WPC 2 ZBeKeRightfaxXN\  PXPX0ÍÍ.X0ÍÍ.Quick I. . Quick A. . 2eGggezQuick 1. . "Small Circle"Quick 2 2Quick a.   . 2j0YXN\  PXPxhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PPxhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXN\  PXPxhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXSM\  PSPxhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularSXN\  PXPxhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX23|x 3'Letter   #A\  PP#BellSouth, September 30, 1997, South Carolina#XN\  PXP#ѳ3& Before the f FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION !Washington, D.C. 20554 ă " 1 " 1 8 x<x<In the Matter of Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in South Carolina8 CC Docket No. __________ To:The Commission  BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION BY BELLSOUTH FOR PROVISION OF INREGION, INTERLATA SERVICES IN SOUTH CAROLINA  ă (#҇WALTER H. ALFORD WILLIAM B. BARFIELD JIM O. LLEWELLYN 1155 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30367 (404) 2492051 DAVID G. FROLIO 1133 21st Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 (202) 4634182 GARY M. EPSTEIN LATHAM & WATKINS 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004 (202) 6372249 Counsel for BellSouth Corporation JAMES G. HARRALSON 28 Perimeter Center East Atlanta, GA 30346 (770) 3523116  Counsel for BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. September 30, 1997 MICHAEL K. KELLOGG AUSTIN C. SCHLICK KEVIN J. CAMERON JONATHAN T. MOLOT ppp- KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD & EVANS, P.L.L.C. 1301 K Street, N.W. Suite 1000 West Washington DC 20005 (202) 3267900 Counsel for BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. MARGARET H. GREENE R. DOUGLAS LACKEY MICHAEL A. TANNER STEPHEN M. KLIMACEK 675 W. Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4300 Atlanta, GA 30375 (404) 3350764 Counsel for BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.Ĉ     @--@  ӈX0ÍÍ.X0ÍÍ.l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ă The Commission has labored since passage of the 1996 Act to establish the preconditions for competitive local telephone markets. BellSouth has worked equally hard to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act. Yet, as is the case in other parts of the country, facilitiesbased local competition is limited in much of BellSouths service territory. Outside of the most obviously profitable cities and service categories, potential local competitors appear unwilling to seize the opportunities Congress, regulators, and BellSouth have made available. Competition in interLATA services likewise has stalled. Congress determined that entry by the Bell companies is the best way to end years of lockstep price increases by the incumbent long distance carriers, yet the Commission and the Department of Justice have thus far opposed such entry. SNET and GTE meanwhile are energizing long distance competition in their local service areas, highlighting what is being lost by keeping Bell companies on the sidelines. Twenty months of experience under the 1996 Act shows it is futile and enormously costly to delay interLATA competition while waiting for facilitiesbased local competition to spread to both business and residential customers. If incumbent long distance carriers believe they can prevent Bell companies from capturing a piece of the long distance market simply by focusing their local entry on lucrative business customers, that is what they will do. Residential callers pay the price, including foregone long distance savings of about $7 billion each year. With this application, BellSouth offers a solution. Rather than relying solely on regulation, the Commission can use its authority under section 271 to let market forces jumpstart competition in local and interLATA services. South Carolina is the perfect laboratory for proving this more promising approach, for several reasons.First, BellSouth has fully complied with the local competition provisions of the 1996 Act in South Carolina. The South Carolina Public Service Commission ( SCPSC) unanimously concluded after exhaustive inquiry that BellSouth has done everything it reasonably can to facilitate local competition. Among other things, BellSouth has voluntarily negotiated over 80 interconnection and resale agreements with requesting carriers in South Carolina; filed and received approval of a statement of generally available terms and conditions that satisfies all statutory and regulatory requirements; invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make interconnection and network access available to local competitors; and demonstrated its ability to process competitors orders and furnish local facilities and services upon request.-i See Order Addressing Statement and Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Entry of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., into InterLATA Toll Market, Docket No. 97101C, Order No. 97640 (SCPSC Jul. 31, 1997) ( Compliance Order).- The SCPSCs detailed factual findings, developed in its capacity as a trier of fact after a full evidentiary review, with the benefit of decades of experience in overseeing local telecommunications in South Carolina, establish BellSouths satisfaction of all relevant requirements under sections 251 and 252. They rule out the possibility that shortfalls of local competition are attributable to BellSouth rather than the business decisions of potential competitors themselves. BellSouth has also followed the guidance regarding interLATA entry given by this Commission in its Michigan Order1i Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97137, FCC No. 97298 (rel. Aug. 19, 1997) ( Michigan Order).1 to the extent possible while preserving BellSouths right to have a court decide whether those requirements are consistent with the Act based on the facts as they exist in South Carolina. As part of its commitment to working cooperatively with the Commission, BellSouth even has included extensive evidence requested by the Commission notwithstanding pending proceedings that bear on the relevance and necessity of such evidence. Second, and despite BellSouths efforts to ease their entry, potential competitors are not entering the residential market in South Carolina on a facilities basis. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint have all disavowed an intention to offer such service. Compliance Order at 19. No potential provider had taken any substantial steps to offer facilitiesbased service to residential customers as of three months ago, which is the relevant time under Track B. 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(B). The situation in South Carolina reflects a general problem: potential local competitors are turning their backs on residential and rural customers to pursue more profitable opportunities and keep the Bell companies out of long distance. Although the Commission cannot solve this problem by further regulating incumbent LECs, it can break the logjam by authorizing interLATA competition under Track B, thereby sending a signal that long distance carriers and other potential local providers cannot delay interLATA competition by tailoring their local entry. This application may be proper under Track A (47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(A)) as well. One competitor in South Carolina recently has taken steps that may indicate an intention to provide residential service " possibly in a belated effort to thwart BellSouths Track B application. To resolve this issue and develop a full record, the Commission should request that parties who provide or intend to provide local services in South Carolina detail their current and planned services in their comments on this application.Third, the benefits to consumers of granting this application are crystal clear. Over five years, fuller competition as a result of BellSouths interLATA entry will result in nearly 13,000 new jobs in South Carolina and increase the gross state product by more than $1.2 billion. BellSouth has submitted to the SCPSC a proposed tariff that would establish basic interLATA rates at least five percent below those of AT&T. This tariff would guarantee lowvolume callers, who are most in need of price relief, the opportunity to realize savings from a long distance carrier they know and can trust. These benefits will be secured without any threat of harm to competition. The traditional justification for excluding Bell companies from interLATA services is that they might dominate interexchange #SM\  PSP#markets through cost misallocation or discrimination#XN\  PXP#. Yet the 1996 Act, together with longstanding Commission regulations and market realities, renders such misconduct inconceivable. The local exchange in South Carolina is open to competitors. BellSouth will start with zero market share in a business dominated by entrenched incumbents with vast resources and high