******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Application by SBC Communications Inc., )CC Docket No. 97-121 Pursuant to Section 271 of the ) Communications Act of 1934, as amended,) To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services) In Oklahoma ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 25, 1997Released: June 26, 1997 By the Commission: Chairman Hundt issuing a separate statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 271(c)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . 6 A.Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B.Positions of the Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C.Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IV. REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 271(c)(1)(B). . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 B.Positions of the Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 C.Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1.Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.Standard for Evaluating "Qualifying Requests" . 31 3.Existence of Qualifying Requests in Oklahoma. . 60 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 I. INTRODUCTION 1.On April 11, 1997, SBC Communications Inc. and its subsidiaries, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance, (collectively, SBC) filed an application for authorization under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to provide in-region interLATA services in the State of Oklahoma. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that SBC has not demonstrated on this record that it is providing access and interconnection to an unaffiliated, facilities-based competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers, as required by section 271(c)(1)(A) of the statute. We further conclude that, under the circumstances presented in this application, SBC may not obtain authorization to provide in-region interLATA services in Oklahoma pursuant to Track B of the Act at this time because SBC has received, at the very least, several requests for access and interconnection within the meaning of section 271(c)(1)(B). 2.Given our findings that SBC has not satisfied section 271(c)(1)(A) on this record, and may not at this time proceed pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B), we conclude that SBC has not satisfied the requirements of subsection 271(c)(1). We therefore deny, pursuant to section 271(d)(3), SBC's application to provide in-region interLATA services in Oklahoma. II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 3.The Telecommunications Act of 1996 conditions Bell Operating Company (BOC) provision of in-region interLATA services on compliance with certain provisions of section 271. BOCs must apply to the Commission for authorization to provide interLATA services originating in any in-region state. The Commission must issue a written determination on each application no later than 90 days after receiving such application. In acting on a BOC's application for authority to provide in-region interLATA services, the Commission must consult with the Attorney General and give substantial weight to the Attorney General's evaluation of the BOC's application. In addition, the Commission must consult with the applicable state commission to verify that the BOC has either a state- approved interconnection agreement or statement of generally available terms and conditions that satisfies the "competitive checklist," as described below. 4.Section 271 requires the Commission to make several findings before approving BOC entry. As a preliminary matter, a BOC must show that it satisfies the requirements of either section 271(c)(1)(A) or 271(c)(1)(B). Those sections provide: (A) PRESENCE OF A FACILITIES-BASED COMPETITOR.-A Bell operating company meets the requirements of this subparagraph 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 Bell operating company is providing access and interconnection to its network facilities for the network facilities of one or more unaffiliated competing providers of telephone exchange service (as defined in section 3(47)(A), but excluding exchange access) to residential and business subscribers. For the purpose of this subparagraph, such telephone exchange service may be offered by such competing providers either exclusively over their own telephone exchange service facilities or predominantly over their own telephone exchange service facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications services of another carrier. For the purpose of this subparagraph, services provided pursuant to subpart K of part 22 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 22.901 et seq.) shall not be considered to be telephone exchange services. (B) FAILURE TO REQUEST ACCESS.-A Bell operating company meets the requirements of this subparagraph if, after 10 months after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in subparagraph (A) before the date which is 3 months before the date the company makes its application under subsection (d)(1), and a statement of the terms and conditions that the company generally offers to provide such access and interconnection has been approved or permitted to take effect by the State commission under section 252(f). For purposes of this subparagraph, a Bell operating company shall 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 implementation schedule contained in such agreement. 5.In order to grant a BOC's application, the Commission must also find that: (1) the interconnection agreements or statements approved at the state level under section 252 satisfy the competitive checklist contained in section 271(c)(2)(B); (2) the requested authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 272; and (3) the BOC's entry into the in-region interLATA market is "consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity." III. REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 271(c)(1)(A) A.Background 6.In order to satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A), a BOC must demonstrate that it "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." According to SBC, its "implemented agreement with Brooks Fiber satisfies all the requirements of [section 271(c)(1)(A)]." Because SBC relies exclusively on Brooks Fiber (Brooks) for purposes of satisfying section 271(c)(1)(A), we will focus in this section only on the record evidence concerning Brooks' activities in Oklahoma. A key issue in determining whether SBC has satisfied section 271(c)(1)(A) is whether Brooks is a competing provider of telephone exchange service to both residential and business subscribers. 7.The following facts regarding Brooks' operations in Oklahoma are undisputed. Brooks, a carrier unaffiliated with SBC, has received authority to "operate as a competitive local exchange company . . . , providing all types of intrastate switched services, including switched local exchange (i.e., dial-tone) service" in Oklahoma. Brooks has an effective local exchange tariff in place for the provision of residential and business services. As of March 11, 1997, Brooks was serving twenty business customers in Oklahoma. Of these twenty business customers, one received service via resold SBC ISDN service, while the others received service either via direct on-net connections to Brooks' fiber optic transmission rings or through leased SBC dedicated T-1 facilities. In addition, Brooks has test circuits activated to the residences of four of its Oklahoma employees. These circuits are all provisioned through the resale of SBC's local exchange service. Brooks is not billing the employees involved in the test of these circuits. B.Positions of the Parties 8.As an initial matter, we note that commenters offer differing views about the showing that SBC must make in order to demonstrate that Brooks is a competing provider that satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Commenters use various terms (e.g., "serv[e]," "provi[de]," "offer[ ]," "furnish[ ]") to describe what Brooks must do to meet the competing provider requirement of section 271(c)(1)(A), although commenters often do not define the terms they use. 9.Various commenters assert that SBC does not satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) because Brooks' test of four circuits to the homes of its employees does not constitute residential service for purposes of this section. Brooks states that the sole purpose of its test is to identify and correct any problems in SBC's and Brooks' resale support and ancillary services systems. According to Brooks, it is not billing the employees involved in the test of these circuits. Brooks represents that it "is not now offering residential service in Oklahoma, nor has it ever offered residential service in Oklahoma," and that it "is not accepting any request in Oklahoma for residential service." According to the Department of Justice, "[t]he provision of service on a test basis does not make Brooks a 'competing provider' of service to residential 'subscribers,' in the absence of any effort on Brooks' part to provide service on a commercial basis." CompTel asserts that "[i]t does not even appear that Brooks' four 'customer' test is a telecommunications service at all, because it is neither available to the public nor offered for a fee." SBC responds that the fact that "Brooks' residential customers are employees served on a 'test' basis . . . is irrelevant to [its] application." According to SBC, section 271 "makes no distinctions based upon the end user's employment, the label a carrier attaches to its local service, or the pricing of the service." In discussing Brooks' service operations generally, SBC also asserts that there is no requirement under section 271(c)(1)(A) that the competing provider serve any minimum number of customers. 