing that incumbent LECs possess market power, Congress prohibited  X4unreasonable restrictions and conditions on resale.d. {O3'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15966.d   Xt4224.` ` The Commission also concluded that the presumption against resale restrictions is necessary specifically for promotional or discounted offerings, such as CSAs, because otherwise incumbent LECs could "avoid the statutory resale obligation by shifting their customers to nonstandard offerings, thereby eviscerating the resale provisions of the  X41996Act."DZ. {O 'ԍId. at 15970.D The evidence in the record suggests that these concerns are realized in South Carolina. AT&T and LCI claim that BellSouth has already filed more than twice as many CSAs in 1997 (141) as it did in 1996 (66), thus insulating a substantial portion of its market  X 4from resale competition.~ . {O'ԍAT&T/LCI Motion to Dismiss at 18. An affidavit filed with the motion to dismiss contends that, "[i]n 1996, BellSouth filed 66 CSAs with the SCPSC. For 1997, through September 26, 1997, the number of  {O'BellSouthfiled CSAs increased to at least 141, with 32 being filed in March 1997 alone." AT&T/LCI Motion to  {Ox'Dismiss, Tab C, Affidavit of Louise B. Hayne on Behalf of AT&T Corp. at para. 3. BellSouth, on the other hand, states in an affidavit that "[i]n 1997 BellSouth has reported twenty CSAs to the South Carolina PSC and has negotiated three additional CSAs that will be included in BellSouth's next report." BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para. 41. AT&T further claims that BellSouth's revenues from existing  X\ 4CSA contracts will amount to over $300 million over the next three to five years.E\ 2 . yO?'ԍAT&T Comments at 43.E BellSouth thus appears to be attempting to avoid its statutory resale obligation by shifting its customers to CSAs. By foreclosing resale of CSAs, BellSouth can prevent resellers from competing for largevolume customers, thus hindering local exchange competition in South Carolina.  X'#Xj\  P6G;+XP# E.` ` Nondiscriminatory Access to 911 and E911 Services  XD4225.` ` Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(I) of the competitive checklist requires BellSouth to  X!4offer "nondiscriminatory access to . . . 911 and E911 services."! . yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  272(c)(2)(B)(vii)(I). Enhanced 911 or "E911" service enables emergency service personnel to identify the approximate location of the party calling 911. The Commission concluded  X4in the Ameritech Michigan Order that "section 271 requires a BOC to provide competitors  X4access to its 911 and E911 services in the same manner that a BOC obtains such access, i.e.,  X4at parity."]. {O$'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 256.] In particular, the Commission found that a BOC "must maintain the 911 database entries for competing LECs with the same accuracy and reliability that it maintains"},>(>(II1"  X4the database entries for its own customers."Z\. {Oy'ԍId. The Commission concluded in the Ameritech Michigan Order that this duty to maintain the 911 database "includes populating the 911 database with competitors' end user data and performing error correction  {O 'for competitors on a nondiscriminatory basis." Id.Z The Commission further found that, for facilitiesbased carriers, "nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services includes the provision of unbundled access to [a BOC's] 911 database and 911 interconnection, including the provision of dedicated trunks from the requesting carrier's switching facilities to the 911  Xt4control office.":t. {O 'ԍId.:  X.4226.` ` BellSouth's offer of access to 911 and E911 services is contained in section VII.A of the SGAT. This section provides in full:  X4XA.` ` Access to 911/E911. BellSouth provides CLECs equal access to 911/E911 service and for CLECs to provide customer numbers and address information to 911 providers on the following terms:   X9 4XX` ` 1. 911/E911 Service. Basic 911 and Enhanced 911 provide callers access to the applicable emergency services bureau by dialing a threedigit universal telephone number. `  X4XX` ` 2. Equal Access. A CLEC's customers will be able to dial and reach emergency services bureaus providing 911/E911 service in the same manner as BellSouth customers. `  X!4XX` ` 3. Basic 911 Service Provisioning. For basic 911 service, BellSouth will provide to a CLEC a list consisting of each municipality that subscribes to Basic 911 service. The list will also provide, if known, the E911 conversion date for each municipality and, for network routing purposes, a tendigit directory number representing the appropriate emergency answering position for each municipality subscribing to 911. The CLEC will be required to arrange to accept 911 calls from its end users in municipalities that subscribe to Basic 911 service and translate the 911 call to the appropriate 10digit directory number as stated on the list provided by BellSouth. The CLEC will be required to route that call to BellSouth at the appropriate tandem or end office. When a municipality converts to E911 service, the CLEC will be required to discontinue the Basic 911 procedures and begin using E911 procedures. `  X4XX` ` 4. E911 Service Provisioning. For E911 service, a CLEC will be required to install a minimum of two dedicated trunks originating from the CLEC's serving wire center and terminating to the appropriate E911 tandem. The dedicated trunks shall be, at a minimum, DS-0 level"!