sunk costs, factors that make successful predation unimaginable. Commission rules and procedures have successfully protected regulated ratepayers when incumbent local exchange carriers have entered other markets adjacent to the local exchange. The Commission has confirmed that the 1996 Act gives it ample authority to deter anticompetitive behavior and to facilitate detection of potential violations of the Act. The SCPSC and South Carolina Attorney General likewise have committed themselves to protecting against any possible harm from BellSouths inregion, interLATA entry.The unqualified benefits of granting this application have been recognized by those who are most affected. Included in Appendix D to this application are more than 450 letters from South Carolinians who support BellSouths request for permission to compete, sent by the Governor and Attorney General of South Carolina and other representatives at the local and State levels, public and private educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, community and business leaders, and ordinary business and residential consumers. Fourth, BellSouths entry into interLATA services likely will end long distance carriers lack of interest in South Carolinas local markets. As the SCPSC found, the major long distance carriers 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. Compliance Order at 6667. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint also will be freed of all restrictions on offering bundled service packages, adding an additional dimension to local competition. The SCPSC has determined that the last avenue to achieving Congresss goal of competition across all telecommunications markets in South Carolina is to allow BellSouth to provide interLATA services. Id. at 78, 6667. This Commission will be slowing competition in South Carolina if it fails to embrace and act on this finding by the state agency that is closest to the facts. ! TABLE OF CONTENTS    EXECUTIVE SUMMARYp"(#Ji Quick I.I.BELLSOUTH MAY PROCEED UNDER TRACK Bp"(#J4Quick I.ۃ  Quick A.A.` ` ` BellSouth Has Taken All Required Steps to Open Local Markets Quick A. ` ` ` in South Carolinap"(#J5p(#(#K    1.BellSouth Has Negotiated Agreements with Numerous CLECsp"(#J5 Quick 1.2.BellSouth Has Obtained State Approval of its Statement ofQuick 1. Generally Available Terms and Conditionsp"(#J6  Quick A.B.` ` ` No CLEC Has Taken Reasonable Steps Toward ProvidingQuick A. ` ` ` FacilitiesBased Residential Service in South Carolinap"(#J8  Quick A.C.` ` ` Information Held by BellSouths Competitors May DemonstrateQuick A. that BellSouth Has Satisfied Track A as Wellp`"(#I15 II.BELLSOUTHS STATEMENT MAKES INTERCONNECTION AND ACCESS AVAILABLE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACTS COMPETITIVE CHECKLISTp`"(#I17  A.` ` ` BellSouth Is Providing Nondiscriminatory Access to its ` ` ` Operations Support Systemsp`"(#I21 B.` ` ` All Fourteen Checklist Items Are Legally and Practically Availablep`"(#I33  C.` ` ` Performance Measurementsp`"(#I54  III.BELLSOUTH SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 272p`"(#I57 IV.BELLSOUTHS ENTRY INTO THE INTERLATA SERVICES MARKET WILL PROMOTE COMPETITION AND FURTHER THE PUBLIC INTERESTp`"(#I66  Quick A.A.` ` ` The Scope of the Public Interest Inquiryp`"(#I68Quick A.ۃ  Quick A.B.` ` ` The Current Long Distance Oligopoly Limits Competition p`"(#I72Quick A.ۃ یC.` ` ` Market Evidence Confirms that BellSouths Entry into the ` ` ` InterLATA Market in South Carolina Will Benefit Consumersp`"(#I75 ` ` ` ` ` 1. Evidence of Competition Where LECs Have Been Allowed to ` ` ` ` ` Offer Long Distance.p`"(#I76 Quick 1.2. BellSouth Is Suited to Break Up the Interexchange Oligopoly in Quick 1. South Carolinap`"(#I78 D.` ` ` BellSouths Entry into the InterLATA Market, Subject to Extensive Statutory and Regulatory Safeguards, Presents No Risk to Competitionp`"(#I85 1. Regulation and Practical Constraints Make Leveraging Strategies Impossible to Accomplishp`"(#I85 Quick 1.2. Actual Experience with LEC Participation in Adjacent Quick 1. Markets Disproves Theories about Anticompetitive Potentialp`"(#I98 Quick A.E.` ` ` The Effect of BellSouths Entry on Local Competitionp!(#H102Quick A.ۃ  CONCLUSIONp!(#H106 APPENDIX A (Verifications and AntiDrug Abuse Act Certifications)   X0ÍÍ.X0ÍÍ.3& Before the f FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION !Washington, D.C. 20554 ă " 1 " 1 8 x<x<In the Matter of Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in South Carolina8 CC Docket No. __________ To:The Commission  BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION BY BELLSOUTH FOR PROVISION OF INREGION, INTERLATA SERVICES IN SOUTH CAROLINA  ___________________________________ Pursuant to section 271(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  271(d)(1), BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. (collectively, BellSouth) hereby seek authorization to provide interLATA services originating in the State of South Carolina, including all services treated as such under 47 U.S.C. 271(j). BellSouth has satisfied each of the four requirements for approval of its application. Part I of this Brief explains that, pursuant to section 271(c)(1), BellSouth has received state approval of a statement of the terms and conditions under which it generally offers interconnection and network access to competitive local exchange carriers ( CLECs) We use the term CLECs to refer to both potential and actual competitors, consistent with the Commissions use of this term. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, Application of SBC Communications Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 97121, FCC No. 97121,  35 (rel. June 26, 1997) ( Oklahoma Order). and is 3'Letter eligible to apply for interLATA entry on the basis of that statement pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B). Part II shows that BellSouths statement satisfies the competitive checklist of section 271(c)(2)(B). Part III confirms that BellSouth will abide by the safeguards of section 272.+ BellSouth intends to offer inregion, interLATA services in South Carolina through BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., which will operate in accordance with the requirements of section 272. However, all references to BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. should be understood to encompass any affiliate of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (or its successors or assigns that provide wireline telephone exchange service) that operates consistent with this applications representations regarding the future activities of BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. The Commission should confirm when it approves this application that no further authorization, under section 214 or otherwise, is necessary for these entities to commence providing inregion, interLATA and international services in South Carolina.+ Part IV demonstrates that approving BellSouths application is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(3). This Brief and supporting affidavits are available in electronic form at . Virtually all of the issues presented by this application were fully briefed and argued before the SCPSC. Pursuant to section 271(d)(2)(B) " which provides state commissions a formal consultative role on local issues in section 271 proceedings " the SCPSC established a docket to consider BellSouths eligibility to provide interLATA services in its State. Compliance Order at 2. That docket involved a full four months of review, including discovery, hearings, and evidentiary submissions from long distance carriers and other potential competitors that oppose BellSouths interLATA entry. In addition to BellSouth, ACSI, AT&T, Communications Workers of America, the Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, LCI, MCI, the South Carolina Cable Television Association, South Carolina Competitive Carriers Association, South Carolina Telephone Coalition, and Sprint all participated in the SCPSCs proceedings. BellSouth contacted each of these entities in an effort to narrow the issues in dispute for this proceeding. See App. D at Tab 2 (copies of BellSouth letters). That effort has not resulted in any narrowing of the issues to date. BellSouth will, however, notify the Commission within five days of the filing of this application if its efforts do narrow disputed issues. Acting as the trier of fact, the SCPSC adduced evidence, evaluated the credibility of witnesses who were exposed to cross examination under oath, and reached conclusions on a record containing over 1600 pages of live and prepared sworn testimony and another 1500 pages of pleadings. All parties who wished to be heard had that opportunity, and the SCPSC had the opportunity to assess these parties positions and credibility. The record of the SCPSCs proceedings is reproduced as Appendix C of this application.  