10.In asserting that Brooks is a competing provider of residential service for purposes of section 271(c)(1)(A), SBC relies on the fact that Brooks has an effective local exchange tariff in place for residential and business service. SBC also emphasizes that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Oklahoma Commission) has determined that Brooks is providing service to both business and residential subscribers. In addition, both SBC and the Oklahoma Commission suggest that Brooks has certain legal obligations to furnish service to residential subscribers in Oklahoma, and that Brooks has media advertisements seeking to attract residential subscribers. In contrast, the Department of Justice contends that "[a]lthough Brooks plans to offer service to residential subscribers in Oklahoma (and is doing so in other states), and has a tariff on file in Oklahoma under which it could at some point serve residential customers, it is not presently a 'competing provider of telephone exchange services . . . to residential . . . subscribers,' as required by [s]ection 271(c)(1)(A)." 11.Various commenters also contend that SBC does not meet the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) because Brooks is not providing facilities-based service to both residential and business subscribers. A number of commenters argue that section 271(c)(1)(A)'s requirement that competing providers offer telephone exchange service either "exclusively" or "predominantly" over their own telephone exchange service facilities should apply independently to both business and residential subscribers. Similarly, CPI asserts that a carrier that serves residential customers solely through resale does not meet the "predominance" test. In contrast, the Department of Justice states that section 271(c)(1)(A) permits an applicant to serve one class of subscribers via resale, so long as the competitor's local exchange services as a whole are provided predominantly over its own facilities. In its reply comments, SBC also asserts that the statute "does not impose any requirement that the CLEC actually serve both business and residential customers over its own facilities." 12.Certain commenters also argue that Brooks does not qualify as a "predominantly" facilities-based carrier with respect to its business subscribers. Many commenters also offer differing interpretations of the phrase "predominantly over their own telephone exchange service facilities," contained in section 271(c)(1)(A). C.Discussion 13.As noted above, there is considerable dispute in the record of this proceeding about whether SBC has shown that Brooks' residential operations meet the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Consequently, in determining whether SBC has demonstrated compliance with section 271(c)(1)(A), we focus our discussion on whether Brooks is a competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential subscribers. We note that the burden is on SBC to show that Brooks is an "unaffiliated competing provider[ ] of telephone exchange service . . . to residential . . . subscribers." Given our conclusion below that Brooks is not a competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential subscribers, we find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether Brooks is a competing provider of telephone exchange service to business subscribers. 14.As summarized above, commenters offer differing views about the showing SBC must make with respect to Brooks' residential service operations (i.e., whether Brooks must serve, provide, offer, or furnish residential service). We need not and do not define the precise scope of the phrase "competing provider[ ] of telephone exchange service" for purposes of this Order. Issues concerning the nature and size of the presence of the competing provider require very fact-specific determinations. We anticipate addressing such issues in upcoming applications where facts clearly present the issues and warrant a Commission determination. We do, however, conclude that a "competing provider" cannot mean a carrier such as Brooks that at present has in place at most paper commitments to furnish service. We find that the use of the term "competing provider[ ]" in section 271(c)(1)(A) suggests that there must be an actual commercial alternative to the BOC in order to satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A). Consistent with this interpretation, we note that the Joint Explanatory Statement states that "[t]he requirement that the BOC 'is providing access and interconnection' means that the competitor has implemented the agreement and the competitor is operational." 15.Although SBC emphasizes that the Oklahoma Commission "concluded that [SBC] satisfies the requirements of subsection 271(c)(1)(A) because Brooks Fiber serves both business and residential customers . . . ," we find that the Oklahoma Commission's determination on this issue is not dispositive. Section 271 requires us to consult with the Oklahoma Commission "in order to verify the compliance of [SBC] with the requirements of [section 271(c)]" before we make any determination on SBC's application under section 271(d). At the same time, as the expert agency charged with implementing section 271, we are required to make an independent determination of the meaning of statutory terms in section 271. 16.Moreover, based on the record before us, we find that it is unclear what standard the Oklahoma Commission applied or what specific facts it relied on in making its determination about Brooks' activities. In its order in the state's section 271 proceeding, the Oklahoma Commission concluded "that Brooks Fiber meets the requirement of [s]ection 271(c)(1)(A) of the Act," but did not provide any basis for its determination. In its initial comments in this proceeding, the Oklahoma Commission asserts that "Brooks is currently providing local service to business customers predominantly over its own facilities and by resale on a test basis to its employees for their residential service." The Oklahoma Commission contends in its reply comments in this proceeding that "[w]ith respect to the Track 'A' versus Track 'B' issue, the [Oklahoma Commission] has determined that Brooks Fiber is providing both business and residential service . . . ." Given the facts in the record before us, the Oklahoma Commission's determination that Brooks "is providing" residential service could be based on, either cumulatively or individually, a range of factors -- e.g., Brooks' provision of circuits to four employees on a test basis, Brooks' effective state tariff, or service obligations that Brooks has under Oklahoma law. None of the Oklahoma Commission's statements, either taken together or individually, specifies whether the Oklahoma Commission has made a finding that Brooks is actually furnishing residential service, or otherwise qualifies as a competing provider of residential service. 17.We conclude 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 "competing provider[ ] of "telephone exchange service . . . to residential . . . subscribers." The term "subscribers" suggests that persons receiving the service pay a fee. The term "telephone exchange service" also requires that there be payment of a fee. For the purposes of section 271(c)(1)(A), the competing provider must actually be in the market, and, therefore, beyond the testing phase. Hence, we agree with the Department of Justice that "[t]he provision of service on a test basis does not make Brooks a 'competing provider' of service to residential 'subscribers,' in the absence of any effort on Brooks' part to provide service on a commercial basis." 18.Nor are we persuaded that Brooks is a competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers merely because it has an effective tariff in place for the provision of both business and residential service in Oklahoma. Like the Department of Justice, we conclude that the existence of an effective local exchange tariff alone is not sufficient to satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A). Brooks represents that it "is not now offering residential service in Oklahoma, nor has it ever offered residential service in Oklahoma," and that it "is not accepting any request in Oklahoma for residential service." Neither SBC nor any other commenter has presented evidence to show that Brooks is accepting requests for residential service. Thus, SBC has not even made a threshold showing that Brooks is a competing provider that satisfies section 271(c)(1)(A). 19.Given the record in this proceeding, it is unclear whether Brooks is obligated under Oklahoma law to provide residential service. We note that Brooks' Oklahoma tariff provides that "[t]he furnishing of service under this tariff is subject to the availability on a continuing basis of all the necessary facilities . . . ." Brooks suggests that this language exempts it from providing service under the current circumstances. SBC claims that, notwithstanding Brooks' representations in this proceeding, Brooks is obligated under Oklahoma law to serve residential customers. The Oklahoma Commission states that Brooks' "[Oklahoma Commission]-approved tariff requires" it to provide service to business and residential customers, and that the Oklahoma Commission will "object to any attempt by Brooks Fiber to deviate from providing service to both residential and business customers." The Oklahoma Commission does not, however, address the specific exemption contained in Brooks' tariff. 20.We conclude that the determination of whether Brooks is obligated under state law to provide residential service is not dispositive of the question presented here, because, irrespective of Brooks' state obligations, the key determination for our purposes is whether Brooks is a competing provider of residential telephone exchange service under the Communications Act. We note that notwithstanding all of its claims regarding Brooks' legal obligations, SBC does not rebut Brooks' statement that it "is not accepting any request in Oklahoma for residential service." Thus, as a practical matter, competing telephone exchange service is not available on a commercial basis to any residential subscribers in Oklahoma. Regardless of whatever state obligations a carrier may have, we cannot conclude for purposes of section 271(c)(1)(A) that a carrier is a competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential subscribers if it is not even accepting requests for that service. 