~~,>(>(II!" trunks configured either as a 2- wire analog interface or as part of a digital (1.544 Mb/s) interface. Either configuration shall use CAMA-type signaling with multifrequency ("MF') pulsing that will deliver automatic number identification ("ANI") with the voice portion of the call. If the user interface is digital, MF pulses, as well as other AC signals, shall be encoded per the u-255 Law convention. The CLEC will be required to provide BellSouth daily updates to the E911 database. A CLEC will be required to forward 911 calls ` XX` ` to the appropriate E911 tandem, along with ANI, based upon the current E911 end office to tandem homing arrangement as provided by BellSouth. If the E911 tandem trunks are not available, the CLEC will be required to route the call to a designated 7digit local number residing in the appropriate Public Service Answering Point ("PSAP"). This call will be transported over BellSouth's interoffice network and will not carry the ANI of the calling party. `  X 4XX` ` 5. Rates. Charges for 911/E911 service are borne by the municipality purchasing the service. BellSouth will impose no charge on CLECs beyond applicable charges for BellSouth trunking arrangements. `  X!4XX` ` 6. Detailed Practices and Procedures. The detailed practices and procedures contained in the E911 Local Exchange Carrier Guide For Facility-Based Providers determine the appropriate practices and procedures for BellSouth and CLECs to follow in providing 911/E911  X4services.A. yO'ԍSGAT  VII.A.A `  XO4227.` ` BellSouth claims that its SGAT offers to customers of competing LECs "access to the type of 911 service selected by the governmental body of the area in which they reside  X 4in a manner identical to the 911 service supplied to BellSouth's own customers." X. {O'ԍBellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 55; see also BellSouth Application at 45. BellSouth also states that it has provided facilitiesbased competing carriers with 211 trunks for E911 services in its region, including 4 trunks in South Carolina, and that "it routinely monitors call blockage on E911 trunk groups and, in coordination with the CLEC, takes corrective action using the same trunk serving procedures for E911 trunk groups from CLEC switches as for  XZ4E911 trunk groups from BellSouth switches."Z. {O"'ԍBellSouth Application at 4546; see also BellSouth Milner Aff. at paras. 57, 59. Moreover, BellSouth asserts that it has instituted procedures to maintain the 911 database entries for competing LECs with the same"7|,>(>(II"  X4accuracy and reliability that it maintains the database entries for its own customers.}. yOy'ԍBellSouth Application at 46; BellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 54 & Ex. WKM4. } The  X4South Carolina Commission found that BellSouth meets this checklist requirement.kX. {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 4647.k  X4228.` ` MCI contends that BellSouth "does not adequately set forth in its SGAT the procedures that it will use to provide 911/E911 . . . services as required by the Act," although MCI does not specify what is lacking in BellSouth's SGAT. We disagree with MCI. Rather,  X.4we conclude that BellSouth's SGAT, on its face, offers sufficient detail to make a prima facie  X 4case that BellSouth has satisfied this part of the checklist. . {O 'ԍSee supra para.  PRIMA37  (discussing the requirement that a BOC present, in its application, a prima facie case that all of the requirements of section 271 have been satisfied). BellSouth has pled facts and provided appropriate supporting evidence which, if true, are sufficient to establish that it  X4offers nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services.`D. {O'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 44.`  X 4229.