Following its review, the SCPSC certified in a unanimous decision that none of [BellSouths] potential competitors are taking any reasonable steps towards implementing any business plan for facilitiesbased local competition for business and residential customers in South Carolina. Compliance Order at 19. The SCPSC based this certification not only on the testimony of potential competitors themselves, but also on its intimate knowledge of local markets, acquired in the course of reviewing scores of local interconnection and resale agreements, issuing certificates of public convenience, and generally tak[ing] every step available to [the SCPSC] to encourage and to foster local competition in the State of South Carolina. Id. at 20. The SCPSC also provided an indepth analysis of BellSouths checklist offerings. Id. at 2759. After reviewing the terms of BellSouths statement of generally available terms and conditions and extensive evidence regarding BellSouths actual ability to furnish each of the items it formally holds out, the SCPSC concluded that [a]lthough not all of the functions, capabilities, and services in the Statement have been requested by CLECs for use in South Carolina, BellSouth had demonstrated that it is functionally able to provide [these] items in South Carolina when ordered by a CLEC. Id. at 56. Finally, the SCPSC concluded that BellSouths entry into the interLATA market in South Carolina would lead to increased long distance competition and more choices for consumers, which is in the public interest. Id. at 61. The SCPSC noted BellSouths commitment to set its basic rates at least 5 percent below those of AT&T. Id. at 6. On the other side of the coin, the SCPSC explained that extensive legal obligations and safeguards, at both the federal and state levels, protect against any possible adverse effects from BellSouths entry. Id. at 6566. The SCPSC also considered and rejected arguments that these benefits would be offset by a reduction in local competition if BellSouth were permitted to compete for long distance customers. Id. at 63. The SCPSC found, to the contrary, that local competition may speed up considerably and that BellSouths entry 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 facilities. Id. at 66. These findings by the expert agency responsible for overseeing telecommunications markets in South Carolina provide the framework for BellSouths application. Quick I.I.BELLSOUTH MAY PROCEED UNDER TRACK B Quick I.  This Commission held in its Oklahoma Order that a Bell company may apply for interLATA relief on the basis of an approved or effective statement of generally available terms and conditions under Track B where no potential competitors are taking reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased service to business and residential customers. Oklahoma Order 5758. The SCPSC determined after a full review that this is precisely the situation in South Carolina, and this shortfall of local competition is not attributable to any failing by BellSouth. A.` ` ` BellSouth Has Taken All Required Steps to Open Local Markets in South Carolina  BellSouth has done its part to allow competitive entry by negotiating agreements with individual CLECs and offering interconnection and network access through its statement of generally available terms and conditions.  1.BellSouth Has Negotiated Agreements with Numerous CLECs  BellSouth has devoted substantial resources involving the efforts of hundreds of employees and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to meet or to exceed the requirements of the 1996 Act to open its local markets to competition. Compliance Order at 20. BellSouths negotiators have devoted countless hours to fielding CLEC requests, negotiating arrangements that meet individual CLECs needs, and obtaining state approval of the resulting agreements. As a result of these efforts, BellSouth has executed agreements with 83 different telecommunications carriers in South Carolina. See Wright Aff. Ex. 1 Attach. WPEA (App. A at Tab 16). BellSouths SCPSCapproved agreements and the SCPSC orders approving them are reproduced in Appendix B of this application.  The SCPSC has approved BellSouths agreements with the following 67 telecommunications carriers: 360 Communications Company; ALEC, Inc.; Alliance Telecommunications, Inc.; ALLTEL Mobile Communications, Inc.; American MetroComm Corporation; American Communication Services, Inc. (ACSI); Annox, Inc.; AT&T; AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.; AXSYS, Inc.; BellSouth Personal Communications, Inc. d/b/a BellSouth Mobility DCS; BTI Telecommunications, Inc.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Columbia Cellular Telephone Company, Andersen Cellular Telephone Company (BANM); Comm South Companies; Comm. Depot, Inc.; Competitive Communications, Inc. (CCI); Cybernet Group; Data & Electronic Services, Inc. (DES); DeltaCom, Inc.; EZ Phone, Inc.; FiberSouth, Inc.; Georgia Comm South, Inc. and Fla. Comm South; GNet Telecom, Inc.; GTE Mobilnet Incorporated; GTE Mobilnet of Florence, South Carolina Inc.; GTE Mobilnet of South Carolina Inc.; Hart Communications Corporation; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.; InterWorld Communications; Interlink Telecommunications, Inc.; Intermedia Communications, Inc. (ICI); Interstate Telephone Group; JETCOM, Inc.; KMC Telecom Inc.; LCI International Telecom Corp.; National Tel; Netel, Inc.; Nextel Communications, Inc.; NOW Communications, Inc.; OmniCall, Inc.; Palmer Wireless, Inc.; Payphone Consultants, Inc.; Powertel, Inc.; Preferred Carrier Services, Inc.; Prime Time Long Distance Services, Inc.; Public Service Cellular, Inc.; RGW Communications, Inc.; SouthEast Telephone, LTD; Southern PhonReconnek; Sterling International Funding, Inc. d/b/a Reconex; Supra Telecommunications & Information Systems, Inc.; TelLink, L.L.C. d/b/a TelLink, L.L.C. and TelLink of Florida, L.L.C.; TeleSys, Inc.; Teleconex, Inc.; The Telephone Company of Central Florida; TriComm, Inc.; TTE, Inc.; U.S. Dial Tone, Inc.; U.S. Long Distance, Inc. (USLD); Unidial Communications, Inc.; United States Cellular Corporation and Central Florida Cellular Telephone Company; US LEC of North Carolina, L.L.C.; Vanguard Cellular Financial Corp.; WinStar Telecommunications, Inc.; and Wright Businesses, Inc. BellSouths agreements with MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc., and Time Warner Communications were recently approved and are reproduced in Appendix D. All the agreements, except BellSouths agreement with AT&T, were completed without the need for an SCPSC arbitration order. A copy of the SCPSCs decision in the AT&T/BellSouth arbitration is reproduced in Appendix B (at Tab 69).0 AT&T has appealed the SCPSCs arbitration decision to the United States District Court. AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., No. 3:97216417 (D.S.C. filed Jul. 18, 1997). The arbitration decision remains fully effective.0 No other carrier has sought arbitration or identified any outstanding dispute with BellSouth that would require arbitration. 2. BellSouth Has Obtained State Approval of its Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions  BellSouth has also actively invited entry by CLECs through its Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions ( Statement). The Statement sets out specific terms and conditions under which BellSouth offers to provide interconnection and access to its network, as well as resale opportunities on a nondiscriminatory basis to any requesting CLEC in South Carolina. These offerings reflect the Act and federal and State rules and decisions, as well as what BellSouth has learned about CLECs requirements in the course of negotiating its numerous interconnection agreements. See Varner Aff. 1718, 2324 (App. A at Tab 14). In order to ease entry by CLECs (and particularly smaller CLECs) that do not want to negotiate carrierspecific terms, and to establish a useful model for carriers that do want to negotiate, the Statement sets out offerings regarding all of the capabilities needed to compete in the local market in as straightforward and simple a way as possible. Varner Aff.  13. Pursuant to section 252(f) of the Act, the SCPSC approved BellSouths Statement, with modifications, on July 31, 1997, finding that the rates, terms and conditions of interconnection, unbundling and resale in the Statement comply with Section 251 and 252(d) of the Act and reflect in a very specific and detailed way the [SCPSCs] rulings in the BellSouthAT&T arbitration proceeding. Compliance Order at 27.e See Varner Aff. 511 (discussing SCPSC modifications). AT&T has appealed the SCPSCs approval of the Statement notwithstanding its own decision to arbitrate a customtailored interconnection agreement rather than relying upon the terms contained in the Statement. See AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., No. 3:97238817 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 8, 1997). The Statement and the Compliance Order remain in full effect and AT&Ts appeal does not affect this application under section 271.e On September 9, 1997, in response to a Motion for Clarification filed by AT&T, the SCPSC approved further modifications to the Statement to make the document more consistent with the Eighth Circuits decision in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS at 18183, *48 (July 18, 1997). See App. D at Tab 9 (SCPSC order); see also Varner Aff. 512. A copy of the Statement reflecting the modifications approved by the SCPSC is provided as an exhibit to the Affidavit of Alphonso Varner (App. A at Tab 14). B.