21.For similar reasons, we also discount the significance of allegations concerning Brooks' media advertisements. The fact that Brooks has a web site listing certain services that SBC suggests "might be attractive to residential customers" does not contradict Brooks' statement that it currently is not accepting requests for residential service. Similarly, we do not attach significant evidentiary weight to the Oklahoma Commission's unsubstantiated assertion that "Brooks has begun media advertisements seeking to attract both business and residential customers," without further elaboration on the significance of such advertisements. 22.As noted above, various commenters have discussed whether section 271(c)(1)(A)'s requirement that competing providers offer telephone exchange service either "exclusively" or "predominantly" over their own telephone exchange service facilities should apply independently to both business and residential subscribers. In addition, certain commenters have raised the issue of how to interpret the "predominantly" requirement of section 271(c)(1)(A). We need not and do not address either of these issues for purposes of SBC's Oklahoma section 271 application, because, as we have concluded above, Brooks does not qualify as a "competing provider of telephone exchange service . . . to residential . . . subscribers" pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(A). IV. REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 271(c)(1)(B) A.Background 23.Section 271(c)(1)(B) of the Act allows a BOC to seek entry under Track B if "no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)]" and the BOC's statement of generally available terms and conditions has been approved or permitted to take effect by the applicable state regulatory commission. In its motion to dismiss, ALTS asserts that SBC is precluded from proceeding under Track B because "interconnection requests" have been filed in Oklahoma. In response to this motion, the Bureau invited parties to address in detail their legal theories of when a BOC is permitted to file under section 271(c)(1)(B) and when a BOC is foreclosed from proceeding under section 271(c)(1)(B). The Bureau requested parties to address, among other things, the nature of a "request" that is referred to in section 271(c)(1)(B), which we hereinafter refer to as a "qualifying request," and whether and when SBC has received such a request. B.Positions of the Parties 24.In its application, SBC contends that it is entitled to proceed under Track B. SBC interprets the phrase "such provider" as used in section 271(c)(1)(B) to refer to an "exclusively" or "predominantly" facilities-based competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers, as described in section 271(c)(1)(A). Thus, under SBC's reading of the statute, a BOC is entitled to proceed under Track B unless: (1) a competing provider is actually providing telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers in accordance with the terms of section 271(c)(1)(A); and (2) that competing provider has requested access and interconnection more than three months prior to the filing of an application as required by section 271(c)(1)(B). Under this reading, the fact that a carrier has requested access and interconnection but has not yet begun to provide competing service (such as a carrier that is still engaged in negotiations with a BOC) does not foreclose the BOC from proceeding under Track B. Thus, according to SBC, to foreclose Track B, the requesting carrier "may not simply anticipate building facilities and seek interconnection in anticipation of that day. Rather, it must actually be 'such provider' described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)]." 25.A central element of SBC's argument is that a request for access and interconnection does not become a qualifying request that forecloses Track B until the carrier begins providing the type of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers described in section 271(c)(1)(A). Specifically, SBC maintains that a request from a prospective competitor "may become" a qualifying request that forecloses Track B "once the carrier starts to provide qualifying, facilities-based service pursuant to its interconnection agreement" with SBC. Accordingly, SBC seems to take the position that, if it has not satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), then it must be eligible to proceed under Track B. 26.In their comments on ALTS' motion and on SBC's application generally, BOCs and their potential competitors differ sharply on what constitutes a "qualifying request" that will foreclose Track B. Most potential competitors, trade associations, the Oklahoma Attorney General, and the States Attorneys General generally agree with ALTS and appear to assert that any request for access and interconnection is a qualifying request that forecloses Track B. Most BOCs, in contrast, contend that only a request from an already competing facilities-based provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers can be a qualifying request that precludes a BOC from proceeding under Track B. U S West, CompTel, LCI, and the Department of Justice contend, however, that Track B is available to any BOC that has not received a request for access and interconnection to provide service that would satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). We note that the Oklahoma Commission, in a 2-1 decision, found it was unnecessary to determine whether SBC could proceed under section 271(c)(1)(B) in light of its determination that SBC satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). C.Discussion 1.Summary 27.All parties appear to agree that, if SBC has received a "qualifying request" for access and interconnection, the statute bars SBC from proceeding under Track B. We agree with this analysis and conclude that, in order to decide whether SBC's application may proceed under Track B, we must determine whether SBC has received a "qualifying request." We conclude that a "qualifying request" under section 271(c)(1)(B) is a request for negotiation to obtain access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). We further conclude that the request for access and interconnection must be from an unaffiliated competing provider that seeks to provide the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). As discussed below, such a request need not be made by an operational competing provider, as some BOCs suggest. Rather, the qualifying request may be submitted by a potential provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers. 28.We reach this conclusion for several reasons. As a matter of statutory interpretation, we find that our reading, by giving full effect to the meaning of the term "request" in section 271(c)(1)(B), is the one most consistent with the statutory design. In addition, as a matter of policy, we find that our interpretation will best further Congress' goal of introducing competition in the local exchange market by giving BOCs an incentive to cooperate with potential competitors in providing them the facilities they need to fulfill their requests for access and interconnection. Moreover, we find our interpretation to be particularly sound in contrast to the extreme positions set forth by SBC and its potential competitors, as described below. 29.Under SBC's interpretation of section 271(c)(1)(B), only operational facilities- based competing providers may submit qualifying requests that preclude a BOC from proceeding under Track B. Adoption of this interpretation of a qualifying request would create an incentive for a BOC to delay the provision of facilities in order to prevent any new entrants from becoming operational and, thereby, preserve the BOC's ability to seek in-region interLATA entry under Track B. As the Department of Justice observes, this reading of section 271(c)(1)(B) would effectively "reward the BOC that failed to cooperate in implementing an agreement for access and interconnection and thereby prevented its competitor from becoming operational." Opponents of SBC's application offer a radically different -- and, in our view, equally unreasonable -- interpretation of when a qualifying request has been made. These parties claim that any request for access and interconnection submitted by a potential new entrant to a BOC is a qualifying request and precludes the BOC from proceeding under Track B. We conclude, however, that this statutory reading could create an incentive for potential competitors to "game" the negotiation process by submitting an interconnection request that would foreclose Track B but, if implemented, would not satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Such a result would effectively give a BOC's potential competitors in local telecommunications markets the power to deny the BOC entry into the in-region interLATA market. 30.As discussed below, on the basis of the record before us, we find that SBC has received, at the very least, several qualifying requests for access and interconnection that, if implemented, will satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). We therefore conclude that SBC, at this time, may not pursue in-region interLATA entry in Oklahoma under section 271(c)(1)(B). 2.Standard for Evaluating "Qualifying Requests" 31.Section 271(c)(1)(B) provides that a BOC meets the "requirements of [section 271(c)(1)(B)] if . . . no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)] . . . ." The threshold question here is whether Congress has tied the availability of Track B to a request for access and interconnection from a carrier that is already competing in the local exchange market, as SBC contends, or whether Congress intended to preclude a BOC from proceeding under Track B upon its receipt of a request for access and interconnection from a prospective competing provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). We find the most natural reading of the statute, and the only interpretation consistent with the statutory goal of facilitating competition in the local exchange market, is the latter interpretation. 