` ` As the Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, once the applicant  X` 4has made a prima facie showing that it complies with a checklist item, "opponents of the BOC's entry must, as a practical matter, produce evidence and arguments necessary to show that the application does not satisfy the requirements of section 271, or risk a ruling in the  X 4BOC's favor."G . {O'ԍId. at para. 44.G No commenter has alleged that BellSouth is not currently populating and maintaining the 911 database for competitors' customers with the same accuracy and  X4reliability as for its own customers.mBh . yO'ԍOne party, DeltaCom, asserts that, for a limited period of time after BellSouth outsourced the task of updating the 911 database, DeltaCom customers were not entered accurately into the 911 database. ALTS Moses (DeltaCom) Aff. at para. 16. DeltaCom, however, provides no information on the extent of the problems it encountered nor the period of time during which it encountered these problems. Moreover, DeltaCom  {O'acknowledges that they have been informed that BellSouth corrected all of the problems. Id. BellSouth, in reply, states that it is aware of only one instance where a customer was not included in the 911 database due to human error, but that it adopted procedures to prevent this problem from happening again and the problem has not recurred. BellSouth Milner Reply Aff. at para. 20.m Nor has any commenter contended that BellSouth is not providing equivalent access to the 911 database or to dedicated trunks.  XJ4230.` ` We note that BellSouth states that "any errors found in the data supplied by  X'4CLECs are faxed back to the CLEC along with the error code."CX'r. yOJ$'ԍBellSouth Application at 46; BellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 54 & Ex. WKM4. We also note that, according to BellSouth, 15 new entrants are using a mechanized process to send 911 database updates to BellSouth. BellSouth Application at 46; BellSouth Milner Aff. at para. 59.C We addressed above, in our discussion of BellSouth's offer of access to OSS functions, our concerns that notifying",>(>(II"  X4competing carriers of errors via fax could lead to significant delays.. {Oy'ԍSee discussion supra paras. FACS1117שFACS2121. We would be concerned if this manual notification process leads to untimely notification or to problems with the accuracy and the integrity of the 911 database, and would reevaluate our conclusion  X4herein should such evidence be presented in future applications.pZ. {O'ԍSee generally Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 256279.p With respect to 911 and E911 services, however, no party contends that the fact that BellSouth notifies competing carriers via facsimile about errors has led to a lack of parity or problems such as incorrect enduser information being sent to emergency personnel. We therefore find, based on the record before us in this application, that BellSouth has met its burden to demonstrate that it offers nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services and complies with this part of checklist item (vii).  X '  VII.JOINT MARKETING  X9 ' XA.X` ` Background (#`  X 4231.` ` Section271(d)(3)(B) prohibits the Commission from approving a BOC's application for inregion, interLATA authorization unless it finds that "the requested  authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section272." Section272(g) allows BOCs and their affiliates to joint market their services, with certain  Xg4restrictions.xg. yO'ԍSpecifically, section272(g)(1) prohibits a section272 BOC affiliate from marketing or selling telephone exchange services provided by the BOC unless that company permits other entities offering the same or similar service to market and sell its telephone exchange services. Section272(g)(2) prohibits a BOC from marketing or selling interLATA service provided by a section272 affiliate within any of its inregion states until the company is authorized to provide interLATA services in such state under section271(d). Section272(g)(3) clarifies that the joint marketing and sale of services permitted under section272(g) shall not be considered to violate the nondiscrimination provisions of section272(c). In adopting rules implementing this section with respect to inbound  XD4telemarketing in the NonAccounting Safeguards proceeding, the Commission sought to balance the BOCs' continuing equal access obligations pursuant to section251(g) with their  X4right under section272(g) to market and sell the services of their section272 affiliates.u, . {O'ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2204647.u The Commission concluded that, pursuant to section251(g), BOCs must continue to inform new local exchange customers of their right to select the interLATA carrier of their choice  X4and take the customer's order for the interLATA carrier the customer selects.D . {O#'ԍId. at 22046.D Specifically, the BOCs must provide any customer who orders new local exchange service with the names and, if requested, the telephone numbers of all of the carriers offering interexchange services"QP ,>(>(II"  X4in its service area.. {Oy'ԍId. at 22046. A customer orders "new service" when the customer either receives service from the BOC  {OC'for the first time, or moves to another location within the BOC's inregion territory. Id. The Commission found that, as part of this requirement, a BOC must  X4ensure that the names of the interexchange carriers are provided in random order.:$. {O'ԍId.: The Commission further concluded that this "continuing obligation to advise new customers of other interLATA options is not incompatible with the BOCs' right to market and sell the  Xt4services of their section272 affiliates under section272(g)."Dt. {O 'ԍId. at 22047.D Thus, the Commission found that "a BOC may market its affiliate's interLATA services to inbound callers, provided that the BOC also informs such customers of their right to select the interLATA carrier of their  X 4choice.": H. {O'ԍId.:  X4232.