` ` ` No CLEC Has Taken Reasonable Steps Toward Providing FacilitiesBased Residential Service in South Carolina Despite all these efforts by BellSouth, no CLEC made any significant, timely effort to provide the sort of facilitiesbased competition that legislators consistently . . . contemplated when drafting the 1996 Act. S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, at 148 (1996) ( Conference Report). As the SCPSC has certified, none of [BellSouths] potential competitors are taking any reasonable steps towards implementing any business plan for facilitiesbased local competition for business and residential customers in South Carolina. Compliance Order at 19. Congress recognized that facilitiesbased local competition may not emerge immediately in every State. See Oklahoma Order 43 (citing Conference Report at 148). Yet legislators wanted to ensure that Bell companies would open local markets and enhance long distance competition even in those States where facilitiesbased competition is slower to develop. The House Commerce Committee thus drafted Track B to ensure that a BOC is not effectively prevented from seeking entry into the long distance market because no facilitiesbased carrier which meets the criteria specified in the Act sought to enter the market. H.R. Rep. No. 104204, at 77 (1995) ( House Report); see Conference Report at 148.e See also 142 Cong. Rec. H1152 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1996) (statement of Rep. Hastert) ( section 271(c)(1)(B) provides that a BOC may petition the FCC for this inregion authority if it has . . . not received . . . any request for interconnection from a facilitiesbased competitor that meets the criteria in section 271(c)(1)(A)); 141 Cong. Rec. H8458 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995) (statement of Rep. Tauzin) (Track B available unless the exclusively or predominantly facilities based provider described in subparagraph (A) has requested interconnection and access from the BOC).e֌In South Carolina, the SCPSC has concluded that potential competitors, and particularly the large interexchange carriers, are positioned to become facilitiesbased CLECs but are pursu[ing] other opportunities instead. Compliance Order at 6667. If Track B were not available in such instances companies such as AT&T, MCI, and Sprint would have a strong incentive to continue delaying facilitiesbased local entry so as to protect their own shares of the interLATA market against Bell company competition. See Oklahoma Order 56. In the words of the Commission, Track B appropriately safeguards the [Bell companies] interests where there is no prospect of local exchange competition that will satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Id.  55. The Commission has read section 271(c)(1)(B) to condition Bell company interLATA entry on the absence of a request for negotiation to obtain access and interconnection from a prospective competing provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). Oklahoma Order 31 (emphasis added). This interpretation of Track B is the subject of an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, No. 971425 (D.C. Cir. to be argued Jan. 9, 1998). BellSouth believes the Commissions position is incorrect and Track B is foreclosed only if the BOC has received a request from a qualifying competing provide[r] that actually meets the criteria of Track A as of the date which is 3 months before the date the company makes its application. 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(B). In South Carolina, BellSouth had not received any such request, which alone establishes BellSouths eligibility to file under Track B. See Wright Aff.  4 (no facilitiesbased provider of business and residential service on June 30, 1997). In some cases the Bell companys eligibility to file under the Commissions standard can readily be established. For instance, Track B would be available where potential competitors have sought only resale agreements, but would not be available under the Commissions test if a CLEC had committed itself to provide facilitiesbased service to businesses and residences under a reasonable timetable and was in compliance with that schedule. Where the request for interconnection is openended and potential competitors have neither ruled out nor committed themselves to providing facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers, however, the Commission must engage in a difficult predictive judgment. Oklahoma Order 57. This assessment must be informed by the requesters actions as well as its words. Thus, the Commission has held that a request can preclude an application under Track B only if the requester (1) has made a request that on its face will, if implemented, lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) and (2) is taking reasonable steps toward implementing its request in a fashion that will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A). Id. 54, 57, 58. In the Oklahoma Order, the Commission set out its reasonable steps standard as part of an illustrative example involving a second section 271 application for a given State. Oklahoma Order 58. A CLECs status as a qualifying potential Track A competitor at a given moment would not, however, depend upon whether the incumbent Bell company has previously filed a section 271 application. In deciding whether requesting carriers are reasonably proceeding toward providing facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers, the Commissions inquiry must address the state of local competition as of 3 months before the date the [Bell] company makes its application. 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(B). Congress established this cutoff date to ensure the Bell companies ability to file Track B applications when facilitiesbased local competition is not developing despite an open market. Conference Report at 148. Because of the threemonth cutoff, interexchange carriers and other CLECs cannot game the system by waiting until the BOC is close to filing (or has filed) its application, and then professing a desire to provide facilitiesbased local service. See Oklahoma Order 56 (construing Track B in light of CLECs incentive to game section 271 process). Accordingly, the relevant question under Commission precedent is whether " as of June 30, 1997 " any potential facilitiesbased competitor had made a request for interconnection and access from BellSouth in South Carolina that satisfied the twopart test set forth above. In answering this question, the Commission must look to the SCPSCs assessment of the local market. Like other state commissions, the SCPSC has been doing the hard job of promoting competition in [its] jurisdiction and thus is intimately familiar with the activities of BellSouth and new entrants alike. Chairman Reed E. Hundt, Speech to Commission Staff (Washington, D.C. May 27, 1997) . State commissions are responsible for licensing CLECs, 47 U.S.C. 253(b), for ensuring that CLECs may obtain access and interconnection at reasonable prices, id. 252(d), for reviewing interconnection agreements between CLECs and incumbent Bell companies, id. 252(e), and for resolving any implementation disputes that may arise and enforcing agreement terms, see Iowa Utils. Bd., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS at 18183, *48. In South Carolina, for instance, the SCPSC has had the benefit of not only extensive hearings on local competition issues generally, but also its review of carrierspecific agreements and applications for local service authority, as well as its experience arbitrating an agreement between BellSouth and AT&T. Compliance Order at 1920. This extensive experience puts the SCPSC in the best position to make the highly factspecific determination whether any CLEC in South Carolina is taking reasonable steps to become a facilitiesbased competing provider of business and residential service. Oklahoma Order 60. Section 271(d)(2)(B) reflects the state commissions unique expertise by requiring this Commission to consult with the State commission ...in order to verify the compliance of the Bell operating company with the requirements of subsection [271](c), including fulfillment of Track A or Track B.