32. According to SBC, "such provider" refers to an already operational facilities- based provider of telephone service to residential and business subscribers. Thus, although it has received at least 45 requests for "local interconnection and/or resale" in Oklahoma, SBC claims that none of these requests, with the exception of the one from Brooks, is a qualifying request. With respect to Brooks, SBC claims that Brooks' request was not a qualifying request when it was submitted in March 1996, but rather became a qualifying request on January 15, 1997, because on that date, according to SBC, Brooks became an operational facilities-based provider of telephone service to residential and business subscribers. Since this event occurred within three months of the filing of its section 271 application, however, SBC asserts that its application can proceed under Track B. 33.We find implausible SBC's assertion that Congress tied the availability of Track B to a request for access and interconnection from a carrier that was already competing in the local exchange market. Potential competitors usually request access and interconnection under section 251 in order to become operational. Even if a competing provider has a fully redundant network, it would need interconnection from the BOC prior to becoming operational in order to complete calls to, and receive calls originating from, BOC customers. Indeed, SBC does not dispute that Brooks requested access and interconnection from SBC in March 1996 in order to be able to offer local exchange service in competition with SBC. In keeping with its interpretation of the words "such provider," however, SBC maintains that this request was not transformed into a qualifying request for purposes of Track B until ten months later, when SBC began providing access and interconnection to Brooks in January 1997. There is nothing in the text of the statute, or its legislative history, to suggest that a request for access and interconnection must be perfected at some unknown future date before it may become a qualifying request for the purposes of Track B. Nor does SBC provide any support for this assertion. We therefore find SBC's theory of a "post-dated" request to be without merit. 34.We conclude that Congress intended to preclude a BOC from proceeding under Track B when the BOC receives a request for access and interconnection from a prospective competing provider of telephone exchange service, subject to the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) discussed below. Thus, we interpret the words "such provider" as used in section 271(c)(1)(B) to refer to a potential competing provider of the telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). We find it reasonable and consistent with the overall scheme of section 271 to interpret Congress' use of the words "such provider" in section 271(c)(1)(B) to include a potential competing provider. This interpretation is the more natural reading of the statute because, unlike SBC's strained interpretation, it retains the meaning of the term "request." By its terms, Track B only applies where "no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)]." Under SBC's reading, however, Track B is available to a BOC if it is not already providing access and interconnection to competing carriers, no matter how many requests for access and interconnection the BOC has received. To give full effect to the term "request," we therefore interpret the words "such provider" to mean any such potential provider that has requested access and interconnection. 35.Indeed, we note that the phrase "competing provider" is commonly used to refer to both potential and actual competing providers. For example, in our Local Competition Order, we frequently referred to potential competitors of local exchange service as "competing providers" despite the fact that they were not yet actually offering service in competition with the incumbent LEC. Similarly, in the instant proceeding, we note that SBC itself consistently uses the terms "competitors" and "CLECs" when referring to potential providers of local exchange service. For example, SBC refers to a "CLEC that wishes to provide local services in Oklahoma," "CLECs' decisions to postpone providing local telephone service," and "competitors [that] can make a business decision whether to enter the local exchange." 36.SBC asserts that, if Congress had meant to refer in section 271(c)(1)(B) to any party seeking to begin negotiations for access and interconnection, it would have used the phrase "requesting telecommunications carrier" as it did in section 251(c), rather than the term "such provider." We find, however, that Congress' use of the phrase "requesting telecommunications carrier" in section 251 provides additional support for our interpretation. A "telecommunications carrier" is defined in section 3(44) of the Act as a "provider of telecommunications services . . . ." Thus, read literally, a "requesting telecommunications carrier" in section 251 is a provider of telecommunications services that requests interconnection or access to unbundled elements. SBC, however, does not assert that the requesting telecommunications carrier in section 251 must be an operational provider of telecommunications services at the time it makes its request. To the contrary, SBC appears to agree that Congress used the term "requesting telecommunications carrier" to refer to a potential entrant seeking to begin negotiations for access and interconnection. In the context of section 271, however, SBC inconsistently rejects the very same interpretation of "such provider" that it has conceded is correct with respect to the term "requesting telecommunications carrier" in the context of section 251. In our view, Congress used the term "requesting telecommunications carrier" in section 251 to refer to a potential telecommunications carrier that was requesting access and interconnection and, in the same fashion, used the term "such provider" in section 271(c)(1)(B) to refer to a potential provider that "has requested the access and interconnection [described in section 271(c)(1)(A)]." In fact, to have used the adjective "requesting" before the noun "provider" in section 271(c)(1)(B) would have been superfluous because the sentence already incorporates the concept of a requesting provider by using the verb "requested." 37.Similarly, we find that SBC's interpretation of this provision effectively reads the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) out of the statute. The exceptions provide that the BOC "shall be considered not to have received any request for access and interconnection" if the applicable state regulatory commission certifies that the provider making the request fails to negotiate in good faith or fails to comply, within a reasonable time, with the implementation schedule set forth in the interconnection agreement. These exceptions ensure that, if, after a request for access and interconnection, facilities-based competition does not emerge because the potential competitor fails either to bargain in good faith or to implement its interconnection agreement according to a negotiated or arbitrated schedule, Track B would become available to the BOC. Such certifications by a state commission, in effect, would amount to a determination that the BOC had not received a qualifying request. Under SBC's theory of a "post-dated" request, a qualifying request that forecloses Track B would occur only after the initial request has resulted in a negotiated and implemented interconnection agreement with the BOC. Consequently, there would be virtually no need for exceptions that make Track B available in the event of bad faith negotiations or failure to comply with an implementation schedule. 38.SBC only identifies two scenarios, neither of which is present here, where the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) might come into play under its interpretation: (1) where a competing LEC that is already providing facilities-based telephone exchange service completely over its own network requests access and interconnection from the BOC; or (2) where a competing LEC that has obtained an interconnection agreement prior to the 1996 Act makes such a request. SBC asserts that the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) exist to ensure that a qualifying carrier (i.e., an already competing provider) "cannot foreclose interLATA entry by requesting, but then failing to negotiate or implement, an agreement." As described below, however, we find that these scenarios are extremely rare. It seems implausible that Congress would have created the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) to apply to circumstances that would almost never arise. We conclude therefore that adhering to SBC's interpretation would virtually strip these exceptions of their meaning. 39.We also find unpersuasive the few passages of legislative history on which SBC relies in support of its argument that "such provider" in section 271(c)(1)(B) refers to an operational competing provider. For example, SBC relies on references in the Joint Explanatory Statement to a "qualifying facilities-based competitor," and a "facilities-based competitor that meets the criteria set out in [section 271(c)(1)(A) that] has sought to enter the market." Notably, this latter reference to the Joint Explanatory Statement equally supports our interpretation of "such provider" because it refers to a carrier that "has sought to enter the market." 40.In addition, SBC relies on a floor statement indicating that the phrase "such provider" refers to the facilities-based provider described in the second sentence of section 271(c)(1)(A). SBC also cites a floor statement stating that a BOC may pursue entry under Track B if it has not received "any request for access and interconnection from a facilities- based carrier that meets the criteria in section 271(c)(1)(A)." We decline to attach the weight to these and other citations to the legislative history that SBC assigns because other passages in the legislative history refer to "would-be" or "potential" competitors. These passages indicate that Congress assumed carriers would not yet be operational competitors when they requested the access and interconnection arrangements necessary to enable them to compete. For example, as discussed below, the Conference Committee emphasized the importance of "potential competitors" having the benefit of the Commission's rules implementing section 251. In addition, the House Commerce Committee indicated that Track B would not create an "unreasonable burden on a would-be competitor" to request access and interconnection under section 271(c)(1)(A). SBC cites no support for its contention that this language "simply reflects a belief that [competing LECs] would be full competitors in the local market only after they implement interconnection agreements under section 251." 