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission held that Ameritech's proposed inbound telemarketing script would violate the equal access requirements of  X 4section251(g).a . {O 'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras.37576.a In that proceeding, Ameritech stated that, on an inbound call, Ameritech's service representative would inform the customer: XYou have a choice of companies, including Ameritech Long Distance, for long distance service. Would you like me to read from a list of other available long  X 4distance companies or do you know which company you would like?H l . {O'ԍId. at para.375.H  If the customer chose a particular long distance company at this point, the order would be processed accordingly. If the customer requested a listing or telephone numbers of other available companies, the service representative would read from the entire list and ask the  X#4customer for its choice of long distance carrier.:# . {O'ԍId.: The Commission in the Ameritech  X4Michigan Order held that, "[m]entioning only Ameritech Long Distance unless the customer affirmatively requests the names of other interexchange carriers is inconsistent on its face with our requirement that a BOC must provide the names of interexchange carriers in random  X4order."H . {O#'ԍId. at para.376.H The Commission stated that such a practice would allow Ameritech Long Distance to gain an unfair advantage over other interexchange carriers. The Commission relied upon  XU4the NonAccounting Safeguards Order to conclude that, pursuant to the BOC's obligation to provide nondiscriminatory treatment under section251(g), a BOC must provide, in random"4",>(>(II" order, the names and, if requested, the telephone numbers of all available interexchange  X4carriers.. {OV'ԍId. (citing NonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 22046).  X4233.` ` In the section271 application before us, BellSouth urges the Commission to approve its proposed telemarketing script, under which the BellSouth service representative would inform the customer that there are numerous choices for long distance providers, offer to read a list of all available interexchange carriers in random order, and recommend  X 4BellSouth's long distance affiliate.x Z. yO 'ԍBellSouth Application at 6365; BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 23031.x BellSouth proffers as an example of its telemarketing script: XYou have many companies to choose from to provide your long distance service. I can read from a list the companies available for selection, however,  X\ 4I'd like to recommend BellSouth Long Distance.T\ . yO'ԍBellSouth Varner Aff. at para.230.T  BellSouth asserts that these company names will be read in random order if the customer requests that they be read. According to BellSouth, based on the customer's response, the  X 4order will be completed with the appropriate long distance carrier as requested.H z. {O'ԍId. at para.231.H  X4234.` ` BellSouth and Ameritech argue that such a script is acceptable under the Non Xi4Accounting Safeguards Order, which, they claim, struck a balance between a BOC's continuing equal access obligations pursuant to section251(g) and the right of a BOC and its  X%4affiliate to market services jointly under section272(g).m% . yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 6364; Ameritech Comments at 1213.m These parties claim that the  X4Ameritech Michigan Order is inconsistent with the NonAccounting Safeguards Order because  X4the Ameritech Michigan Order nullifies the second part of that balance the BOC's statutory  X4joint marketing right.m. yO 'ԍBellSouth Application at 6465; Ameritech Comments at 1216.m BellSouth and Ameritech also argue that requiring a BOC to recite a list of every available interexchange carrier even when the customer has made up her mind would be so burdensome and annoying to customers that it would effectively prevent the BOC  XW4from joint marketing on inbound calls.W, . yO4#'ԍBellSouth Comments at 64; BellSouth Reply Comments at 86; Ameritech Comments at 1415. BellSouth and Ameritech further contend that  X44prohibiting their proposed scripts would raise First Amendment concerns.