= Where the Commission has been subject to a comparable instruction to consul[t] with the Secretary of State on foreign policy matters, it has decided to defer to the State Department. Cable News Network, Inc., File No. 907DSEL85 (IB, rel. Nov. 19, 1985). Here the value of federalism provides an additional reason for according deference, University of Tenn. v. Elliot, 478 U.S. 788, 798 (1986), to minimize friction between federal and state officials. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 550 (1981). = Moreover, section 271(c)(1)(B) authorizes state regulators to certify if a CLEC has (i) failed to negotiate in good faith as required by section 252, or (ii) violated the terms of an agreement approved under section 252 of this title by the providers failure to comply, within a reasonable period of time, with the implementation schedule contained in such agreement. Like the inquiry into whether a carrier is taking reasonable steps toward implementing a request in a fashion that will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A), resolving these issues requires familiarity with local markets and the activities of local competitors. Congress evidently believed that this expertise resides with the state commissions. Consistent with the structure of the 1996 Act, therefore, this Commission should defer to the SCPSCs determination that none of [BellSouths] potential competitors are taking any reasonable steps towards implementing any business plan for facilitiesbased local competition for business and residential customers in South Carolina. Compliance Order at 19.The SCPSCs conclusion is, moreover, amply supported by the materials provided in the Appendices to this application. Most of the requests for negotiations that BellSouth has received are exclusively for resale of BellSouths local services and thus could never lead to facilitiesbased Track A service. Wright Aff. 6. Of all the CLECs with signed interconnection agreements, only 26 indicated in negotiations that they might at some future time provide facilitiesbased local exchange services. Id. And of these 26 CLECs, only nine have sought certification from the SCPSC to provide competitive local exchange services in South Carolina. Id. 6 & Ex. 1 Attach. WPEA. Unlike other BellSouth States, no carriers have ordered unbundled loops from BellSouth in South Carolina. Milner Aff. 37 (App. A at Tab 9). Only one carrier has requested an unbundled switch port in South Carolina. Id. 50. And, as discussed below, just three requesters (ACSI, ITC DeltaCom, and Time Warner) have placed selfprovided facilities in South Carolina. Wright Aff.  9. ACSI has fiberoptic networks in Columbia, Charleston, Greenville, and Spartanburg, South Carolina and has executed an SCPSCapproved interconnection agreement with BellSouth. Wright Aff. 1013. However, ACSI told the SCPSC that it has installed those facilities not as a local service provider, but rather only as an access provider " which does not count for purposes of Track A and Track B. Compliance Order at 19; see 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(A) (excluding exchange access from scope of telephone exchange service for purposes of BOC interLATA entry). Indeed, the SCPSC concluded, based on ACSIs own testimony, that ACSI had no business plan or firm commitment to place the necessary facilities in South Carolina to begin to provide [facilitiesbased]competition and had no intent to compete for residence customers in South Carolina, as well as that ACSIs decision not to compete in South Carolina is related not to any action on the part of [BellSouth], but rather its own business decision to deploy its capital in other areas, such as Georgia, Texas, New Orleans and Baltimore. Compliance Order at 19. The most recent information available to BellSouth confirms that, although ACSI may in the future serve South Carolina businesses over its networks, it will not seek to offer facilitiesbased service to residential customers in the State. Wright Aff. 1112. A second CAP that has signed an SCPSCapproved interconnection agreement with BellSouth " ITC DeltaCom " also has fiberoptic networks in place. Id. 1421. ITC DeltaCom did not provide " and was not taking any steps to provide " facilitiesbased local exchange service in South Carolina as of June 30 of this year. Id. ITC DeltaComs more recent activities are discussed in Part I (C), below. The third facilitiesbased provider, Time Warner Communications, owns fiber routes in Columbia, South Carolina. Time Warner Communications has focused its local telephony initiatives in BellSouths region almost entirely on business customers. When and if the company enters the local exchange market in South Carolina, it is expected to focus exclusively on business customers. Wright Aff.  2223 & Attach. WCEC. The SCPSC has confirmed that CLECs failure to move more quickly to launch facilitiesbased local service " particularly for residential customers " is due solely to their own business decisions, for BellSouth has not taken any action to prevent or to retard the development of local competition in South Carolina. Compliance Order at 20. As Professor Glenn Woroch of  e the University of California at Berkeley demonstrates, the simple fact is that demographic and economic conditions unrelated to BellSouths offerings make other States more attractive candidates for competitive local entry, at least as long as BellSouth can be kept out of long distance in South Carolina. Woroch Aff.  1619, 21, 8692 (App. A at Tab 15). Although AT&T and other interLATA incumbents will argue that this means that long distance competition should also be delayed in South Carolina, Congress decided otherwise. Under the Act and Commission precedent Track B ensures that customers in South Carolina will not be penalized simply because CLECs priorities lie elsewhere. C.` ` ` Information Held by BellSouths Competitors May Demonstrate that BellSouth Has Satisfied Track A as Well Of course, BellSouth does not have access to complete information about its actual and potential competitors. It is possible that some CLEC recently started to take reasonable steps to meet a specific, nearterm schedule for rolling out facilitiesbased residential service. That, however, would not affect BellSouths ability to file under Track B on the basis of market conditions as they stood three months before the date of this application. It is even possible that CLEC(s) in South Carolina have begun to offer facilitiesbased service to residential as well as business subscribers in South Carolina in recent weeks, perhaps in an effort somehow to stop BellSouths entry into long distance. In particular, just six days after the SCPSCs July 24 vote to approve the Statement and BellSouths proposed application under Track B, ITC DeltaCom filed a retroactive tariff for local service, backdated with an effective date of January 23, 1997. See Wright Aff. Ex. 1 Attach. WPEE (ITC DeltaCom tariff). ITC DeltaComs new tariff was noticed to the SCPSC at its meeting on August 21, 1997. ITC DeltaCom also is now giving potential residential customers in Greenville, South Carolina directly contradictory information whether it serves residential customers in that city. Compare Affidavit of David S. Wyatt (App. D at Tab 5 ) with Affidavit of Beth B. Hughes (App. D at Tab 6). Such conduct may be part of an improper attempt to thwart approval of BellSouths application without actually moving ITC DeltaCom into the residential market, or it may reflect that ITC DeltaCom just recently determined to enter the local residential market in Greenville. The Commission should get to the bottom of the matter. To develop a full record supporting its decision on this application, the Commission should request that all commenters give specific details regarding their telephone exchange service operations, if any, in South Carolina, including descriptions of all services now being offered and furnished, all steps currently being taken to enter the market, and timetables for introducing new services. Such information could, of course, be filed with the Commission in accordance with the same confidentiality procedures adopted in prior section 271 proceedings. See, e.g., Protective Order, Application of SBC Communications, Inc. Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, 12 FCC Rcd 6157 (1997). The Commission should issue an Order to that effect immediately, to give commenters the greatest possible notice. If the evidence shows that ITC DeltaCom or some other carrier(s) are in fact offering facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers in South Carolina, Track A (as well as Track B) would be satisfied and BellSouths application could go forward on that basis. Likewise, if the evidence shows that a CLEC has begun supplementing facilitiesbased service to business customers with resale of BellSouths residential service in South Carolina, BellSouth would be eligible for interLATA relief under both Track A and Track B. The 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 competitors own facilities. Addendum to DOJ Oklahoma Evaluation at 3, CC Dkt. No. 97121 (May 21, 1997). [I]t does not matter whether the competitor reaches one class of customers " e.g., residential " only through resale, provided the competitors local exchange services as a whole are provided predominantly over its own facilities. Id. Supplementing facilitiesbased residential service with resold business service would qualify just as much as the opposite combination. Furthermore, the requirements of Track A can be satisfied by a combination of CLECs, rather than the activities of just one CLEC alone. See Michigan Order 8285. To apply these standards, however, it is critical that the Commission collect the best available information from those parties who have it.  1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)II.BELLSOUTHS STATEMENT MAKES INTERCONNECTION AND ACCESS AVAILABLE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACTS COMPETITIVE CHECKLIST Whenever CLECs in South Carolina decide they are ready to compete, they will have ready and waiting under the terms of their existing agreements and/or BellSouths Statement each of the fourteen checklist items. See 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B). The affidavits submitted with this brief, including particularly the Affidavits of W. Keith Milner and Alphonso J. Varner, and the two affidavits of William N. Stacy, explain exactly how BellSouth makes each of the Acts fourteen checklist items available to any CLEC that requests them.The SCPSC also has verified that BellSouths Statement meets or exceeds every requirement of the Acts competitive checklist and that the Statements offerings are not mere paper promises, but rather are demonstrably ready and waiting for CLECs who choose to place orders. Compliance Order at 2959. These local competition issues are at the core of the SCPSCs established expertise and the state commissions continuing jurisdiction over such matters was confirmed by the 1996 Act. See Iowa Utils. Bd., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18183. This Commission, moreover, is required to consult with the SCPSC to verify BellSouths satisfaction of the checklist, further driving home that the SCPSCs determinations are entitled to great weight. 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(2)(B).b See supra n.10. There is no conflict between the statutes requirement of consultation with the state commission to verify checklist compliance and the additional requirement of consultation with the Attorney General. See 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(2)(A). Unlike the state commissions, the U.S. Department of Justice has no special expertise on checklist issues and chose not to be a participant in statelevel evidentiary proceedings. Accordingly, the Department of Justices views would be entitled to less weight than the SCPSCs even if one did not consider the legislative history of the Act. When that legislative history is considered, it shows that Congress intended to limit the Attorney Generals consultative role to antitrust issues under the public interest test. See, e.g., 142 Cong. Rec. H1176 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1996) (statement of Rep. JacksonLee) ( substantial weight to be accorded to the views of the Attorney General is limited to her expertise in antitrust matters); id. at H1178 (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner) ( FCCs reliance on the Justice Department is limited to antitrust related matters); see also id. at H1157 (statement of Sen. Hyde) ( the Department of Justice will apply any antitrust standard it considers appropriate).b The Statement legally requires BellSouth to provide all fourteen checklist items and BellSouth 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 with BellSouths. See Michigan Order 110. The relevant inquiry under Track B is whether BellSouth generally offer[s] the relevant items. 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(3)(A)(ii). To address that issue, Exhibit AJV3 to the Varner Affidavit crossreferences each checklist item with the Statements provisions. If BellSouth also (or alternatively) qualifies under Track A, the first checklist inquiry under the Commissions decisions is whether BellSouth has a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish Track A competitor(s) the checklist items upon request. Michigan Order 110. In addition to the specific terms of BellSouths agreements, that obligation is satisfied by the Statement itself insofar as CLECs with existing interconnection agreements can avail themselves of the Statement as an alternative to the terms of their agreements. See Compliance Order at 25 (BOC may use Statement to supplement interconnection agreements under Track A). See also, e.g., ACSI Agreement XXII (giving ACSI access to terms of any SCPSC interconnection order) (App. B at Tab 9); DeltaCom Agreement XXII(C) (giving ITC DeltaCom access to terms of any SCPSC interconnection order) (App. B at Tab 27). Moreover, through actual commercial usage in South Carolina and its other inregion States as well as thorough testing, BellSouth has accumulated extensive evidence regarding its ability to furnish these items in compliance with the Act. The empirical evidence accumulated by BellSouth and provided with this application confirms that all checklist items are available today on a nondiscriminatory basis that enables CLECs to provide the same quality telecommunications services as BellSouth. Consistent with the recommendations of this Commission and the Department of Justice, moreover, BellSouth has established performance measurements that will allow regulators and private parties to confirm BellSouths continued compliance with the checklist after interLATA relief has been granted. See generally Stacy Performance Aff. (App. A at Tab 13). BellSouth also has established specific provisioning targets for many unbundled network elements ( UNEs), which offer competitors a further guarantee of nondiscriminatory access. See Stacy Performance Aff. 36 & Ex. WNS7.There are a few areas in which BellSouth disagrees with the interpretations of checklist requirements suggested in the Commissions Michigan Order, particularly regarding pricing, combinations of unbundled network elements, and certain OSS performance measurements and standards. BellSouth and other parties have properly presented these issues to the Courts and the Commission; The Eighth Circuit has pending before it petitions arguing that because pricing matters are reserved to the States under section 252, and the checklist simply requires compliance with section 252s pricing rules, the checklist does not authorize the Commission to condition BOC interLATA entry upon compliance with federal pricing rules. See Petition of the State Commission Parties and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners for Issuance and Enforcement of the Mandate (filed Sept. 17, 1997) & Petition for Immediate Issuance and Enforcement of the Mandate (filed Sept. 18, 1997), Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 963321 (8th Cir.). The Commissions policies regarding combinations of unbundled network elements " discussed in paragraphs 160 and 336 of the Michigan Order " are the subject of a petition for rehearing before the Eighth Circuit, Petition for Rehearing, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 963321 (8th Cir. filed Aug. 29, 1997), and also are at issue in another appeal in the same court. Petition for Review, Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, No. 973389 (8th Cir. filed Sept. 5, 1997). In addition, BellSouth has petitioned the Commission to reconsider and clarify portions of the Michigan Order, including those dealing with OSS performance measurements and standards and evidentiary matters. Petition of BellSouth Corporation for Reconsideration and Clarification, Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97137 (FCC filed Sept. 18, 1997). in this application BellSouth preserves its positions for resolution by the courts if necessary. BellSouth recognizes that the Commission has no power now to grant relief on BellSouths belief that section 271, along with other provisions of the 1996 Act that single out and impose burdens on the BOCs by name, constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder and also violates both separation of powers and equal protection principles. Accordingly, BellSouth hereby preserves these arguments for future review in the Courts. No one who fully reviews this application, however, could genuinely question BellSouths goodfaith commitment to satisfying the localmarket requirements of the checklist and the 1996 Act. BellSouth thus believes not only that the Commission should change its position on the disputed legal issues, but also that the Commission should look beyond these narrow disagreements about the meaning of the legislation to the broad effort BellSouth is making to accommodate competitive entry by CLECs. This effort, which BellSouth believes amply satisfies the requirements for inregion, interLATA relief, is detailed below.  