41.Contrary to SBC's claim that its reading of section 271 is supported by legislative history, we conclude that the legislative history surrounding section 271(c)(1)(A) establishes that, consistent with its goal of developing competition, Congress intended Track A to be the primary vehicle for BOC entry in section 271. As discussed below, by tying BOC in- region, interLATA entry to the development of local competition in this manner, Congress expected that there would be a "ramp-up" period during which requests from potential competitors would preclude BOCs from applying under Track B while requesting carriers are in the process of becoming operational competitors. We find, therefore, that the statutory scheme established by Congress supports our conclusion that the term "such provider" in section 271(c)(1)(B) refers to a potential competitor that is seeking access and interconnection in order to enter the local exchange market. 42.That Congress intended BOCs to obtain approval to enter their in-region interLATA markets primarily by satisfying the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) is evidenced not only by the stated purpose of the 1996 Act which was to "open[ ] all telecommunications markets to competition," but also by statements in the Report of the House Commerce Committee. These statements are particularly relevant because the text of section 271(c)(1) was adopted almost verbatim from the House bill. The House Committee Report states that the existence of a facilities-based competitor that is providing service to residential and business subscribers "is the integral requirement of the checklist, in that it is the tangible affirmation that the local exchange is indeed open to competition." Moreover, that Report observes that "the Committee expects the Commission to determine that a competitive alternative is operational and offering a competitive service somewhere in the State prior to granting a BOC's petition for entry into long distance." Thus, we find that Congress regarded the presence of one or more operational competitors in a BOC's service area as the most reliable evidence that the BOC's local markets are, in fact, open to competitive entry. 43.At the same time, Congress, by intending Track A to be the primary entry vehicle, understood that there would be some delay between the passage of the 1996 Act and actual entry by facilities-based carriers into the local market. For example, it expressly recognized that it would take time for competitors to construct or upgrade networks and then to extend service offerings to residential and business subscribers. As the Joint Explanatory Statement observes, "it is unlikely that competitors will have a fully redundant network in place when they initially offer service, because the investment necessary is so significant." Rather, as many commenters recognize, because potential competitors must accomplish a number of things before they may begin to provide telephone exchange service, such as obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity from the state commission, negotiating (and arbitrating, if necessary) an interconnection agreement with the BOC, obtaining state approval of that agreement, filing and obtaining approval of a tariff for local exchange service, and implementing their interconnection agreement, it will inevitably take some time before these carriers can actually begin to provide telephone exchange service. Congress' recognition that this transformation to operational status would not be an instantaneous one is evidenced by the Joint Explanatory Statement's observation that, "it is important that the Commission rules to implement new section 251 be promulgated within 6 months after the date of enactment so that potential competitors will have the benefit of being informed of the Commission rules in requesting access and interconnection before the statutory window in new section 271(c)(1)(B) shuts." 44.That Congress expected there to be a "ramp-up" period for requesting carriers to become operational competitors is further evidenced by section 251 itself. In adopting section 251, Congress acknowledged that the development of competition in local exchange markets is dependent, to a large extent, on the opening of the BOCs' networks. Under section 251, incumbent LECs, including BOCs, are required to take certain steps to open their networks including "providing interconnection, offering access to unbundled elements of their networks, and making their retail services available at wholesale rates so that they can be resold." Our rules implementing section 251 envisioned that incumbent LECs would need some time to complete these necessary steps. For example, in the Local Competition Order, we stated that incumbent LECs must have made modifications to their operational support systems (OSS) necessary to provide access to OSS functions by January 1, 1997. Moreover, in the Second Order on Reconsideration, we declared that we would not take enforcement action against incumbent LECs "making good faith efforts to provide . . . access [to OSS functions]." In reaching these conclusions, we recognized that some incumbent LECs would require some time before they would be able to provide potential competitors access to their OSS. 45.Moreover, we find that the very language of section 271(c)(1)(B) confirms that Congress envisioned the existence of a "ramp-up" period. The exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) are indicative of Congress' recognition that there would be a period during which good-faith negotiations are taking place, interconnection agreements are being reached, and the potential competitors are becoming operational by implementing their agreements. By delineating the circumstances under which Track B becomes available to the BOC, Congress must have understood that there would often be some time when Track B is unavailable, but the BOC has not yet satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). This would not be the case, however, under SBC's theory that only a request for access and interconnection from an operational facilities-based provider will foreclose Track B. 46.Further, as a matter of policy, we find that our interpretation of "such provider" is consistent with the incentives established by Congress in section 271. In order to gain entry under Track A, a BOC must demonstrate that it has "fully implemented" the competitive checklist in section 271(c)(2)(B). Thus, by expecting Track A to be the primary means of BOC entry, Congress created an incentive for BOCs to cooperate with potential competitors in the provision of access and interconnection and thereby facilitate competition in local exchange markets. In contrast, Track B, which requires only that a BOC "offer[ ]" the items included in the competitive checklist, does not contemplate the existence of competitive local entry and, therefore, does not create such an incentive for cooperation. Rather, as discussed more fully below, Congress intended Track B to serve as a limited exception to the Track A requirement of operational competition so that BOCs would not be unfairly penalized in the event that potential competitors do not come forward to request access and interconnection, or attempt to "game" the negotiation or implementation process in an effort to deny the BOCs in-region interLATA entry. 47.In addition, if we were to find that only a request from an operational competing facilities-based provider of residential and business service forecloses Track B, this would guarantee that, after ten months, the BOC either satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) or is eligible for Track B. As the Department of Justice asserts, "[s]uch an interpretation of [s]ection 271 would radically alter Congress' scheme, [by] expanding Track B far beyond its purpose and, for all practical purposes, reading the carefully crafted requirement of Track A out of the statute." For example, under SBC's theory, either a BOC has received a "qualifying request" from a carrier that already satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), or the BOC may proceed under Track B. SBC advocates an interpretation of the statute where the circumstances under which a competing provider may make a "qualifying request" would be so rare that, after December 8, 1996, Track B would be available in any state that lacks a competing provider of the type of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers described in section 271(c)(1)(A). As WorldCom maintains, this would lead to the illogical result that BOCs that successfully delay or prevent entry into their local markets by new entrants that have requested access and interconnection under section 251 would be rewarded by being granted the right to pursue in-region interLATA entry through Track B. As a consequence, BOC in-region interLATA entry would, in most states, precede the introduction of local competition. We find it unlikely that Congress intended to eviscerate Track A in this manner. As the Department of Justice contends, there is "no basis for the assumption that Congress intended Track A, the only track included in the bill as originally passed by the Senate, to play such an insignificant role." 48.In addition to its notion of a "post-dated" request, SBC sets forth two other hypothetical scenarios in which the BOC could receive a "qualifying request" from an already operational carrier that forecloses Track B. Although SBC does not argue that either of these hypothetical situations is present here, we briefly describe them to illustrate their limited application. Under one scenario, SBC argues that it could receive a request for access and interconnection from a competing LEC that is already providing facilities-based telephone exchange service to residential and business customers completely over its own network. Alternatively, SBC maintains it could receive a request for access and interconnection from a competing LEC that had negotiated an interconnection agreement prior to the 1996 Act. 49. As an initial matter, we note that SBC appears to set forth a reading of the word "request" in these hypothetical scenarios that is different from the one it uses in characterizing Brooks' request for access and interconnection in the instant application. SBC appears to assert that, for the purposes of the hypothetical scenarios, whether a request for access and interconnection constitutes a qualifying request is determined at the time the request is made. For the purposes of the case at hand, however, SBC claims that Brooks' request for access and interconnection was not qualifying at the time it was made, but subsequently became a qualifying request when Brooks became operational. SBC fails to explain how the meaning of the statutory term "request" can vary according to the operational status of the requestor. 