\4 . {O%'ԍBellSouth and Ameritech claim that restrictions on joint marketing as set forth in the Ameritech  {Ok&'Michigan Order raise First Amendment concerns by restricting truthful statements about lawful activities, absent evidence that these restrictions are needed to achieve a "substantial" government interest. BellSouth Comments"5',>(>(A'" at 65 n.23; Ameritech Comments at 1516 n.19. Ameritech claims that the Commission's only explanation for finding its script unacceptable was a purely speculative conclusion that its marketing script would let Ameritech Long Distance gain an unfair advantage over other interexchange carriers. Ameritech Comments at 1516 n.19. BellSouth contends that requiring BOCs to list all available interexchange carriers yet prohibiting them from recommending their own long distance affiliates might also unconstitutionally coerce them to deliver messages with which they disagree. BellSouth Comments at 65 n.23."4@,>(>(II"Ԍ X4ę235.` ` AT&T, on the other hand, urges us to continue to reject telemarketing scripts  X4such as Ameritech's or BellSouth's.~@. {O'ԍAT&T Comments at 5859; see also CFA Reply Comments at Attach. 1 at 38.~ AT&T asserts that the Ameritech Michigan Order is consistent with section272(g)(2), which forbids identifying only one interexchange carrier  X4during inbound calls, and the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, which made clear that  Xx4marketing must be consistent with the equal access requirements of 251(g).Jx. yO 'ԍAT&T Comments at 59 n.40.J TRA claims  XU4that BellSouth's admission that it does not intend to comply with Ameritech Michigan Order's conclusion shows that, even before attaining section271 authority, BellSouth will not follow  X4the Commission's section272 rules with which it disagrees.Gb . yO$'ԍTRA Comments at 3334.G  X' QXB.X` ` Discussion (#`  X 4236.` ` We take this opportunity to address the issue of whether BellSouth's proposed inbound telemarketing script is consistent with the requirements of the statute. We do not Qrequire applicants to submit proposed marketing scripts as a precondition for section271 approval, nor do we expect to review revised marketing scripts on an ongoing basis once section 271 authorization is granted. Applicants are free to tell us how they intend to joint market, although we do not require them to do so. Our intention in addressing this issue here is to establish a safe harbor, so that the BOCs will have some guidance on what we view as consistent with sections 251(g) and 272. We emphasize that we are not concluding here that  Xm4any other scripts are per se lawful or unlawful. We conclude that BellSouth's script is acceptable, and, under the analysis set forth below, we would also find that the script filed by Ameritech in its section271 application for Michigan would be acceptable, should it file a new application.  X4237.` ` We conclude that BellSouth's telemarketing script as proffered in the record is in fact consistent with the requirements of sections251(g) and 272(g), as discussed in the  Xz4NonAccounting Safeguards Order. We agree with BellSouth and Ameritech that a BOC, during an inbound telephone call, should be allowed to recommend its own long distance affiliate, as long as it contemporaneously states that other carriers also provide long distance  X4service and offers to read a list of all available interexchange carriers in random order.m . yO%'ԍBellSouth Application at 6365; Ameritech Comments at 1116.m In  X4the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, the Commission stated that the BOCs' existing obligation to provide any customer who orders new local exchange service with the names" ,>(>(II+" and, if requested, the telephone numbers of all of the carriers offering interexchange services in its service area in random order was not incompatible with the BOCs' right to joint  X4market.l. {O3'ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 22047.l The Commission concluded that a BOC could market its affiliate's long distance services to inbound callers as long as the BOC also informed those customers of their right to select the interexchange carrier of their choice and provided the names and numbers of all  XQ4interexchange carriers in random order.GQZ. {O\'ԍId. at 2204647.G Thus, the NonAccounting Safeguards Order sought to balance a BOC's continuing equal access obligations pursuant to section251(g) with the right of a BOC and its affiliate to market services jointly under section272(g).  X4238.` ` In considering the issue of whether BellSouth's marketing script meets the requirements of sections251(g) and 272(g), we find that the Commission's decision in the  X 4Ameritech Michigan Order placed too much weight on the equal access obligations, and too  X` 4little weight on the BOCs' right to jointly market local and long distance services.w` . {O'ԍSee BellSouth Application at 6465; Ameritech Comments at 1216.w We note that the equal access obligations requiring BOCs to provide the names and telephone numbers of interexchange carriers in random order were written at a time when BOCs could not  X 4provide (and therefore could not market) long distance service.?\ ~. {O&'ԍSee Letter from Susanne Guyer, Executive Director Federal Regulatory Policy Issues, NYNEX, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No.96149, at 24 (Oct.23, 1996) (NYNEX Oct.23,  {O'1996 Ex Parte in CC Docket No. 96149).? Now that BOCs, upon authorization to provide inregion, interLATA services, are permitted under the Act to market their services jointly, we must harmonize the existing equal access requirements with their right under the Act to engage in joint marketing.  XH4239.` ` We thus conclude that, even if a BOC's inbound marketing script markets the services of its long distance affiliate, the script is acceptable as long as the BOC  X4contemporaneously fulfills the equal access requirements described in the NonAccounting  X4Safeguards Order i.e., offers to read, in random order, the names and, if requested, the  X4telephone numbers of all available interexchange carriers.l. {O'ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 22046.l In fact, the NonAccounting  X4Safeguards Order cited with approval a proposal submitted by NYNEX in that rulemaking docket similar to the BellSouth script, in which NYNEX would first inform the customer that he or she had a choice of carriers including the BOC's long distance affiliate, then offer to read a random list of interexchange carriers if the carrier did not at that point choose an  X4interexchange carrier. "4 . yO$'ԍBellSouth Comments at 6364; Ameritech Comments at 1314. Under NYNEX's proposal, the NYNEX representative would inform the customer that a number of companies provide long distance service, including NYNEX Long Distance Company, and offer to send material regarding NYNEX Long Distance. If the customer indicated that he or she wanted another long distance carrier, NYNEX would then process the presubscription"R',>(>(]'" request; if the customer wanted to hear more about NYNEX Long Distance, the representative would then provide more information; and if the customer indicated that he or she was uncertain as to which carrier to choose, the representative would offer to read a random list of interexchange carriers including NYNEX Long  {O'Distance. NYNEX Oct.23, 1996 Ex Parte in CC Docket No.96149, at 3. As BellSouth and Ameritech point out, section272(g) confers upon",>(>(II" BOCs authority to market and sell services of their long distance affiliates, and does not  X4contain any exception for inbound calls or calls from new customers.g. yO@'ԍBellSouth Application at 63; Ameritech Comments at 12.g We therefore conclude that BOCs are permitted under the statute to market their long distance affiliates' services during inbound calls. We further conclude that section272(g) allows a BOC to mention its affiliate apart from including that affiliate on a random list of available  XQ4interexchange carriers.ZQB. {OD 'ԍSee BellSouth Application at 65; Ameritech Comments at 14. Because we conclude that BellSouth's proposed script is consistent with the statute, we do not address BellSouth's and Ameritech's First Amendment arguments.  X ' QVIII.XCONCLUSION (#  X4240.` ` For the reasons discussed above, we deny BellSouth's application for authorization under section271 of the Act to provide inregion, interLATA services in the Qstate of South Carolina. We conclude that BellSouth is not eligible to proceed under Track B. BellSouth also has not demonstrated that it generally offers each of the items of the competitive checklist in section271(c)(2)(B) as required by the Act. In particular, BellSouth has not demonstrated that it generally offers adequate operational support systems, nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements, and contract service arrangements at a wholesale discount. We find that BellSouth has demonstrated compliance with checklist item(vii)(I), nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services. Except as otherwise provided herein, we make no findings with respect to BellSouth's compliance with other checklist items or other parts of section271. Finally, we conclude that BellSouth's inbound telemarketing script is consistent with the Act.  X' IX.XORDERING CLAUSES (#  X4241.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 271 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 271, BellSouth Corporation's application to provide inregion interLATA service in the State of South Carolina filed on September30, 1997, IS DENIED.  X 4242.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by AT&T and LCI on October1, 1997, IS DENIED.  X4243..` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike filed by BellSouth on December 4, 1997, IS GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described herein. "Zd ,>(>(II"Ԍ X4244.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike filed by BellSouth on December 19, 1997, IS DENIED.   ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X 4 ` `  hhCqMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCqSecretary",>(>(II"  X'  @A-@   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) ]APPENDIX  X'BellSouth Corporation's 271 Application for Service in South Carolina 3CC Docket No. 97208 =List of Commenters  X 4 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1.XAlliance for Public Technology(#  X42.XAmerican Communications Services, Inc. (ACSI)(#  X43. XAd Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies and Corporate Telecommunications Service Managers(#  X 44.XAmeritech(#  X\ 45.XAssociation for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)(#  X9 46.XAmerican Council on Education and National Association of College and University Business Officers(#  X 47.XAT&T Corp.(#  X 48.XBell Atlantic(#  X49.XBellSouth Corporation(#  X4 10.XCompetition Policy Institute(#  Xg4 11.XCompetitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel)(#  XD4 12.XConsumer Federation of America(#  X!4 13.XGenCorp., The Gleason Works, Norfolk Southern Corp., PNC Bank, Zurn Industries, Inc.(#  X4 14.XHyperion Telecommunications, Inc.(#  X415.XIndependent Payphone Service Providers for Consumer Choice(#  X416.XIntermedia Communications, Inc.(#  Xr417.XInstitute for Educational Leadership, Inc. (The)(#  XO418.XKeep America Connected!(#  X,419.XKMC Telecom Inc.(#  X 420.XLatin Women and Supporters(#  X421.XLCI International Telecom Corp.(#  X422.XLow Tech Designs, Inc.(#  X423.XManagement Education Alliance(#  X}424.XMCI Telecommunications Corporation(#  XZ425.XNational Association of Black Accountants, Inc.(#  X7426.XNational Association of Commissions for Women(#  X427.XNational Association of Development Organizations(#  X428.XNational Association of Partners in Education, Inc.(#  X 429.XNational Business League(#  X!430.XNational Cable Television Association(#  X"431.XNational Hispanic Council on Aging(#  Xe#432.XNational Trust for the Development of African American Men, Inc. (The)(#  XB$4 33.XOrganizations Concerned About Rural Education(#  X%4!34.XPaging and Narrowband PCS Alliance of the Personal Communications Industry Association(#  X&4"35.XPilgrim Telephone, Inc.(#"&,>(>(II&"Ԍ X4#36.XSouth Carolina Cable Television Association(#  X4$37.XSouth Carolina Consumer Advocate Philip S. Porter(#  X4%38.XSouth Carolina Public Service Commission(#  X4&39.XSprint Communications Company L.P.(#  Xt4'40.XTeleport Communications Group, Inc. (TCG)(#  XQ4(41.XTelecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)(#  X.4)42.XTriangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education(#  X 4*43.XUnited Homeowners Association(#  X4+44.XUnited Senior Health Cooperative(#  X4,45.XU S WEST, Inc.(#  X4-46.XVanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.(#  X 4.47.XWorldCom, Inc.(#  X\ 4/48.XLetters from officials, businesses and citizens of South Carolina(# "9 ,>(>(II9 "  X'  @A-@ #Wi  #Wi X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(>(II&"Ԍ W4Ù Second, I do not read the 8th Circuit's rulings as curtailing the FCC's role in  X4determinations on Bell company applications to offer long distance services.  Just as the  X4Court found that interconnection arbitrations are assigned by Section 252 to the states, determinations of checklist compliance and the public interest are expressly assigned by  Xu4Section 271 to the FCC. This Commission is required to "consult" with the states on the requirements of the competitive checklist and is required to give "substantial weight" to the views of the Attorney General, but specific determinations of compliance with the checklist, conformity with Section 272, and the public interest are the responsibility of the FCC. Given that Congress enjoined the FCC from giving "any preclusive effect" even to the views of the Attorney General, I can find no statutory basis for treating the determinations of state commissions whether on pricing or on any other checklist items as dispositive for Section 271 purposes. Nor can I see how we might give the Attorney General's views "substantial weight" if a state commission's contrary opinion on any subject is to be deemed definitive. It has been suggested that it is disrespectful of the 8th Circuit for us to evaluate pricing matters in the Section 271 context. I do not agree. It certainly would not be my intention to disregard an order of the Court. If I thought the 8th Circuit had foreclosed us from considering whether unbundled network element prices are based on cost (as the checklist requires) or are consistent with promoting efficient entry in the local telephone marketplace (as we might consider in making a public interest determination), then, of course, I would  X4abide by both the spirit and effect of that order. But I do not believe that the 8th Circuit's ruling was intended to have such a sweeping effect  X4and do not assume that the Court meant to so circumscribe our decisionmaking under Section 271. Congress's directive that our Section 271 determinations are reviewable only by the  XR4U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reinforces this conclusion.  W 4 Third, I believe that there is a workable solution that both state and federal officials can  X4agree upon.  Some states are uncomfortable with the FCC determining for purposes of Section 271 that forwardlooking costbased pricing is essential for competition, even though the state commissions are completely free to develop their own pricing methodology for purposes of Section 252. Similarly, this Commission would not be comfortable approving a Section 271 application if the prices for unbundled network elements, transport and termination, and collocation are set so as to discourage efficient competitive entry in the local market. The Justice Department has proposed an approach that may bridge the differing state and federal perspectives. Specifically, the Department advocates that the FCC examine, in a Section 271 application, whether the prices are based on a "reasoned application of an appropriate methodology," a flexible formulation set forth in the Department's submission in this docket. A number of leading state commissioners have responded favorably to this approach. While I cannot speak for my colleagues, I, for one, am prepared to endorse it. "&,>(>(II '"ԌThe circumstances of an adjudicatory proceeding involving a single party's application that must be resolved within a 90day deadline do not permit negotiation and consensusbuilding involving five FCC commissioners and dozens of state commissions. But this middleground solution holds great promise. Moreover, resolution of our jurisdictional controversies may be advanced by (1) the widespread substantive agreement, both throughout the states and internationally, on the importance of using forwardlooking economic costs; and (2) the  X.4prospects for a collaborative, multijurisdictional, gettingtoyes process for addressing Section 271 issues.  X4I note that the South Carolina commission has acknowledged that the current prices in BellSouth's statement of generally available terms are not the product of any particular methodology thus, it would be difficult to conclude that the prices are based on any articulable notion of what the statute means by "cost." But the state commission plans to resolve interconnection pricing issues in the near future, so there is no reason to assume that any current problems with interconnection prices will not be cured before BellSouth files its next application for South Carolina.  X' Hastening the Arrival of Local Competition The Telecommunications Act is based on the premise that entrepreneurial companies are willing to compete if barriers that have previously stood in their way are removed. Experience in South Carolina bears this out. Although the biggest cities and biggest potential customers are elsewhere, scores of companies have expressed an interest in entering the local market in South Carolina: over eighty had signed interconnection agreements at the time of BellSouth's application, and dozens more requests for interconnection were pending. I cannot believe that these companies have explicitly or tacitly agreed to hold back their efforts to penetrate the market, in the shared hope that doing so will foreclose BellSouth from entering the long distance market. A far more probable explanation for the nascent state of competition is that opening the local market is proving to be an immensely complicated process and that, despite the progress BellSouth has made to date in implementing its responsibilities under Section 251, a great deal more remains to be accomplished. If all parties work together in a spirit of cooperation, we can achieve for the consumer the benefits of robust local and long distance competition. I hope that we will see continued progress in the new year, such that we will be able to "get to yes" to conclude that BellSouth has fulfilled its responsibilities fully and can in turn properly be authorized to bring additional competition to the long distance market.",>(>(II"  X' XX   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(>(II""ԌFinally, I respect the genuinely held view of some that the statute confers independent jurisdiction on the Commission to establish pricing rules. I merely note that such an interpretation is not universally shared among the Commissioners. In particular, some of us question whether such an interpretation of section 271 is consistent with the Eighth Circuit's prior holdings regarding the states' ratemaking authority. I feel no need, however, to debate this legal point here. This interpretation has been challenged and is squarely presented in the mandamus action presently before the Eighth Circuit. Oral argument in that proceeding is scheduled for later next month. The Court itself will undoubtedly shed light on this important question. #Wi