A.` ` ` BellSouth is Providing Nondiscriminatory Access to its Operations Support Systems In its Michigan Order this Commission emphasized nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems ( OSSs) as a critical aspect of the checklist requirements. Michigan Order 128221. After exhaustive and very expensive efforts to implement, test, and make commercially available new and improved interfaces and OSSs, see generally Stacy OSS Aff., and to establish and staff new organizations, centers, and procedures for the benefit of CLECs, see Stacy Performance Aff.  411, BellSouth is able to ensure CLECs the required access. BellSouth is not stopping there, however. As the affidavits cited below explain, BellSouth is continuing to enhance its systems, which already meet the Acts requirements, so that CLECs will have even better access to OSSs. Although not necessary to this application, that fact should give the Commission additional confidence in BellSouths commitment to facilitate local market entry. CLECs are able to perform traditional OSS functions such as preordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing in substantially the same time and manner as BellSouth. First Report and Order, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15764,  518 ( Local Interconnection Order), modified on recon., 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), vacated in part, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 963321, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18183 (8th Cir. July 18, 1997). As demonstrated in a videotape provided as part of Appendix D (at Tab 7) to this application, BellSouth has modified its OSSs 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. With these modifications now in place, CLECs may obtain preordering information, prepare and enter orders, receive provisioning information, enter and track the receipt and status of trouble reports, and bill customers accurately, in substantially the same manner as BellSouth. To cater to the differing needs of various CLECs, BellSouth has provided a choice of manual or electronic OSS interfaces. Electronic interfaces currently are available for every aspect of OSS access: preordering functions; ordering and provisioning; maintenance and repair; submitting and checking the status of trouble reports for either resold services or UNEs; and obtaining billing information. BellSouths electronic interfaces meet existing industry standards; as new industry standards are developed, BellSouth will implement them, too. See Stacy OSS Aff.  6. In addition, BellSouth has provided CLECs with all information (such as user guides and ordering codes) necessary to enable quick processing of CLEC requests, as well as the training they may need to use BellSouths systems effectively. Stacy OSS Aff.  135141 & Exs. WNS4851. Whatever interface(s) a CLEC chooses, BellSouth will provide substantially the same type of functionality at substantially the same level of performance that BellSouth provides to itself. The SCPSC has found as much. Adopting the standard established by the FCC, it concluded that BellSouths electronic interfaces provide access to [BellSouths] operational support systems . . . that is substantially the same as, and in many cases better than, that which [BellSouth] provides to personnel supporting [BellSouths] retail customers. Compliance Order at 33. Nor can there be any argument that the access BellSouth provides is not commercially viable. All of BellSouths OSS interfaces have been subjected to extensive internal testing. See Stacy OSS Aff. 117134. For example, BellSouth has conducted tests of its combined electronic interfaces to establish a minimum capacity of 5,000 total requests per day, and the interfaces have sufficient excess capacity to handle double that volume in BellSouths ninestate region. Stacy OSS Aff. 119121. CLECs are successfully using BellSouths electronic interfaces to submit orders for resale services and UNEs and to enter trouble reports. Almost 1700 trouble reports have been processed through the maintenance and repair interface and BellSouth received more than 10,000 electronic orders for resale services in August alone. Stacy OSS Aff. 125, 128 & Ex. WNS46. BellSouths systems are easily expandable to meet any reasonably foreseeable demand by CLECs without discriminatory delays. Stacy OSS Aff. 119134. There will be those who say that even BellSouths extraordinary efforts to accommodate competitors are inadequate, and that the sufficiency of BellSouths OSSs can only be shown by processing larger numbers of actual orders from CLECs. In allowing Bell companies to satisfy the checklist by offering interconnection and network access pursuant to a statement of terms and conditions, 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(A)(i)(II), however, Congress necessarily rejected the notion that the availability of local facilities and services can only be shown by furnishing them to competitors at some minimum volume. The checklist does not allow this Commission to delay long distance competition until CLECs decide to come and get BellSouths offerings. Preordering. To access OSSs containing preordering information, CLECs can select a manual or electronic interface. The electronic interface " known as the Local Exchange Navigation System ( LENS) " is an interactive system that allows the CLEC direct, realtime access to BellSouths preordering OSSs. Stacy OSS Aff.  712. LENS is compatible with inexpensive, commercially available hardware and software and requires no additional development effort by the CLEC, yet can be customized by the CLEC to whatever extent the CLEC chooses. Id. 10. To accommodate CLECs of differing sizes and needs, LENS is accessible through direct (LANtoLAN) connections, dialup access, or public Internet access. Id. LENS enables a CLEC to satisfy a customers needs for preordering information during a single telephone call with the customer, without any assistance or intervention from BellSouth personnel. Stacy OSS Aff. 12. For manual preordering, which smaller competing carriers [may] prefer, Michigan Order at  137 & n.333, the CLEC simply passes on preordering information requests to one of BellSouths two (redundant) Local Carrier Service Centers ( LCSCs) via facsimile, telephone, or mail. See Stacy Performance Aff.  4 (discussing LCSCs). Using either of these interfaces, CLECs may gather and verify street address information, telephone number availability, service and feature availability, due date information, and customer service record information. Stacy OSS Aff. 1341. For instance, if a CLEC initiates an address verification query through LENS, the LENS server will query the appropriate BellSouth database and verify the address on a realtime basis. Id.  16, 20. A CLEC can use LENS to select and reserve telephone numbers (including vanity numbers) on a realtime basis while the CLECs customer is on the line. Id.  2324. LENS also may be used to validate what features are available to particular enduser customers, either by entering a tendigit telephone number or a street address. Id.  26. Additionally, LENS allows CLECs to obtain due date information for installations requiring a premises visit, based on field personnel availability and technical factors such as switch cutovers. Id.  32.v Business rules for other duedate intervals have been provided to CLECs. Stacy OSS Aff. 35.v Authorized CLECs likewise may access customer service records on a realtime basis through the LENS interface. Id. 38. Not all preordering functions are applicable to unbundled network elements. However, where a particular function is applicable, such as assigning a telephone number for an unbundled port, BellSouths preordering interface can be used for unbundled network elements as well as resold exchange services. Id. 48. For the convenience of CLECs, BellSouth has made the single LENS system available for both business and residential preordering, even though BellSouths own personnel currently must use different systems to serve these two groups. Id.  12. Certain complex services that require extensive design work and are ordered in relatively low volumes, such as SONET rings, may only be preordered and ordered through a paper process. This is true for BellSouth and CLECs alike. Stacy OSS Aff.  6373. The service inquiry and any subsequent service requests are handled without distinguishing between orders generated by BellSouth and orders generated by a CLEC. Id.  66. The processes employed by BellSouth for these services thus afford CLECs and their customers the same level of timely service as BellSouth and