50.In addition, we agree with the Department of Justice that it is implausible that Congress would have adopted Track A solely to deal with situations of such narrowly limited significance as SBC poses in its hypotheticals. SBC's first scenario assumes the presence of a carrier, prior to the 1996 Act, with a completely duplicative, ubiquitous network that provided telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers in competition with a BOC, but did not yet have an access and interconnection agreement with the BOC. We know of no such carrier. Indeed, the legislative history of the Act reflects Congress' recognition that the existence of such facilities-based competition in local markets in February 1996 was improbable. Similarly, the second scenario assumes the presence of either a facilities-based competing LEC that provided telephone exchange service to both residential and business subscribers under a pre-1996 Act interconnection agreement or a facilities-based competing LEC with a pre-1996 Act interconnection agreement that would be capable of providing such service within the statutory window in section 271(c)(1)(B). If there were such interconnection agreements in place between a BOC and a competing LEC operating within a BOC's service area, we do not know of them. 51.Notably, SBC's primary support for the second scenario is the Joint Explanatory Statement's reference to an interconnection agreement between New York Telephone and Cablevision in Long Island, NY. We disagree with SBC that this reference demonstrates that "Congress was aware that, in various markets throughout the country, cable companies and competitive access providers had negotiated interconnection agreements with incumbent LECs prior to the 1996 Act." As the Department of Justice observes, a single reference to only one pre-1996 Act interconnection agreement between an incumbent LEC and a facilities- based provider does not establish that Congress expected such situations to be common. Indeed, it is not obvious from this reference in the legislative history whether Cablevision either actually provided telephone exchange service to both residential and business subscribers on the date of enactment or intended to do so in the future. Based on its experience with the implementation of the 1996 Act nationwide, the Department of Justice notes that only a small minority of states had any local exchange competition before the 1996 Act was passed, and very few providers had become operational. Moreover, the very passage of the 1996 Act -- which was designed to remove impediments to local entry -- indicates that Congress believed that the degree of local telephone competition and interconnection prior to the passage of the 1996 Act was unsatisfactory. 52.Even if there were such facilities-based carriers with pre-1996 Act interconnection agreements, we find that SBC's interpretation would greatly undermine the very incentives that Congress sought to establish in section 271. As mentioned above, section 271 and, in particular, Track A, was established to provide an incentive for BOCs to cooperate in the development of local competition. Under SBC's interpretation of the statute, the BOCs' only incentive would be to cooperate with operational carriers that are already receiving access and interconnection. We find that the incentive to cooperate established by Track A is not limited to only those carriers that are already operational, but instead was designed to ensure that BOCs facilitate the entry of a larger and more significant class of carriers -- potential competitors requesting access and interconnection. It would be anomalous for Congress to have adopted Track A solely to provide an incentive to BOCs to cooperate with already competing providers, which do not require the BOCs' cooperation in order to become operational. 53.We note that, if such a competing LEC was not already providing the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) at the time of passage of the 1996 Act and if it chose to obtain a new agreement pursuant to section 252, it would have to engage in negotiations with the BOC, reach an interconnection agreement, obtain state approval of this interconnection agreement under section 252(e)(4), and then begin providing the type of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers described in section 271(c)(1)(A) before its request for access and interconnection could be considered qualifying under SBC's interpretation of section 271(c)(1)(B). As the Department of Justice recognizes, in order for the BOC to be precluded from filing under Track B, the competing LEC would have to complete all of this in the first seven months after the date of enactment. Not only is this unlikely, but this scenario assumes that the BOC would be inclined to cooperate with the competing LEC, reach a negotiated agreement quickly, and proceed under the more rigorous Track A standard, rather than attempt to delay the advent of competition by forcing competing LECs to resort to arbitration until Track B becomes available. Under SBC's interpretation, given the nine-month arbitration deadlines established in section 252(b)(4)(C), a BOC could virtually guarantee its eligibility under Track B by placing all carrier negotiations in arbitration. It seems, therefore, that few, if any, potential competitors would be in a position, under this interpretation, to make a "qualifying request" for access and interconnection before a BOC would become eligible to pursue Track B. 54.Although we reject SBC's interpretation of "qualifying request," we also reject the interpretation of those parties who argue that any request from a potential competitor forecloses Track B. As the Department of Justice observes, the term "such provider" in section 271(c)(1)(B) should be interpreted with reference to the type of facilities-based competition that would satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, we conclude that the request from a potential competitor must be one that, if implemented, will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A). That is, we find that a "qualifying request" must be one for access and interconnection to provide the type of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers described in section 271(c)(1)(A). To find otherwise would not only be contrary to the explicit terms of section 271(c)(1)(B), which states that only a request for "the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A]" can foreclose Track B, but would lead to anomalous results. For example, allowing any type of request for negotiation to foreclose Track B could lead to a situation where a BOC is foreclosed from pursuing Track B because there has been a request for negotiation, even though such a request, when implemented, may not satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). As Ameritech observes, under this interpretation, if a BOC receives a request for access and interconnection from a would-be facilities-based provider of telephone exchange service to business, but not residential, subscribers, Track B would be foreclosed, but the BOC would not be able to satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A) because it would not be able to show that residential subscribers are served by a competing provider. Such a result may place a BOC indefinitely in a "no- man's land" where, in effect, neither Track A nor Track B is available to it. 55.According to its legislative history, Track B was adopted by Congress to deal with the possibility that a BOC, through no fault of its own, could find that it is unable to satisfy Track A. The Joint Explanatory Statement explains that section 271(c)(1)(B) is "intended to ensure that a BOC is not effectively prevented from seeking entry into the interLATA services market simply because no facilities-based competitor that meets the criteria set out in new section 271(c)(1)(A) has sought to enter the market." Similarly, the House Committee Report elaborates that, to "the extent that a BOC does not receive a request from a competitor that comports with the criteria [described in section 271(c)(1)(A)], it [should] not [be] penalized in terms of its ability to obtain long distance relief." In this manner, Track B appropriately safeguards the BOCs' interests where there is no prospect of local exchange competition that will satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) or in the event competitors purposefully delay entry in the local market in an attempt to prevent a BOC from gaining in-region, interLATA entry. As the Department of Justice observes, however, "Track B does not represent congressional abandonment of the fundamental principle, carefully set forth in Track A, that a BOC may not begin providing in-region interLATA services before there are facilities-based competitors in the local exchange market," provided these competitors are moving toward that goal in a timely fashion. 56.Thus, while SBC's interpretation would ensure that after ten months a BOC either satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) or is eligible to proceed under Track B, the interpretation of the potential competitors could create a situation where the BOC may not be able to pursue either statutory avenue for interLATA relief. In essence, while SBC's interpretation effectively nullifies Track A, the potential competitors' interpretation effectively nullifies Track B. We are keenly aware that adopting the interpretation urged by the potential competitors would necessarily foreclose Track B entry in any state in which a potential competitor has made a request for access and interconnection, regardless whether it is a request that will ever lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). We find that permitting any request to foreclose Track B would give potential competitors an incentive to "game" the section 271 process by purposefully requesting interconnection that does not meet the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), but prevents the BOCs from using Track B. Such a result would effectively give competing LECs the power to deny BOC entry into the long distance market. This is surely not the result that Congress intended in adopting Track B. 57.We recognize, as several parties point out, that the standard we are adopting will require the Commission, in some cases, to engage in a difficult predictive judgment to determine whether a potential competitor's request will lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). As discussed above, however, we find that this type of judgment is required by the terms of section 271 and is consistent with the statutory scheme envisioned by Congress. The standard we adopt in this Order is designed to take into account both the BOCs' incentive to delay fulfillment of requests for access and interconnection and the incentive of potential local exchange competitors to delay the BOCs' entry into in-region interLATA services. Upon receipt of a "qualifying request," as we interpret it, the BOC will have an incentive to ensure that the potential competitor's request is quickly fulfilled so that the BOC may pursue entry under Track A. As long as the qualifying request remains unsatisfied, the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) would remain unsatisfied, and Track B would remain foreclosed to the BOC. 58.Further, our standard will not allow potential competitors to delay indefinitely BOC entry by failing to provide the type of telephone exchange service described in Track A. Indeed, in some circumstances, there may be a basis for revisiting our decision that Track B is foreclosed in a particular state. For example, if following such a determination a BOC refiles its section 271 application, we may reevaluate whether it is entitled to proceed under Track B in the event relevant facts demonstrate that none of its potential competitors is taking reasonable steps toward implementing its request in a fashion that will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A). In addition, as discussed above, the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B) provide that a BOC will not be deemed to have received a qualifying request if the applicable state commission certifies that the requesting carrier has failed to negotiate in good faith or failed to abide by its implementation schedule. In this manner, these exceptions also provide BOCs a means of protecting themselves against any feared "gamesmanship" on the part of potential competitors, such as the submission of sham requests intended solely to preclude BOC entry. We therefore disagree with Bell Atlantic that our standard will leave the BOCs "hostage to the claims of competitors." Moreover, for the reasons set forth above, we disagree with CPI that concerns about gamesmanship are misplaced. Finally, we note that the Commission is called upon in many contexts to make difficult determinations and has the statutory mandate to do so. The fact that a determination, such as the one we must make here, may be complex does not mean the Commission may avoid its statutory duty to undertake it. 59.We also reject NYNEX's argument that Track B is available in any situation where one or more facilities-based providers, as described in section 271(c)(1)(A), have not requested interconnection agreements that include all fourteen items of the competitive checklist. By its terms, Track B is only available in the event the BOC fails to receive a qualifying request for the access and interconnection "described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)]." As discussed above, we have determined that a qualifying request is a request from a potential competitor that, if implemented, will satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B), a BOC shall not be considered to have received a qualifying request if the requesting carrier fails to negotiate in good faith or does not abide by the implementation schedule contained in its agreement. We find that section 271(c)(1) and the competitive checklist in section 271(c)(2)(B) establish independent requirements that must be satisfied by a BOC applicant. Thus, the fact that a BOC has received a request for access and interconnection that, if implemented, will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A), does not mean that the interconnection agreement, when implemented, will necessarily satisfy the competitive checklist. Similarly, we find nothing in the terms of section 271(c)(1)(A) or section 271(c)(1)(B) that suggest that a qualifying request for access and interconnection must be one that contains all fourteen items in the checklist. In rejecting NYNEX's contention, we do not reach the question of whether a potential competitor's interconnection agreement must contain all fourteen items of the competitive checklist in order for a BOC to demonstrate its compliance with the competitive checklist in section 271(c)(2)(B). 3.Existence of Qualifying Requests in Oklahoma 60.Consistent with the requirements set forth by Congress, SBC's ability to proceed under Track B is not foreclosed unless there has been a timely request for access and interconnection from a potential provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). We note that the determination of whether the BOC has received such a qualifying request will be a highly fact-specific one. At the same time, however, Congress required the Commission to make determinations on a BOC's section 271 application within 90 days. Given the expedited time in which the Commission must review these applications, it is the responsibility of the BOC to submit to the Commission a full and complete record upon which to make determinations on its application. In this regard, we find it of great significance that, in its application, SBC does not argue that none of the requests it has received will lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). Instead, SBC contends that the only relevant determination for the purposes of section 271(c)(1)(B) is whether it has received a request for access and interconnection from an already competing provider of such service. Thus, by declining to argue in the alternative, SBC has not addressed the issue we must resolve here -- whether SBC has received a timely request for access and interconnection that, if implemented, will lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A). 61.We expect that if a BOC seeks to proceed under Track B, as SBC does here, it will submit all relevant information reasonably within its control concerning each request for access and interconnection that it has received. Such information should include, but not be limited to, the names of the requesting carriers, the dates the requests were made, the nature of such requests, and whether the requests have resulted in interconnection agreements. Because we have not received this type of extensive information in this proceeding concerning the requests for access and interconnection received by SBC in Oklahoma, we cannot be certain how many qualifying requests it has received. Nonetheless, based on the record presently before us, we find that, at the very least, SBC has received several qualifying requests for access and interconnection that foreclose Track B. 62.As noted above, SBC represents in its application that, as of April 4, 1997, it had received 45 requests for "local interconnection and/or resale" in Oklahoma. SBC did not submit information on many of the 45 requests. Nevertheless, the record indicates that SBC has received requests from potential competitors for negotiation for access and interconnection to SBC's network that, if implemented, will satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). Indeed, we note that SBC has reached negotiated interconnection agreements with at least eight requesting carriers. Seven of these interconnection agreements have been approved by the Oklahoma Commission, two as recently as June 5, 1997. Further, four of the five state-approved interconnection agreements in the record, SBC's agreements with Brooks, Cox, ICG Telecom, and USLD, contain statements signifying the desire of these carriers to provide telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers "exclusively over their own telephone exchange service facilities or predominantly over their own telephone exchange service facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications services of another carrier." For example, the SBC-Cox interconnection agreement states that Cox seeks to interconnect with SBC in order to provide telephone exchange service to "residential and business end-users predominantly over [its own] telephone exchange service facilities in Oklahoma." 63. SBC does not allege, nor has the Oklahoma Commission certified, that any of these carriers has negotiated in bad faith or has failed to abide by its implementation schedule, to the extent one is contained in its agreement. Thus, SBC has not availed itself of either of the exceptions in section 271(c)(1)(B). Moreover, SBC has not presented any evidence to suggest that these agreements will not result in the provision of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers described in section 271(c)(1)(A). Indeed, based on the record before us, it appears that at least two carriers -- Brooks and Cox -- have already taken affirmative steps to enter the residential and business local exchange markets. For example, Cox has stated its intention to provide telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers in Oklahoma City using its upgraded cable television plant before the end of 1997. In addition, as mentioned above, SBC's interconnection agreement with Brooks has already led to the provision of telephone exchange service to business subscribers. 64.We note further that it has been less than seven months since the Cox, ICG Telecom, and USLD interconnection agreements have been approved, and since Brooks has become operational. As discussed above, Congress envisioned there would be a "ramp-up" period during which a competing LEC implements its interconnection agreement. We agree with NCTA, therefore, that the current absence of competing residential service in Oklahoma does not, on the record before us, mean that "no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)]." Although SBC maintains that the Commission cannot base "section 271 determinations on the unverifiable, fluctuating plans of parties who have an incentive to color their supposed intentions to block [BOC in-region] interLATA entry," SBC has provided no evidence to suggest that any of the carriers that have expressed their intent to provide the telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) will not do so. In fact, except for an unsupported assertion that AT&T, MCI, and Sprint plan to delay BOC entry by becoming facilities-based carriers at a "painfully slow pace," SBC does not maintain that its competitors in Oklahoma are engaging in any "strategic manipulation of local market entry" or have "intentionally delayed implementation" of their interconnection agreements in order to prevent SBC from entering the in-region, interLATA market in Oklahoma. Rather, the record is replete with allegations from competitors such as Brooks and Cox that their efforts to enter the local exchange market have been frustrated by the actions of SBC. 65.Although we find, and SBC has not disputed, that SBC has received several requests for access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), we do not today decide the meaning of the facilities-based requirement in section 271(c)(1)(A). Some commenters assert that this requirement applies independently to both business and residential subscribers. The Department of Justice, in contrast, contends that this requirement permits a new entrant to serve one class of customers via resale, so long as the competitor's local exchange services as a whole are provided predominantly over its own facilities. We need not and do not decide this issue here because we conclude that, under either interpretation, the facts described above indicate that SBC has received several qualifying requests for access and interconnection. In reaching this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address SBC's compliance with the competitive checklist requirements set forth in section 271(c)(2)(B). Nonetheless, we recognize that, even if SBC had satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), it would still be required to demonstrate compliance with each and every item of the competitive checklist, including access to physical collocation, cost- based unbundled loops, and reliable OSS functions before it may gain entry under Track A. We leave it to future applications to define the scope of these and other checklist requirements. V. CONCLUSION 66.We conclude, based on the record submitted in the instant proceeding, that SBC has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1), and we therefore deny SBC's application pursuant to section 271(d)(3). SBC has not demonstrated on this record that it is providing access and interconnection to an unaffiliated, facilities-based competing provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers, as required by section 271(c)(1)(A). We also conclude, under the circumstances presented in this case, that SBC has not satisfied section 271(c)(1)(B) because it has received several requests for access and interconnection within the meaning of section 271(c)(1)(A). We note, however, that SBC may refile its application in the future and demonstrate that circumstances have changed such that it has satisfied section 271(c)(1)(A) or has become eligible to proceed under section 271(c)(1)(B). 67.Because we reach the merits of SBC's section 271 application, we dismiss ALTS' motion to dismiss as moot. Further, given the extensive legal analysis contained herein, we disagree with ALTS that SBC's application is so frivolous that it warrants the imposition of sanctions. We therefore deny ALTS' request for sanctions against SBC. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 68.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, SBC Communications Inc.'s application to provide in-region interLATA service in the State of Oklahoma filed on April 11, 1997, IS DENIED. 69.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by the Association for Local Telecommunications Services on April 23, 1997, IS DISMISSED as moot. 70.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for sanctions filed by the Association for Local Telecommunications Services on April 23, 1997, IS DENIED. 71.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Accept Late Filed Pleading by the Battle Group, Inc. d/b/a/ TBG Communications IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX COMMENTERS ON SBC 271 APPLICATION FOR OKLAHOMA 1. Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) 2. Ameritech 3. Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) 4. AT&T Corp. and AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T) 5. Attorneys General of Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin (State Attorneys General) 6. Bell Atlantic 7. BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) 8. Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. (Brooks) 9. Competition Policy Institute (CPI) 10. Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) 11. Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox) 12. Dobson Wireless, Inc. (Dobson) 13. LCI International Telecom Corp. (LCI) 14. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) 15. National Cable Television Association (NCTA) 16. NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) 17. Oklahoma Attorney General (Oklahoma AG) 18. Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Oklahoma Commission) 19. Paging and Narrowband PCS Alliance of the Personal Communications Industry Association 20. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) 21. Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) 22. Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) 23. Texas Association of Long Distance Telephone Companies 24. Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc. (Time Warner) 25. United States Department of Justice (Department of Justice) 26. U. S. Long Distance (USLD) 27. U S WEST, Inc. (U S West) 28. Valu-Line of Kansas, Inc. 29. WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN REED E. HUNDT RE: Application by SBC Communications Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 97-121, June 25, 1997 In its application, SBC stresses that "Southwestern Bell can use its brand name, reputation for providing reliable, high-quality telephone service, and network expertise to inject competition into interLATA services in Oklahoma, particularly for the business of ordinary residential callers. . . . Southwestern Bell will be a committed, effective new entrant into the interLATA business in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma consumers will benefit from this new competition for all telecommunications services." Although the Department of Justice did not recommend approval of the SBC application, the Department did note: "InterLATA markets remain highly concentrated and imperfectly competitive . . . and it is reasonable to conclude that additional entry, particularly, by firms with the competitive assets of the [Bell Operating Companies], is likely to provide additional competitive benefits." I agree strongly that the entry into the long distance market by SBC or a carrier with similar assets would promote competition and benefit consumers. The Commission has previously noted concern about evidence with regard to lock-step increases in basic rates among the three major interexchange carriers that "suggests that there may be tacit price coordination among AT&T, MCI and Sprint." As SBC itself emphasizes, SBC's assets -- including its network, customer information, brand recognition, and financial strength -- would make it a formidable competitor in the market for long-distance or bundled local-long distance service. The experience of a relatively small incumbent local exchange carrier, Southern New England Telephone, suggests how effective individual Bell Companies will be as interexchange competitors when they choose to do what is necessary to meet the terms of Section 271 of the Communications Act. Both a Bell Company's failure to open its markets in accordance with the Communications Act, and its combination with its strongest potential competitor, would frustrate the pro-competitive purposes of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and deny consumers that Act's potential benefits. There is a better way to achieve the consumer benefits of Bell Company entry into long distance, and that is to meet fully the standards Congress set in Section 271. The power to enter the long distance market lies in the hands of the Bell Companies -- if they have the will, the law makes clear the way. In the present application, SBC has plainly failed to meet the standards set forth in Section 271. For that reason, the application must be denied.