its retail customers receive. See id.  6373. LENS, in addition, is more userfriendly than some of the systems used by BellSouths own service representatives, for it relies exclusively on graphics and Englishtext prompts rather than code and function keys. Id. 8, 12. In an effort to make LENS even more useful to larger CLECs, BellSouth has provided to interested CLECs a LENS interface specification that provides data for direct integration into a CLECs systems. This allows the CLEC to use its own systems to obtain and manipulate the data provided by LENS. Stacy OSS Aff. 44. Over and above the nondiscriminatory access provided by LENS and required under the Act, moreover, BellSouth makes available machinetomachine interfaces for access to preordering OSSs that are tailored to individual CLECs requirements. Id. 4245. For instance, even though it is not required to do so to meet its duty of nondiscriminatory access under the Act, BellSouth is developing a customized machinetomachine interface ( ECLITE) that meets AT&Ts particular specifications. BellSouth expects to deploy this interface in December 1997. Id.  42. As described in the attached Stacy OSS Affidavit, tests and actual usage demonstrate that LENS is comparable in speed to the interfaces through which BellSouths customer service representatives access the same systems. Id. 6, 9, 20, 31. BellSouths central OSS databases thereafter treat all queries alike, whether they originate with a CLEC or a BellSouth service representative. Id. 16, 24, 28, 34 & Ex. WNS37. [E]mpirical data thus demonstrates that BellSouth is providing nondiscriminatory access to all [preordering] OSS functions, as required by the Act. Michigan Order at  128. Ordering and Provisioning. Ordering and provisioning are the processes whereby a CLEC requests resold services, UNEs, or interconnection trunking from BellSouth and then receives information such as a confirmation that the order has been accepted. See 47 C.F.R. 51.5. CLECs may use the Exchange Access Control and Tracking ( EXACT) system to request interconnection trunking. This is the same industrystandard interface BellSouth uses to process access service requests from interexchange carriers. Stacy OSS Aff. 55. In addition, a second interface specifically developed for CLECs, Electronic Data Interchange ( EDI), has been made available to CLECs since December 31, 1996. Currently, five CLECs have an EDI interface in actual use with BellSouth. Id.Ġ54. EDI allows CLECs to order resold services, simple unbundled network elements such as unbundled loops and ports, interim number portability, and some complex services. Id. 59, 63. BellSouths interface meets the industry standards for EDI developed by the Ordering and Billing Forum (a subcommittee of the Association for Telecommunications Industry Solutions), and allows a CLEC to transmit service requests in standard EDI format to BellSouth. Id. 50. Using the EDI format, for instance, CLECs may specify that a customer be switched as is (no features or functions are added or deleted) or as specified (specified features or functions are added or deleted). Id. 58. CLECs not choosing to use EXACT or EDI have another alternative. Although not an aspect of BellSouths provision of nondiscriminatory access under the requirements of the Act, CLECs may submit service requests for most noncomplex services through LENS. Id.  56. In addition, if a CLEC chooses not to use an electronic interface, it may request services or UNEs using a manual process. Stacy Performance Aff.  8. Whether a CLEC submits an order through EDI or LENS, the request is screened for formatting errors and the complete and correct service request is then transferred to the same service order control system used for BellSouths own retail orders. This database automatically delivers service order records to the downstream OSSs that select and assign facilities and crossconnect wiring functions. There is no distinction between CLEC and BellSouthoriginated order records. Instead, orders are scheduled and filled on a firstcome, firstserved basis. Stacy OSS Aff. 23, 33, 34. As the SCPSC determined, these systems are operational and are capable of processing a sufficient number of orders to permit meaningful competition in South Carolina. Compliance Order at 37. The capacity of EDI, for instance, greatly exceeds the current volume of CLEC requests. Id. at 37; see Stacy OSS Aff. 119 & Ex. WNS43. All of BellSouths systems for ordering and provisioning are scalable to meet any reasonably foreseeable demand without discriminatory delays. Id.  119134. CLECs access to BellSouths ordering functions is substantially the same as the access provided to BellSouths own retail operations. Mechanized order generation is available on BellSouths side of the EDI interface for services that collectively represent 90 percent of BellSouths consumer and small business revenues and 80 percent of total retail operating revenue. Stacy OSS Aff. 58. Mechanized service generation for unbundled loops, ports, and interim number portability has been tested and is available to CLECs as of October 6, 1997. Id. While there have in the past been problems with rejection of electronic orders placed by CLECs, all problems attributable to BellSouth have been corrected. Id. 111112. BellSouth has designed its OSSs in accordance with the Eighth Circuits conclusion that the text of the Act cannot be squared with a requirement that incumbent LECs, rather than the requesting carriers, .. . recombine network elements that are purchased by the requesting carrier on an unbundled basis. Iowa Utils. Bd., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18183, at *81; see Stacy OSS Aff. 60. To impose under section 271 any requirement that BellSouth must offer UNEs on a precombined basis or as a platform would contravene the Court of Appeals decision and violate section 271(d)(4), which forbids the Commission to expand the requirements of the competitive checklist. Service Maintenance and Repair. CLECs can use BellSouths interactive Trouble Analysis Facilitation Interface ( TAFI) or a manual interface to initiate maintenance or repair inquiries for services associated with a telephone number. Stacy OSS Aff.  83, 8695. Thirteen CLECs are presently using TAFI. Id. 95. For designed services (which are associated with a circuit number), BellSouth makes available to CLECs the same T1M1 electronic bonding interface currently used by interexchange carriers for access services and the ability to pass a trouble ticket electronically into the Work Force Administration database using the Exchange Carrier Common Presentation Manager interface. Id. 82, 96. BellSouth also will develop customized systems such as one now being developed for AT&T based on the T1M1 standard. Id. 98. If a CLEC elects to use the manual interface, BellSouth will handle the CLECs phonedin trouble reports in the same way it handles reports from its own retail customers " by entering the report into TAFI. Id. 90, 93. But if the CLEC chooses direct access to TAFI, its personnel are themselves able to input trouble reports, obtain commitment times, and check on the status of previously entered reports. CLEC personnel enter trouble reports by inputting information in response to TAFI mechanized questions in the same way BellSouth retail service representatives, who use TAFI themselves, would accomplish the same task. Id. 93. CLECs have access to information on the resale services and UNEs they have purchased from BellSouth, but not to information about the customers of other CLECs. Id.  9091. Unlike BellSouth retail service representatives, CLECs have the advantage of being able to access TAFI for both business and residential customers through the same interface. Id. 90. TAFI automatically performs diagnostic tests and, by interacting with other internal BellSouth systems, is often able to correct a trouble report while the customer is still on the line. For example, if a customer were to report a problem with call waiting, TAFI would first verify that the feature is listed on the customer service record. Then, depending on the nature of the problem, TAFI may be able to restore the service to the line. TAFI will verify, for instance, that the program options in the central office switch are correct. If TAFI finds an error in those options, it will automatically reprogram the switch. Id. 87. In cases where further action is required, BellSouth will advise the CLEC of the steps being taken and the time they will take, so that the CLEC can inform its own customer. Id.  90. Thereafter, the CLEC can check the status of a repair order by entering a subsequent report into TAFI or, if it placed the initial order manually, by contacting the BellSouth Residence Repair Center or Business Repair Center with which it placed the initial report. See id. 9091. ,X` hp x (#T$%'0*,.8135@8:X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: