WPCE 2BEJX Courier X4#Xj\  P6G;+XP#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic@206{ ZK3|j #Xj\  P6G;+XP#3|j HP LaserJet 4Si (Additional) rm 544HPLA4SAD.PRSX\  P6G;\ P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN*a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P.\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P/e` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P0n` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P1w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2n4KB+K-K/K#2"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd"i~'^#)0<K4K6\69 K<"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN"(# 1  X94X\II.BACKGROUND p>"(# 3  X"4XX` ` A.` ` Statutory Framework ` p>"(# 3  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Overview ` p>"(# 6  X4X\III.STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION p"(# 29  X 4XX` ` A.` ` State Review of BOC Compliance with Section 271(c) ` p"(# 29  X!4XX` ` B.` ` Department of Justice's Evaluation ` p"(# 33  X#4X\IV.STANDARD FOR EVALUATING SECTION 271 APPLICATIONS p"(# 37  Xj$4XX` ` A.` ` Burden of Proof for Section 271 Applications and Compliance with Requirement that Application be Complete When Filed ` p"(# 37  X<&4XX` ` B.` ` Submission of New Factual Evidence and New Arguments in Reply Comments ` p"(# 39  X(4X\V.COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 271(c)(1)(B) p"(# 46"(,))II'"Ԍ X4XX` ` A.` ` Background ` p"(# 46  X4XX` ` B.` ` Evidence in the Record ` p"(# 49  X4XX` ` C.` ` Discussion ` p"(# 57  X4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Section 271(c)(1)(A) p"(# 57  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2.  Section 271(c)(1)(B) p"(# 58  X4XX` ` X X a.Summary p"(# 58  Xv4XX` ` X X b.Standard for Evaluating Qualifying Requests p"(# 59  X_4XX` ` X X c.Existence of "Qualifying Requests" in South Carolina p"(# 65  X14X\VI.CHECKLIST COMPLIANCE p"(# 77  X 4XX` ` A.` ` "Generally Offering" Each Checklist Item ` p"(# 77  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Introduction p"(# 77  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Discussion p"(# 79  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Operations Support Systems ` p"(# 82  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Introduction p"(# 82  X 4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Description of BellSouth's Operations Support Systems p"(# 90  X4XX` ` X ` ` 3. General Approach to Analyzing Operations Support Systems p"(# 96  Xy4XX` ` X ` ` 4. Analysis of Ordering and Provisioning Functions p!(# 101  Xb4XX` ` X ` ` 5. Analysis of PreOrdering Functions p!(# 147  XK4XX` ` C.` ` Access to Unbundled Network Elements ` p!(# 182  X44XX` ` X ` ` 1. Summary p!(# 182  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Background p!(#183  X4XX` ` X ` ` 3. Evidence in the Record p!(#186  X4XX` ` X ` ` 4. Discussion p!(#195  X4XX` ` X ` ` 5. Other Concerns p!(#210  X4XX` ` D.` ` Resale of Contract Service Arrangements ` p!(#212  X4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Background p!(#212  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Discussion p!(#215  X|4XX` ` E.` ` Nondiscriminatory Access to 911 and E911 Services ` p!(#225  XN4X\VII.JOINT MARKETING p!(#231  X74XX` ` A.` ` Background ` p!(#231  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Discussion ` p!(#236  X4X\VIII.CONCLUSION p!(#240  X 4X\IX.ORDERING CLAUSES p!(#241  X"4APPENDIX` ` LIST OF COMMENTERS(#` "h$,>(>(II""Ԍ X' #Xj\  P6G;+XP#I. XINTRODUCTION (#  X41.` ` On September 30, 1997, BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. (collectively, BellSouth) filed an application for authorization under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  X4amended,"c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271. Section 271 was added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104 {O'104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et seq. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as "the Communications Act" or "the Act." The Telecommunications Act of 1996 will be referred to as "the 1996 Act." to provide inregion, interLATA services in the State of South Carolina.&c {O 'ԍ MOTION Application by BellSouth Corp., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc.,  {O 'for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in South Carolina, CC Docket No. 97208 (filed Sept. 30, 1997)  {O '(BellSouth Application); see also Comments Requested on Application by BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in  {O'South Carolina, Public Notice, DA 972112 (rel. Sept. 30, 1997) (Sept. 30th Public Notice). All cites to the "BellSouth Application" refer to BellSouth's "Brief in Support of Application." References to all affidavits or other sources contained in the appendices submitted by BellSouth are initially cited to the Appendix, Volume, and Tab number indicating the location of the source in the record. Subsequent citation to affidavits are cited by  {O8'the affiant's name, e.g., "BellSouth Wright Affidavit." Comments on the current application are cited herein by  {O'party name, e.g., "Intermedia Comments." Documents, such as affidavits and declarations, submitted by  {O'commenters are cited by the affiant's name and the entity submitting the affidavit, e.g., "AT&T Bradbury Aff.," "MCI King Decl." A list of parties that submitted comments or replies is set forth in the Appendix. On October 1, 1997, AT&T Corp. (AT&T) and LCI International Telecom Corp. (LCI) filed a motion asking the  {O&'Commission to dismiss BellSouth's application. See Motion of AT&T & LCI Int'l Telecom Corp. to Dismiss  {O'BellSouth's 271 Application for South Carolina, CC Docket No. 97208 (filed Oct. 1, 1997) (AT&T/LCI Motion  {O'to Dismiss). Pursuant to our September19, 1997, Public Notice, we treat this motion as early filed comments.  {M'See Revised Procedures for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section271 of the Communications Act,  {OL'Public Notice, FCC 97330, at 8 (rel. Sept. 19, 1997) (Sept. 19th Public Notice).   X_42.` ` In this Order, we conclude that BellSouth is not eligible to proceed under section 271(c)(1)(B) and that it has not yet demonstrated that it generally offers each of the items of the competitive checklist set forth in section 271(c)(2)(B). In light of these conclusions, we need not and do not, address the issue of whether BellSouth has demonstrated that the authorization it seeks is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and  X 4necessity.M c yO= 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3)(C).M " 0,>(>(IIm "Ԍ X' II.XBACKGROUND (#  X'X A.X` ` Statutory Framework (#`  X43.` ` The 1996 Act conditions Bell Operating Company (BOC)c yO'ԍFor purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the definition of the term "Bell Operating Company" contained in 47 U.S.C.  153(4). provision of in X4region, interLATA services on compliance with certain provisions of section 271.4 c yO^ 'ԍWe note here that, for the provision of international services, a U.S. carrier must obtain section 214  {O& 'authority. See 47 U.S.C.  214; see also Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and  {O 'Tariff Requirements, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996); Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation  {O 'in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97398 (rel. Nov. 26, 1997). The requirement to obtain a section 214 authorization will apply to a BOC even after it receives its section 271 authority to provide inregion, interLATA service. Several BOCs have applied for, and have  {O'obtained, section 214 authority to provide outofregion, international services. See, e.g., NYNEX Long Distance Co., Ameritech Communications, Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc., Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended, to Provide International Services from Certain Parts of the  {On'United States to International Points through Resale of International Switched Services, Order, Authorization and Certificate, 11 FCC Rcd 8685 (Int'l Bur. 1996).4 Under section271, BOCs must apply to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) for  X_4authorization to provide interLATA services originating in any inregion state.% _ c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(1). The Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ), which ended the government's antitrust suit against AT&T, and which resulted in the divestiture of the BOCs from AT&T, prohibited the BOCs  {O*'from providing interLATA services. See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 226234 (D.D.C.  {O'1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. Western Elec.  {O'Co., Civil Action No. 820192 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996) (vacating the MFJ). For purposes of this proceeding, we adopt the definition of the term "inregion state" that is contained in 47 U.S.C.  271(i)(1). We note that section 271(j) provides that a BOC's inregion services include 800 service, private line service, or their equivalents that terminate in an inregion state of that BOC and that allow the called party to determine the interLATA carrier,  {O'even if such services originate outofregion. Id.  271(j). The 1996 Act defines "interLATA services" as "telecommunications between a point located in a local access and transport area and a point located outside such area." 47 U.S.C. 153(21). The 1996 Act defines a "local access and transport area" (LATA) as "a contiguous geographic area (A)established before the date of enactment of the [1996 Act] by a [BOC] such that no exchange area includes points within more than 1 metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the AT&T Consent Decree; or (B) established or modified by a [BOC] after such date of enactment and approved by the Commission." 47 U.S.C.  153(25).  {OZ 'LATAs were created as part of the MFJ's "plan of reorganization." United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F.  {O$!'Supp. 990, 1057 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd sub nom. California v. United States, 464 U.S. 1013 (1983). Pursuant to the MFJ, "all [BOC] territory in the continental United States [was] divided into LATAs, generally centering  {O"'upon a city or other identifiable community of interest." United States v. Western Elec. Co., 569 F. Supp. at 993.% The Commission must issue a written determination approving or denying each application no later  X14than 90 days after receiving such application.J1c yO&'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3).J In acting on a BOC's application for authority"1,>(>(II" to provide inregion, interLATA services, the Commission must consult with the Attorney General and give substantial weight to the Attorney General's evaluation of the BOC's  X4application.Mc {OK'ԍId.  271(d)(2)(A).M In addition, the Commission must consult with the applicable state commission in order to verify that the BOC has either a stateapproved interconnection agreement or a statement of generally available terms and conditions (SGAT) that satisfies the "competitive  X4checklist."M Zc {O'ԍId.  271(d)(2)(B).M  X_44.` ` Section 271 requires the Commission to make several findings before approving BOC entry. A BOC must show that it satisfies the requirements of either section  X14271(c)(1)(A),{ 1c yO 'ԍSection 271(c)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part: XA [BOC] meets the requirements of [section 271(c)(1)(A)] if it has entered into one or more binding agreements that have been approved under section 252 specifying the terms and conditions under which the [BOC] is providing access and interconnection to its network facilities for the network facilities of one or more unaffiliated competing providers of telephone exchange service . . . to residential and business subscribers. For the purpose of [section 271(c)(1)(A)], such telephone exchange service may be offered by such competing providers either exclusively over their own telephone exchange service facilities or predominately over their own telephone exchange service facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications services of another carrier.(#{ known as "Track A," or section 271(c)(1)(B), known as "Track B." Section 271(c)(1)(B), which we treat as the pertinent section for purposes of this Order, provides that a BOC meets the requirements of Track B if no competing provider has requested the access and interconnection described in section 271(c)(1)(A) before the date that is three months  X 4before the BOC's section 271 application is filed. @ c yO 'ԍXSection 271(c)(1)(B) provides, in relevant part:(# XA [BOC] meets the requirements of [section 271(c)(1)(B)] if, after 10 months after the date of enactment of the [1996 Act], no such provider has requested the access and interconnection described in [section 271(c)(1)(A)] before the date which is 3 months before the date the [BOC] makes it application under [section 271(d)(1)], and a statement of the terms and conditions that the [BOC] generally offers to provide such access and interconnection has been approved or permitted to take effect by the State commission under section 252(f).(#Ƙ In addition, a statement of the generally available terms and conditions that the BOC offers to provide such access and interconnection must have been approved or permitted to take effect by the applicable State commission under section 252(f). In order to grant a BOC's application, the Commission must also find that the SGAT approved or allowed to take effect by the state under section 252 offers all of the items  Xb4included in the competitive checklist contained in section 271(c)(2)(B),Q bc yO%'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3)(A)(ii).Q that the requested"b ,>(>(II"  X4authorization will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 272, c {Oy'ԍId.  271(d)(3)(B). The Commission has adopted various rules implementing the accounting and  {OC'nonaccounting safeguards contained in section 272. See, e.g., Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards  {O 'of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96149, First Report  {O'and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996) (NonAccounting Safeguards  {O'Order), Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997), further recon. pending, petition for summary review  {Ok'in part denied and motion for voluntary remand granted sub nom., SBC Communications v. FCC, No. 971118  {O5'(D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 6, 1997) (held in abeyance pursuant to court order filed May 7, 1997), on remand, Second  {O'Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97222 (rel. June 24, 1997), petition for review pending sub nom., Bell Atlantic  {O'Telephone Companies v. FCC, No. 971423 (D.C. Cir. filed July 11, 1997); Implementation of the  {O 'Telecommunications Act of 1996: Accounting Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket  {O] 'No. 96150, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996), recon. pending. and that the BOC's entry into the inregion interLATA market is "consistent with the public interest,  X4convenience, and necessity."M> c yO 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3)(C).M  X45.` ` To date, the Commission has considered two BOC applications for the provision of inregion, interLATA services pursuant to section 271 of the Act. Specifically, on June 25, 1997 the Commission denied Southwestern Bell's application to provide in X_4region, interLATA services in Oklahoma, (_ c {O'ԍSee Application by SBC Communications, Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of  {O'1934, as amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 97121,  {Or'Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97228 (rel. June 26, 1997) (SBC Oklahoma Order), petition for review  {O<'pending sub nom., SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, No. 971425 (D.C. Cir. filed July 3, 1997).  and on August 19, 1997, the Commission denied the application of Ameritech Michigan to provide inregion, interLATA services in  X14Michigan.^1c {O'ԍSee Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  {Oj'amended, to Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97137, Memorandum Opinion  {O4'and Order, FCC 97137 (rel. Aug. 19, 1997) (Ameritech Michigan Order), recon. pending. These orders interpret various section 271 requirements.  X ' B.` ` Overview (#`  X 46. ` ` We conclude in this order that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it complies with the competitive checklist contained in section 271 of the Act. We recognize, however, that BellSouth has made progress in opening its local market to competition. BellSouth states that it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to create an organizational structure to meet the needs of new entrants as they seek to compete in BellSouth's market. BellSouth has also negotiated more than 80 agreements with competing carriers to provide competitive service in South Carolina. Moreover, as was the Department of Justice, we are encouraged by BellSouth's efforts to develop systems that accommodate the needs of smaller competing carriers. We commend BellSouth for the efforts that it has made thus far. ",>(>(IIf"Ԍ X47. ` ` The 1996 Act's overriding goal is to open all telecommunications markets to  X4competition and, ultimately, to deregulate these markets.c yOb'ԍThe purpose of the 1996 Act is to "provide for a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and  {O'information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to  {O'competition." Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996) (Joint Explanatory Statement) (emphasis added). Before the 1996 Act's passage, the BOCs, the local progeny of the onceintegrated Bell system, were barred by the terms of the MFJ from entering certain lines of business, including long distance services. The ban on BOC provision of long distance services was based on the MFJ court's determination that such a restriction was "clearly necessary to preserve free competition in the interexchange  Xv4market."rv|c {O 'ԍUnited States v. Western Electric Co., 552 F. Supp. at 188.r The court found that, if the BOCs were permitted to compete in the interexchange market, they would have "substantial incentives" and opportunity, through their control of local exchange and exchange access facilities and services, to discriminate against their  X14interexchange rivals and to crosssubsidize their interexchange ventures.@\1c {O'ԍId. Although never called upon to make final evidentiary conclusions, the court found it appropriate "to consider whether the state of proof at trial was such as to sustain th[e] divestiture as being in the public interest."  {O'Id. at 161. @  X 48. ` ` In this Order, we find that BellSouth is ineligible to proceed under Track B. We find that BellSouth has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that it has received no qualifying requests for access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A). We also clarify our standard for evaluating   the type of requests for access and interconnection that preclude a BOC from proceeding under section 271(c)(1)(B). In addition, we analyze BellSouth's SGAT for compliance with the competitive checklist, as described below.   XK49.` ` Through the competitive checklist and the other requirements of section 271, Congress has prescribed the mechanism by which the BOCs may enter the inregion, long distance market. This mechanism replaces the structural approach of the MFJ that prohibited BOCs from participating in that market. Although Congress supplanted the MFJ, it nonetheless acknowledged the principles underlying that approach that BOC entry into the long distance market could have significant anticompetitive effects unless the BOCs first open their local markets to competition. Accordingly, Congress set up a framework that requires  X4BOCs to demonstrate that their local markets are open to competition before they are permitted to enter the inregion long distance market. In order to effectuate Congress' intent, we must make certain that the BOCs have opened their local markets and thus allow competition to develop in those markets.  X94 10.` ` Section 251 of the 1996 Act contemplates three paths of entry into the local market the construction of new networks, the use of unbundled elements of the incumbent's""2 ,>(>(II"  X4network, and resale. c {Oy'ԍ IOWA 47 U.S.C.  251; see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the  {OC'Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 9698, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15509  {O '(1996) (Local Competition Order), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996) (Local Competition  {O'First Reconsideration Order), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996) (Local Competition  {O'Second Reconsideration Order), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  {Ok'FCC 97295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997) (Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order), further recon. pending. Petitions for review of the First Report and Order were filed in a number of federal courts. Those petitions were  {O'consolidated and assigned by lottery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C.  2112(a)(3). On July 18, 1997, the Eighth Circuit issued its decision affirming in part and vacating in part  {O 'certain portions of the First Report and Order. See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997),  {OY 'modified on reh'g, No. 963321 (Oct. 14, 1997) (Rehearing Order). The Commission and numerous other parties have filed petitions for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court challenging the Eighth Circuit's  {O 'decision. See AT&T Corp. et al. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. 97826 (Nov. 17, 1997); MCI Telecommunications  {O 'Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. 97829 (Nov. 17, 1997); Association for Local Telecommunications Services et al.  {O 'v. Iowa Utils. Bd., No. 97830 (Nov. 17, 1997); FCC & United States v. Iowa Utils Bd., No. 97831 (Nov. 19, 1997). Section 251(c)(2), for example, imposes on all incumbent local  X4exchange carriers (LECs) (c yO'ԍThe term "local exchange carrier" or LEC, means "any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access." 47 U.S.C.  153(26). We will refer to incumbent local exchange carriers, including BOCs, as "incumbent LECs." "Competing LECs" refers to carriers seeking to enter the local exchange market. the duty to provide for interconnection between the incumbent's network and the new entrant's network. This provision enables customers using a new entrant's facilities to receive and place calls to customers on the incumbent's network. Section 251(c)(3) imposes on all incumbent LECs the duty to provide unbundled network elements, and section 251(c)(4) requires incumbents to offer their retail services to new entrants at discounted rates so that the new entrants can resell those services. Neither section 251 nor our rules implementing that section express a preference for one particular entry strategy. As the Commission concluded, "given the likelihood that entrants will combine or alter entry strategies over time, an attempt to indicate such a preference in our section 251  X 4rules may have unintended and undesirable results."d c {O'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15509.d The Commission has established rules that are intended to guarantee that all procompetitive entry strategies are available. In order to ensure efficient entry, each potential competitor must be able to choose the entry strategy that it believes is most appropriate under the circumstances.  X 4 11. ` ` These critical, marketopening provisions of section 251 are incorporated into the competitive checklist found in section 271. For example, the competitive checklist requires BOCs to demonstrate that they provide interconnection in accordance with section  Xb4251(c)(2)."bc yO%'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B)(i). Moreover, the competitive checklist requires that the BOC provide  {O}&'interconnection and access to network elements in accordance with section 252(d). Id  271(c)(2)(B)(i),(ii)." The checklist also requires BOCs to show that they provide access to unbundled network elements in accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(3), and to"K,>(>(II" demonstrate that they provide resale in accordance with the requirements of section  X4251(c)(4).gc {Ob'ԍId.  271(c)(2)(B)(ii), (iv)(vi), (xiv).g Section 271 thus places on this Commission the responsibility to ensure that the requirements of section 251 are met before the BOC is allowed into the inregion, interLATA market.  X4 12.` ` In this Order, we conclude that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it satisfies the competitive checklist in section 271, and we therefore must deny its application. Although recognizing that BellSouth has made some progress, we identify a number of significant deficiencies in BellSouth's offering of unbundled network elements and resale services. We have attempted, however, to provide guidance where possible to BellSouth regarding what steps it must take in order to comply with section 271.  X 4 13. ` ` As a preliminary matter, we emphasize that the standards we apply herein to determine whether BellSouth complies with the competitive checklist are firmly rooted in the Act, in our implementing regulations, and in the standards and guidance the Commission  X 4promulgated in the Ameritech Michigan Order. We are thus not in this Order diverging from the requirements of the Act or in any other way establishing impediments to BOC entry into the interLATA market. We note, however, that BellSouth states that it "disagrees" with  Xd4certain interpretations of checklist requirements suggested in the Commission's Ameritech  XO4Michigan Order and that, "in this application BellSouth preserves its positions for resolution  X:4by the courts if necessary."M:Zc yOE'ԍBellSouth Application at 20.M As discussed below, we reaffirm, where applicable, the earlier Order.  X4 14.` ` We believe that the deficiencies we identify below in BellSouth's application are ones which we find are likely to frustrate competitors' ability to pursue entry through the use of unbundled network elements or resale, the two methods of entry that promise the most  X4rapid introduction of competition."c {OK'ԍSee Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 816 ("Congress recognized that the amount of time and capital investment involved in the construction of a complete local standbeside telecommunications network are substantial barriers to entry, and thus required incumbent LECs to allow competing carriers to use their networks in order to hasten the influence of competitive forces in the local telephone business."). Specifically, we find that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it: (1) offers nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems; (2) offers nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that permits competing carriers to combine them; and (3) offers certain retail services at discounted rates as required by the Act.  X&415. ` ` With respect to access to its operations support systems, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it is providing nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems functions, which the Commission has recognized as a prerequisite to the" ,>(>(II" development of meaningful local competition. Incumbent LECs, such as BellSouth, maintain a variety of computer databases and "backoffice" systems that are used to provide service to customers. We collectively refer to these computer databases and systems as operations support systems, or OSS. These systems enable the employees of incumbent LECs to formulate customers' orders for telecommunications services, to provide the requested services to their customers, to maintain and repair network facilities, and to render bills.  X_416. ` ` In implementing the local competition provisions of the 1996 Act, the  XH4Commission concluded in its August 1996 Local Competition Order that much of the information maintained by the incumbents' operations support systems is critical to the ability of other carriers to compete with incumbent LECs using unbundled network elements or resold services. The Commission concluded that, in order to meet the nondiscriminatory access standard for OSS, an incumbent LEC must provide to competing carriers access to OSS functions for preordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing  X 4that is equivalent to what it provides itself, its customers or other carriers.d c {O9'ԍLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15766.d This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which agreed with the Commission that the requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS is an integral  X{4part of the 1996 Act's blueprint for opening local markets to competition.\Z{Zc {O'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 809 (the "explicit reference to 'databases, signaling systems, and information sufficient for billing and collection' [in the statutory definition of 'network element'] clearly indicates that operational support systems qualify as network elements under the Act").\  XM417.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission concluded that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions is embodied in various terms of the competitive checklist in section 271. Without equivalent access to the BOC's OSS, many items required by the checklist, such as resale services, unbundled loops, unbundled local switching, and unbundled local transport would not be available in a timely manner or at an  X4acceptable level of quality.]|c {O 'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 132.] The Commission found that it was necessary to determine whether the access to OSS functions provided by the BOC to competing carriers sufficiently supports each of the three modes of competitive entry strategies established by the Act: interconnection, unbundled network elements, and services offered for resale. In so doing, the Commission sought to ensure that a new entrant's decision to enter the local exchange market in a particular state is based on the new entrant's business considerations, rather than the availability or unavailability of particular OSS functions to support each of the modes of  X;4entry.H;c {O$'ԍId. at para. 133.H "$ ,>(>(II"Ԍ X418. ` ` Determining whether a BOC provides nondiscriminatory access to OSS requires the Commission to assess the various components of such access in some detail because these details have clear implications for a new entrant's ability to effectively compete. For example, the details concerning how and when a BOC provides a new entrant information concerning the status of the new entrant's resale order or order for unbundled network elements are critically important. As demonstrated by this case, when one of BellSouth's customers calls a BellSouth representative with questions concerning the status of his or her order for a telecommunications service, BellSouth is generally able to provide such information because it is contained in BellSouth's systems to which its employees have quick and unfettered access. By contrast, when a new entrant seeks to provide service to one of its new customers via resale or unbundled network elements, the new entrant must send its customer's order to BellSouth for processing and, until BellSouth informs the new entrant of the status of that order, either through a confirmation that the order has been processed or through a notice that there is a problem with the order, the new entrant is unable to inform its customer of the status of his or her order. The customer may not understand that the new entrant's inability to provide information on her order may be due to the fact that BellSouth has not returned an order confirmation. To the customer, the new entrant may appear to be a less efficient and responsive service provider than its competitor, BellSouth. Accordingly, it is important that we assess such details of BellSouth's OSS. Our comprehensive review of BellSouth's OSS indicates that it has failed to provide to new entrants information concerning the status of their orders in a timely manner.  X419. ` ` It is also critical that a new entrant's ability to provide service to its customers in substantially the same time that a BOC can provide service to its customers is not hindered by the BOC's OSS access. Customers will expect similar levels of service from new entrants. If a new entrant cannot provision service in substantially the same time as the incumbent, the customer may decide not to switch carriers. A BOC's failure to timely process a new entrant's order may result in the new entrant losing a potential customer. In order to measure  X|4this fundamental gauge of parity, the Commission required in the Ameritech Michigan Order that BOCs submit evidence on the average time it takes for the BOC to provide service to a  XP4customer and the average time it takes the new entrant to provide service.]Pc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 166.] We note, as did the Department of Justice, that BellSouth has failed to provide meaningful data on this  X"4important yardstick. "Zc yO-!'ԍEvaluation of the United States Department of Justice, CC Docket 97208, at 23 (filed Nov. 4, 1997)  {O!'(Department of Justice Evaluation); see also infra paras. INST1132שINST2140. As discussed in detail below,K!"c {O#'ԍSee infra part VI.B.K BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it offers to competing carriers nondiscriminatory access to all of its OSS functions, as required by the competitive checklist. We emphasize that the deficiencies we identify with regard to BellSouth's OSS affect a competitor's ability to enter via resale as well as through the use of" F!,>(>(IIk" unbundled network elements. Nondiscriminatory access to an incumbent's OSS is just as vital to a competitor seeking to enter via resale as to one using unbundled network elements.  X4 20.` ` We also conclude in this Order that entry in South Carolina through the use of unbundled network elements may be hindered by BellSouth's failure to offer unbundled network elements in a manner that allows new entrants to combine them to provide a telecommunications service. In a recent decision, the Eighth Circuit held that requesting carriers, rather than incumbent LECs, have the duty to combine network elements, even if  XH4those elements are already combined by the incumbent LEC.U"ZHc {O 'ԍIowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order at 1. The court vacated section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules, which states that "[e]xcept upon request, an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines." 47 C.F.R. 51.315(b). U Thus, where a BOC uses a combination of network elements to serve a customer, but then loses that customer to a new entrant that intends to provide service to that customer through the purchase of those network elements, the BOC may physically disassemble the combined elements and require the new entrant to incur the costs of recombining them in order to provide service to the same customer. In reaching this decision, the court noted that the statute requires incumbent LECs "'to provide . . . unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to  X 4combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.'"# c {OB'ԍIowa Utils. Bd., Rehearing Order at 1 (quoting 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3)). We and the industry are still in the early stages of evaluating the implications of the Eighth Circuit's ruling that, although competing carriers may offer services solely through the use of unbundled network elements, the competing carriers must combine those elements themselves. Various methods of combining elements are being discussed by the industry.  X421. ` ` Pursuant to the provisions of its SGAT, BellSouth asserts that, as a general  X4rule, competitors must use collocation in order to combine network elements./$z|c yO3'ԍBellSouth Reply at 3334 (BellSouth has identified no other means by which new entrants can combine unbundled network elements). The Act identifies two forms of collocation physical collocation and virtual collocation. 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6). Physical collocation refers to the placement of a competing carrier's transmission equipment in a segregated space in the incumbent LEC's central office. The competing carrier  {OS'owns the equipment and has the right to enter its segregated space in the LECs central office. See infra part VI.C. Virtual collocation refers to the placement of transmission equipment in a central office, but not in a segregated space, that is dedicated to the competing carrier but is maintained by the BOC./ Regardless of the merits of BellSouth's position that collocation is the primary means by which competitors combine elements, we conclude that BellSouth has not demonstrated in the record before us  X4that it offers or can timely provide this method of combining unbundled network elements.<%Z c {O0$'ԍSee infra part VI.C. We make no finding as to the appropriateness of physical or virtual collocation as a method of combining network element or whether other methods, such as direct access to an incumbent LEC's network, are required by the Communications Act.< For example, BellSouth's SGAT fails to include any provision committing BellSouth to a" %,>(>(II" time within which it will implement a request for collocation. We find this omission particularly problematic because the record indicates that, in practice, it is taking BellSouth a long time to implement such requests. If competitors must first construct collocation space in each BellSouth central office from which they wish to provide local exchange service by combining network elements, delays in constructing such space will undermine the Act's goal of the rapid introduction of competition through the use of combinations of network elements. As a result of these and other concerns detailed below, we conclude that BellSouth has not met its burden under section 271 of showing that a competing provider can enter a local telecommunications market in South Carolina by acquiring all necessary elements from an  X14incumbent LEC, as required by section 251 and specifically upheld by the Eighth Circuit.&Z1c {O 'ԍSee Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 81617 ("[T]he Act itself calls for the rapid introduction of competition into local phone markets by requiring incumbent LECs to make their networks available to their competing carriers.").  X 422.` ` We recognize that local competition has not developed in South Carolina and  X 4other states as quickly as many had hoped.'  c yO'ԍThe record suggests that currently there is only limited competition in the provision of local telephone services in South Carolina, particularly in the residential market. According to BellSouth, as of September 11, 1997, no wireline facilitybased local exchange service competition had begun in South Carolina. Competing carriers in South Carolina were providing approximately 1785 resold business local exchange access lines and 573 resold residential local exchange access lines within the state. BellSouth Application, App. A, Vol. V, Tab 16, Affidavit of Gary M. Wright (BellSouth Wright Aff.) at para. 24. Based on this information and information from BellSouth's 1996 8K Quarterly Report, the Department of Justice estimates BellSouth's market share of  {O'local exchange in its service area in South Carolina is 99.8% based on access lines. See Department of Justice Evaluation, App. B at B3. This has led to significant frustration and concern that the goals of the Act may not be met. We believe that such pronouncements are premature. The process of opening local markets is highly complex and peculiarly requires the current incumbent to share its facilities in ways that require unprecedented degrees of cooperation and coordination. At the same time, we recognize that the Act directs us to grant a section 271 application under Track B if a BOC satisfies the other requirements of section 271, even if no competing provider has sought to enter a particular state's local market and we would not hesitate to do so.  X423.` ` Our confidence that local competition is possible is bolstered by recent history. In the 1980s, this country saw a fundamental restructuring in the long distance market following the breakup of the Bell system. The subsequent development of competition in that market is very encouraging, although the pace of the growth of competition in that market was much slower than the pace we seek to achieve in opening local markets to competition. In the decade following divestiture of the BOCs, AT&T's share of interstate  X4long distance revenues fell from approximately 90 percent to 55 percent.( c {O&'ԍMotion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a NonDominant Carrier, 11 FCC Rcd 3271, 3307 (1995) (AT&T  {O&'Reclassification Order). In order to make" (,>(>(II" such competition possible, it was necessary for the BOCs and other incumbent LECs to offer their customers equal access to all qualified long distance carriers, which required technical  X4modifications to network equipment in thousands of end offices across the country.&)c {OK'ԍSee generally MTS and WATS Market Structure Phase III: Establishment of Physical Connections and Through Routes among Carriers; Establishment of Physical Connection by Carriers with NonCarrier Communications Facilities; Planning among Carriers for Provision of Interconnected Services, and in Connection with National Defense and Emergency Communications Services; and Regulations for and in  {Om'Connection with the Foregoing, Report and Order, Phase III, 100 FCC 2d 860 (1985).& Such competition also required long distance competitors to build brand recognition and win the trust of customers accustomed to dealing with the Bell system for all of their  X4telecommunications needs.B*Z|c {O 'ԍSee Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, Phase I, 101 FCC 2d 911 (1985) (finding that the routing of all undesignated interLATA traffic to AT&T was unreasonable and prescribing a pro rata allocation that all LECs were required to put into effect).B  X_424. ` ` As the Commission discussed in the Ameritech Michigan Order, the development of meaningful local competition requires the telecommunications industry to surmount even more daunting hurdles than were faced in the development of competition in  X 4the long distance market.\+ c {Ok'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 17.\ The Commission noted that "[n]ew entrants do not have available a ready, mature market for the resale of local services or for the purchase of unbundled network elements, and the processes for switching customers for local service from the  X 4incumbent to the new entrant are novel, complex and still largely untested.":, 0 c {O'ԍId.: Moreover, although the largest interexchange carriers enjoy strong brand identification, many of the smaller entrants do not. As a result, the development of local competition is likely to be a gradual process, which will require substantial effort by both incumbent LECs and their potential competitors over an extended period of time. We are confident that such efforts will bear fruit in the foreseeable future.  X6425.` ` BellSouth contends that approving its application to provide long distance services in South Carolina will provide an incentive for long distance companies to begin competing in the local market. BellSouth argues that it has opened its local market to competition and that these companies are choosing not to enter the local market for strategic  X4reasons.- c yOM#'ԍBellSouth Application at 103; BellSouth Reply Comments at 9596. BellSouth asserts that until recently the vast majority of competing LECs had no interest in competing in South Carolina, and those that do have an interest have limited themselves to serving business customers. BellSouth further contends that competing LECs' "new expressions of interest have certainly been prompted by hopes of defeating BellSouth's application under  {Om&'Track B." BellSouth Reply at 95; see also BellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 8, Tab 79, South Carolina  {O7''Commission, Order Addressing Statement and Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of"7',,>(>(6'"  {O'1996, Docket No. 97101C, Order No. 97640, at 6667 (July 31, 1997) (South Carolina Commission  {OZ'Compliance Order) (approving BellSouth's application "will create real incentives for the major [interexchange carriers] to enter the local market rapidly in South Carolina, because they will no longer be able to pursue other opportunities secure in the knowledge that [BellSouth] cannot invade their market until they build substantial local facilities."). BellSouth's argument presumes that BellSouth's local markets are already open to"|-,>(>(II " competition and that the lack of local competition in South Carolina is due solely to competitors' failure to devote adequate resources in South Carolina. As discussed above, however, we find in this Order that BellSouth has not yet demonstrated that it complies with the competitive checklist, and that such deficiencies may be hindering successful entry in South Carolina on either a resale basis or through the use of unbundled network elements. BellSouth's entry into the long distance market would surely give long distance carriers an added incentive to enter the local market. But even such an incentive would not be enough to overcome the structural obstacles to competition that new entrants face as a result of BellSouth's failure to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS and to provide competitors a timely and reasonable means to offer telecommunications service by combining unbundled network elements from BellSouth, as Congress mandated.  X 426.` ` BellSouth also contends that approving its application will benefit South Carolina consumers because they will then enjoy the benefit of packaged long distance and local services. Although grant of this application would allow the major long distance carriers  X 4to market jointly local and long distance services in South Carolina,." |c yO'ԍSection 271(e)(1) of the Communications Act prohibits major interexchange carrier from joint marketing a BOC's resold local services with the carrier's long distance services in a BOC's state until the BOC is authorized to provide inregion long distance services in that state or until 36 months have passed since  {O,'enactment of the Communications Act, i.e., February 7, 1999, whichever is earlier. their ability actually to provide those services in competition with BellSouth's own package of service would be hampered by BellSouth's failure to open its local markets in the manner required by section 271. We share the South Carolina Commission's frustration at the lack of local competition in its state and the desire to make more choices available to its citizens, including the ability to purchase bundled local and long distance services. Our concern, however, is that, unless a BOC first satisfies the requirements of section 271 before it is permitted to offer inregion long distance services as well as local services, the BOC could gain an unfair advantage in the provision of bundled local and long distance service.  X427. ` ` Finally, we are mindful of the fact that the South Carolina Commission has found that BellSouth does comply with the competitive checklist and, as noted, believes that BellSouth's entry into the long distance market in that state is in the public interest. We must respectfully disagree. In giving substantial weight to the Department of Justice's evaluation, as required by Congress, that BellSouth's market is not open to competition, and in  XN4conducting our statutorily required independent assessment, we reach a different conclusion.(#(# We must also respectfully disagree with the South Carolina Commission's contention that we should not consider any new issues or facts that were not presented in the state commission" f .,>(>(II"  X4proceeding./c yOy'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 4; South Carolina Commission Reply Comments at 2, 10, 12. Because it is the Commission's statutory duty to determine whether the requirements of section271 have been satisfied, the Commission is not limited to considering  X4only the issues and facts that were presented in the state commission proceeding.0"Xc yO'ԍA number of commenters agree that the Commission must make its own independent findings and can  {O'use evidence outside that presented in the state commission section271 proceeding. See, e.g., ACSI Comments at 10 n.35; ALTS Reply Comments at 48; CFA Reply Comments at 57, 41; Sprint Comments at 45; WorldCom Reply Comments at 1617. We find no basis in the statute to justify our refusal to consider all information that is pertinent to our evaluation of an application. On the other hand, we emphasize that parties should make every effort to present their views to the state commission in the first instance, where such views can be adequately addressed by other interested parties and subjected to crossexamination.  XH428.` ` In sum, we conclude in this Order that BellSouth has not demonstrated that it satisfies the competitive checklist. We believe that these deficiencies pose significant obstacles to the development of local competition in South Carolina. We are encouraged, however, by the progress BellSouth has made and believe it is capable of correcting these deficiencies. We are also hopeful that local competition will continue to grow within the state, particularly with the cooperation of BellSouth.  X ' _III.XSTATE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION (#  Xy' A.` ` State Review of BOC Compliance with Section 271(c)  XK429.` `  STATE Under section 271(d)(2)(B), the Commission "shall consult with the State commission of any State that is the subject of the application in order to verify the  X4_compliance of the Bell operating company with the requirements of subsection (c)."1Bc yO'ԍ47 U.S.C. 271(d)(2)(B). Subsection (c)(1) defines the requirements for TrackA or TrackB entry, and subsection(c)(2) contains the competitive checklist. As the  X4Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, Congress afforded the states this opportunity to present their views regarding the opening of the BOCs' local networks to  X4competition.]2c {O% 'ԍ Ameritech Michigan Order at para.30.] The Commission further noted that, in order to fulfill this role as effectively as possible, state commissions should conduct proceedings to develop a comprehensive factual record concerning BOC compliance with the requirements of section 271 and the status of  X4local competition.:3, c {Or$'ԍId.: The Commission observed that the Act does not prescribe any standard for Commission consideration of a state commission's verification under section 271(d)(2)(B). The Commission concluded, therefore, that it has discretion in each section 271 proceeding to determine what weight to accord to the state commission's consultation in light of the nature"P 3,>(>(IIh" and extent of state proceedings to develop a complete record concerning the applicant's compliance with section271 and the status of local competition. Therefore, although the Commission will consider carefully state determinations of fact that are supported by a detailed and extensive record, it is the Commission's role to determine whether the factual  X4record supports a conclusion that particular requirements of section 271 have been met.:4c {O'ԍId.:  Xv430.` ` The South Carolina Commission has reviewed BellSouth's compliance with the requirements of section271 and provided us with its written evaluation. After establishing a docket on March20, 1997, the South Carolina Commission held a public hearing on July710, 1997, during which BellSouth and parties opposing BellSouth's entry into the South  X 4Carolina long distance market presented testimony and conducted crossexaminations.5F Zc {O% 'ԍCOMPLIANCE ORDERBellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.1, Tab1, South Carolina Commission, Order Establishing Docket  {O 'and Time Table, Docket No.97101C, Order No.97223 (Mar.20, 1997) (South Carolina Commission Mar. 20,  {O'1997 Order); South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 24; South Carolina Commission Comments at 23. Before the hearing, parties submitted comments and testimony to the South Carolina Commission, and exchanged and responded to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. In addition, the South Carolina Commission staff issued its own data requests and conducted investigations. South Carolina Commission Comments at 3. The record contained over 1600 pages of live and prepared sworn testimony and another 1500 pages of pleadings. BellSouth Application at 3. On  X 4July22, 1997, the parties submitted their proposed orders,6 h c {O'ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.8, Tab68, BellSouth Proposed Order; BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.8, Tab73, AT&T Proposed Order Regarding Approval of BellSouth's SGAT. and on July31, 1997, the South  X 4Carolina Commission issued the South Carolina Commission Compliance Order, ruling that BellSouth had complied with the requirements of section271(c). That Order also approved BellSouth's SGAT, with modifications, and concluded that BellSouth had met the competitive  X 4checklist, finding that the SGAT makes available to new entrants each of the checklist items.7 c {O'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 46. We note that several commenters argue that we  {O'should not defer to the South Carolina Commission Compliance Order because the state commission adopted BellSouth's proposed order virtually verbatim instead of exercising its own independent judgment. AT&T Comments at 4748; AT&T Comments, App., Vol.VIII, Ex.I, Affidavit of Kenneth P. McNeely (AT&T McNeely Aff.), Attachs. 24; MCI Comments at 910; MCI Reply Comments at 12; WorldCom Reply  {O'Comments at 1516. But see BellSouth Reply Comments at 36. The South Carolina Commission also concluded that BellSouth's entry into the interLATA market would be in the public interest because long distance rates would be lowered, carriers could jointly package local and long distance services to consumers, and competitive providers  XM4of local exchange service would be encouraged to enter the local market.i8M@c {O>$'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 67.i That Order did not analyze whether BellSouth had satisfied the requirements of section271(c)(1)(A) (TrackA) or section271(c)(1)(B) (Track B). The state commission did, however, discuss its views of the state of competition in local telecommunications markets in South Carolina. The"8,>(>(II" commission found that, although the local market in South Carolina was open to competition, no potential competitive carriers were taking any reasonable steps toward providing facilities X4based local service for business and residential customers.D9c {OK'ԍId. at 1820.D  X431.SC PROCEEDING` ` Following the July31, 1997, release of the South Carolina Commission  X4Compliance Order, BellSouth filed on August25, 1997, a proposed revised SGAT to reflect the July18, 1997, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on  Xc4review of the Commission's Local Competition Order.[ :cZc {On 'ԍBellSouth Application, App. C, Vol.9, Tab83, BellSouth Comments on SGAT Revisions, Ex. 1; see  yO8 'BellSouth Reply Comments, App., Tab9, Affidavit of Alphonso J. Varner (BellSouth Varner Reply Aff.) at para.29. On July18, 1997, the Eighth Circuit held that sections252(c)(2) and (d) gave state commissions exclusive authority to interpret the pricing terms of sections251 and 252 and implicitly divested the Commission  {O 'of any rulemaking role in that area. See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 79396. Moreover, the court held that the matters governed by the interconnection provisions of the Act are fundamentally intrastate in character, and that any ambiguity regarding the Commission's jurisdiction over pricing and other issues arising under  {O'section251 did not give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to intrastate communications. Id. at 796800, 80207. The court also vacated the Commission's "pick and choose" rule that had allowed new entrants to select  {O|'the favorable terms of a prior interconnection agreement. Id. at 80001. In addition, the court upheld the Commission's rules that discounted and promotional offerings were telecommunications services subject to the  {O'resale requirements of the Act. Id. at 81819. Furthermore, the court agreed with the Commission that new entrants may provide telecommunications service wholly through the use of unbundled network elements purchased from incumbent LECs at costbased unbundled network element prices, but vacated the Commission's  {Oh'rules requiring incumbent LECs to combine the network elements for new entrants. Id. at 81315. The court also agreed that vertical features qualify as unbundled network elements. On rehearing on October14, 1997, the court vacated the Commission's rule prohibiting LECs from separating previously combined network elements  {O'requested by a competing carrier.  Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, Rehearing Order. The Commission and numerous other parties have filed petitions for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court challenging the Eighth  {OT'Circuit's decision. See petitions cited supra note  IOWA20 .[ The SGAT approved on July31, 1997, provided that, if a new entrant combined network elements to produce an existing BellSouth tariffed retail service, the new entrant would be charged the wholesale price for the  X 4retail service.k; c yO'ԍBellSouth Comments on SGAT Revisions, Ex. 1 II(F)(1).k The proposed revised SGAT deleted this provision and instead allows competing carriers to use combinations of network elements to provide a telecommunications service that replicates an existing BellSouth retail service if the competing carrier combines those elements itself. The SGAT offers to deliver certain elements to the competing carrier's  X 4collocation space for combining.< bc {O"'ԍId. For discussion on SGAT provisions on combining unbundled network elements, see infra part VI.C. BellSouth also proposed revising the language in the earlier version of the SGAT that offered vertical features, such as call waiting, at the retail" <,>(>(II[ "  X4price less the applicable wholesale discount.k=\c {Oy'ԍId., Ex. 1 VI(A). Vertical features perform certain switching functions beyond the basic switching function of connecting lines and trunks. Examples include call waiting, threeway calling, call forwarding, and  {O 'caller ID. See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1570506.k Under the revision, the SGAT now offers  X4vertical features as part of the unbundled local switching functionality.e>c yO'ԍBellSouth Comments on SGAT Revisions, Ex. 1 VI.e BellSouth also submitted a revised pricing schedule to the SGAT on September5, 1997, that removed the earlier version's language regarding vertical features and stated instead that no charges would be assessed for vertical features until prices were developed in the South Carolina  X4Commission's pending cost proceeding.?|c {O 'ԍSee BellSouth Application, App.C, Vol.9, Tab91, Revised Attachment A to the Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (BellSouth Revised SGAT Attach. A) at 3. The South Carolina Commission approved a later version of the SGAT, incorporating certain of BellSouth's proposed changes (including the ones discussed above), on September9, 1997, and this revised SGAT was released on  XH4September19, 1997.@$Hc {O'ԍBellSouth Application, App.B, Vol.1, Tab1, Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundling and Resale Provided by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. in the State of  {Oa'South Carolina (Sept. 19, 1997) (SGAT); see BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at para.30; Department of Justice Evaluation at 5 n.3. The September19, 1997, SGAT is the one that BellSouth relies on here, and it is the one which we review. Unless otherwise expressly noted, all references herein to BellSouth's SGAT refer to the September19, 1997, revised SGAT.  X 432.` ` On October17, 1997, the South Carolina Commission submitted its comments concerning BellSouth's application. The South Carolina Commission reiterated the views  X 4expressed in the South Carolina Commission Compliance Order that no potential competitive carriers were taking any reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased local service for business and residential customers, that BellSouth had satisfied the competitive checklist requirements, and that BellSouth's interLATA entry would be in the public interest  Xd4because it would promote both local and long distance competition.\Ad c yO'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 116.\ We note that the South Carolina Commission has addressed every checklist item and has, as suggested in the  X64Ameritech Michigan Order, included an analysis of the state of local competition in South  X!4Carolina.`B!R c {O$"'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at para.34.` " B,>(>(II"Ԍ X' B.` ` Department of Justice's Evaluation  X4 33.` ` Section 271(d)(2)(A) requires the Commission, before making any determination approving or denying a section 271 application, to consult with the Attorney General. Under that section, the Attorney General is entitled to evaluate the application "using any standard the Attorney General considers appropriate," and the Commission is  Xv4required to "give substantial weight to the Attorney General's evaluation."MCvc yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(2)(A).M Section 271(d)(2)(A) specifically provides, however, that "such evaluation shall not have any  XH4preclusive effect on any Commission decision.";DHXc {OQ 'ԍId. ; The Commission found in the Ameritech  X34Michigan Order that the Commission is required to give substantial weight not only to the Department of Justice's evaluation of the effect of BOC entry on long distance competition, but also to its evaluation of each of the criteria for BOC entry under section 271(d)(3), including the state of local competition and the applicant's compliance with the competitive  X 4checklist, if addressed by the Department of Justice.\E c {Ot'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para.37.\  X 4!34.` ` In its evaluation of BellSouth's application to provide inregion, interLATA service in South Carolina, the Department of Justice focused on certain deficiencies in BellSouth's showing of compliance with the requirements of section 271. First, the Department of Justice concluded that BellSouth has not fully implemented several elements of the competitive checklist, including the requirement that it provide access and interconnection  X84in accordance with the competitive checklist.[F8|c yOe'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 1213.[ In particular, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it is providing access to unbundled network  X 4elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine them.AG  c {O'ԍId. at 16.A In making this finding, the Department of Justice noted that the South Carolina Commission has not made any specific findings as to this issue. In addition, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth's SGAT is legally insufficient, because it fails to describe whether or how BellSouth will provision unbundled network elements so that competing carriers may combine  X4them to provide telecommunications services.Hc {O"'ԍId. at 1920. For discussion of BellSouth's offering to combine unbundled network elements, see infra partVI.C. The Department of Justice explained that the  X4SGAT fails to "specify what BellSouth will provide, the method in which it will be provided,  Xk4or the terms on which it will be provided," and therefore it could not make a finding that"k H,>(>(II" BellSouth is offering nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in accordance  X4with the requirements of section271.XIc yOb'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 20.X  X4"35.` ` Second, the Department of Justice concluded that BellSouth's operations  X4support systems are deficient.DJXc {O'ԍId. at 2830.D Specifically, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth had not demonstrated that the current interfaces for preordering and ordering functions will allow for effective competition. The Department of Justice concluded that, because of the limited capacity of BellSouth's systems, the performance problems new entrants are experiencing will become more serious as they begin to order unbundled network elements or resale services in larger amounts. The Department of Justice also found that BellSouth's failure to institute all of the necessary OSS performance measures "prevents a determination that BellSouth is currently in compliance with checklist requirements or that compliance can  X 4be assured in the future."FK c {O'ԍId. at 2829. F  X 4#36.` ` Finally, the Department of Justice concluded that granting BellSouth's application would not be in the public interest, because local markets in South Carolina are  X4not irreversibly open to competition.vLZ|c {O'ԍId. at 13, 3132. The Department of Justice first adopted this standard that the local market be fully and irreversibly open to competition in its evaluation of SBC's section271 application to provide inregion, interLATA service in Oklahoma. Department of Justice SBC Oklahoma Evaluation at vivii and 3651.v In making this finding, the Department of Justice explained that it considered whether all three entry paths contemplated by the 1996Act facilitiesbased entry involving construction of new networks, the use of unbundled network elements, and resale of the BOC's services are fully and irreversibly open to competitive entry to serve both business and residential consumers. It examined first the extent of actual local competition, and then whether significant barriers continue to impede the growth of  X4competition and whether benchmarks to prevent backsliding have been established.WMc yOU'ԍDepartment of Justice Evaluation at 2.W In concluding that the South Carolina local market is not fully and irreversibly open to competition, the Department of Justice found that substantial barriers to resale competition  X4and competition using unbundled network elements remain.DN. c {O"'ԍId. at 3435.D Among the concerns expressed by the Department of Justice was that BellSouth had not demonstrated that current or future prices for unbundled elements would permit efficient entry or effective competition, noting in  X|4particular the uncertainty of future prices.DO| c {O&'ԍId. at 3544.D Moreover, the Department of Justice found that"|R O,>(>(II" BellSouth had failed to demonstrate that the local market would remain open to competition because it had not instituted performance measurements needed to ensure consistent  X4performance in the delivery of service to new entrants.DPc {OK'ԍId. at 4548.D The Department of Justice also rejected BellSouth's estimates of the competitive benefits that would result from BellSouth's entry into the market at this time. Specifically, the Department of Justice found that BellSouth significantly overvalued the benefits of BellSouth's entry into the long distance market and undervalued the benefits to be gained from opening BellSouth's local markets to  X_4competition.DQ_Zc {Oj 'ԍId. at 4849.D  X1' IV.XSTANDARD FOR EVALUATING SECTION 271 APPLICATIONS (#  X ' XA.X` ` Burden of Proof for Section 271 Applications and Compliance with  X 'Requirement that Application be Complete When Filed (#`  X 4$37. ` `  PRIMA Section271 places on the applicant the burden of proving that all of the  X 4requirements for authorization to provide inregion, interLATA services are satisfied.zR c {OD'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(d)(3); see Ameritech Michigan Order at para.43.z In the  X4Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission determined that the ultimate burden of proof with respect to factual issues remains at all times with the BOC, even if no party opposes the  Xd4BOC's application.`Sd~c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras.4344.` In the first instance, a BOC must present a prima facie case in its  XO4application that all of the requirements of section 271 have been satisfied.GTOc {O'ԍId. at para.44.G Once the applicant has made such a showing, opponents of the BOC's entry must, as a practical matter, produce evidence and arguments necessary to show that the application does not satisfy the  X 4requirements of section 271, or risk a ruling in the BOC's favor.;U c {O]'ԍId. ; Nevertheless, the BOC  X4applicant retains at all times the ultimate burden of proof that its application is sufficient.;V4 c {O 'ԍId. ; The Commission also concluded that, with respect to assessing evidence proffered by a BOC applicant, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is the appropriate standard for  X4evaluating a BOC section 271 application.GW c {O%%'ԍId. at para. 45.G The Commission further concluded that, "if the Department of Justice concludes that a BOC has not satisfied the requirements of sections271"X W,>(>(II" and 272, a BOC must submit more convincing evidence than that proffered by the Department  X4of Justice in order to satisfy its burden of proof."GXc {Ob'ԍId. at para.46.G  X4%38.` ` In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission also required that an  X4application be complete when filed.GYZc {O'ԍId. at para.50.G The Commission concluded that, when a BOC presents factual evidence and arguments in support of its application for inregion, interLATA entry, such evidence must be clearly described and arguments must be clearly stated in its legal brief  Xa4with appropriate references to supporting affidavits.Z&ac {O 'ԍId. at para.60. The Commission further concluded that the obligation to present evidence and  {O 'arguments in a clear and concise manner also extends to commenting parties. Id. In addition, the Commission concluded that, when a BOC submits factual evidence in support of its application, it bears the burden of  {OZ'ensuring that the significance of the evidence is readily apparent. Id. at para. 61. The Commission stressed that an applicant may not, at any time during the pendency of its application, supplement its application by submitting new factual evidence that is not directly responsive to arguments  X 4raised by parties commenting on its application.G[ c {O'ԍId. at para. 50.G This prohibition applies to the submission, on reply, of factual evidence gathered after the initial filing that is not responsive to the  X 4oppositions filed.;\ l c {O 'ԍId. ; Moreover, under no circumstance is a BOC permitted to counter any  X 4arguments made in the comments with new factual evidence postdating the filing of those  X 4comments.G] c {Oq'ԍId. at para. 51.G The Commission warned that, if a BOC applicant chooses to submit such evidence, the Commission reserves the discretion either to restart the 90day clock, or to  X4accord the new evidence no weight.G^ c {O'ԍId. at para. 50.G The Commission further found that a BOC's promises  X}4of future performance to address particular concerns raised by commenters have no probative  Xh4value in demonstrating its present compliance with the requirements of section271.G_h"c {O; 'ԍId. at para. 55.G When a BOC files its application, it must demonstrate that it already is in full compliance with the  X<4requirements of section271.;`<c {O#'ԍId. ; "%F`,>(>(II "Ԍ X'v#Xj\  P6G;+XP# B.` ` Submission of New Factual Evidence and New Arguments in Reply  X4Comments (#`  X4&39.` `  EVID1 Under the Commission's revised procedures for section 271 proceedings, "[t]he applicant's and third parties' reply comments may not raise new arguments or include new vdata that are not directly responsive to arguments other participants have raised, nor may the  Xv4replies merely repeat arguments made by that party in the application or initial comments."Uavc {O'ԍSept. 19th Public Notice at 7.U In addition, "[a]n applicant may submit new factual evidence in its reply if the sole purpose of that evidence is to rebut arguments made, or facts submitted, by commenters, provided the evidence covers only the period placed in dispute by commenters, and in no event postdates  X 4the filing of the relevant comments.":b Zc {O% 'ԍId.: In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission determined that it would accord no weight to new factual evidence submitted in the reply  X 4comments that does not directly respond to arguments or evidence raised by other parties.dc c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at paras. 5054, 59.d  X 4'40.` ` In this proceeding, BellSouth filed on December 4, 1997, a motion to strike portions of several parties' reply comments, because BellSouth contends that these reply comments contain new arguments and evidence that could have been presented in initial  X{4comments and that "do not answer any comments filed by other parties."d{~c {O'ԍSee BellSouth's Motion to Strike Portions of Reply Comments Raising New Arguments and/or Including New Evidence, filed December 4, 1997 (BellSouth's Motion to Strike Reply Comments). Several parties filed responses to BellSouth's Motion to Strike Reply Comments that argue, in general, that their reply comments were proper under our rules governing 271 applications, because their reply comments directly respond to arguments and evidence raised by other parties in their  X4initial comments.ec yO'ԍThe following parties filed responses to BellSouth's Motion to Strike: ALTS, Hyperion, KMC Telecom, Vanguard Cellular, WorldCom. In addition, AT&T, in an ex parte letter filed on December 8, 1997, argues that the Commission should give no weight to specific new evidence and arguments contained in BellSouth's reply comments and accompanying affidavits that should have been included in the application or that postdate the application but are not directly responsive to  X4another party's comments.f0 c {O"'ԍSee Letter from Roy E. Hoffinger, AT&T, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications  {Op#'Commission, Dec. 8, 1997 (AT&T Dec. 8 Ex Parte). On December 19, 1997, BellSouth filed a motion to strike  X4AT&T's December 8 Ex Parte letter, because BellSouth argues that the letter did not have the" f,>(>(II"  X4correct caption to be considered an ex parte letter and was not served on BellSouth as  X4required of motions to strike.gc {Od'ԍSee BellSouth's Motion to Strike AT&T's December 8, 1997 Letter, filed December 8, 1997. (BellSouth's Motion to Strike AT&T's Letter).  X4(41.` ` One party cited by BellSouth in its Motion to Strike Reply Comments, Intermedia, submits evidence in its reply comments that concerns activity after October 20,  X41997, the date on which comments were due.rh"c {Ob 'ԍSee Intermedia Reply Comments at 912 and Attachs. B and C.r In particular, Intermedia submits evidence that BellSouth has failed to acknowledge receipt of a number of Intermedia's orders in a  Xa4timely manner during the later part of October and early November.:iac {O 'ԍId.: Those portions of Intermedia's factual evidence that postdate the filing of comments are not directly responsive to an argument raised in the comments, because the activity cited by Intermedia occurred after  X 4the comments were filed. The Commission determined in the Ameritech Michigan Order that "[b]ecause parties are required to file comments within 20 days after a BOC files its section 271 application, commenters will not have placed at issue facts which postdate day 20 of the application. For this reason, under no circumstance is a BOC permitted to counter any  X 4arguments with new factual evidence postdating the filing of comments."\j Fc {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 51.\ This same rule applies with equal force to other participants in the proceeding. Because some of the evidence submitted by Intermedia postdates the filing of comments, and is therefore not responsive to an argument raised in those comments, we strike the evidence in the reply comments to the extent that the evidence concerns activity that occurred after October 20,  XQ41997.kQc yO'ԍWe strike those portions of Attachments B and C of Intermedia's reply comments that concern activity occurring after October 20, 1997, and the portions of Intermedia's reply comments on pages 912 that rely exclusively on this evidence that postdates the filing of comments. Although we do not strike those portions of Intermedia's reply comments that concern activity prior to October 20, 1997, as discussed below, we will exercise our discretion and give no weight to the evidence that is not directly responsive to another commenter's  {O'arguments and that does not cover the period placed in dispute by commenters. See infra para. STRIKE42.  X#4)42.` `  STRIKE We do not, however, grant BellSouth's Motion to Strike Reply Comments with respect to other portions of reply comments that BellSouth cites. These other reply comments do not concern factual evidence of activity that occurred after the filing of comments. Instead, they include arguments or evidence of activity that occurred prior to the comment  X4filing date. Consistent with the Ameritech Michigan Order, we consider reply comments only to the extent they are directly responsive to other parties' comments and the evidence"R k,>(>(II"  X4submitted covers only the period placed in dispute by commenters.hlc {Oy'ԍSee Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 5254, 59.h Accordingly, we exercise our discretion in determining whether to accord new factual evidence and arguments that are made on reply any weight, and therefore, we do not strike from the record the portions of reply comments that BellSouth cites in its motion, with the exception of the  X4Intermedia evidence discussed above.KmZc {O'ԍSee id. at para. 59.K  Xv4*43.` ` Moreover, we disagree with BellSouth that the entire reply comments of CPI  X_4and NCTA should be struck, because those parties did not file initial comments._n_c {O 'ԍSee BellSouth's Motion to Strike at 67._ Under our procedures governing BOC applications, a party may file a reply comment to any comment  X14made by any other participant.o1~c {O`'ԍSept. 19th Public Notice at 7; Ameritech Michigan Order at para. 51. Parties may not, however, withhold evidence until the reply  X 4comments in an attempt to shield the evidence from attack.\p c {O'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 52.\ Thus, although we do not strike these parties' reply comments, we give no weight to evidence and arguments that are not directly responsive to arguments made by other parties in their comments.  X 4+44.` ` With respect to AT&T's ex parte letter arguing that the Commission should give no weight to new factual evidence and arguments made by BellSouth in its reply comments, we note that BellSouth submits evidence in its reply comments that postdates the  X{4October 20 comment filing date.q\{c {O'ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Stacy Performance Measures Reply Aff., Ex. 2 (providing an aggregate measure for the month of October of the average interval from the time BellSouth's operation support systems accept a  {O`'competing carrier's order to the time of actual completion of the order); see also AT&T Dec. 8 Ex Parte at 46.  Because we do not have a motion before us to strike this evidence, however, we do not do so. Nevertheless, consistent with our procedures governing section 271 applications, we give no weight to new evidence that is not directly responsive to another commenter's arguments and that does not cover the period placed in dispute by  X4commenters.Zr c {O 'ԍSee supra para. STRIKE42.Z Because we do not strike BellSouth's reply comments and because, irrespective of AT&T's letter, we determine whether to accord new evidence any weight in accordance with our procedures governing section 271 applications, we deny BellSouth's Motion to Strike AT&T's Letter.  X4,45.` `  EVID2 As the Commission stated in the Ameritech Michigan Order, these procedures governing section 271 applications are necessary in light of the 90day statutory time"X r,>(>(II"  X4deadlines.\sc {Oy'ԍAmeritech Michigan Order at para. 54.\ During the 90day review period, the Commission has neither the time nor the  X4resources to evaluate a record that is constantly evolving.:tZc {O'ԍId.: Moreover, when new information is filed in the reply comments, other parties do not have the same opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the information that they would have if the evidence were raised in an earlier  X4filing.Guc {OA 'ԍId. at para. 52.G We therefore require the BOC's application to be complete on the day it is filed.v~c {O 'ԍSept. 19 Public Notice at 23; Ameritech Michigan Order at paras. 5051. We also expect other parties in the proceeding to submit arguments and evidence supporting or opposing the BOC's application in their comments, rather than withholding such information until the reply comments are filed.  X1' aV.XCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 271(c)(1)(B) (#  X ' A.` ` Background (#`  X 4-46.` ` In the SBC Oklahoma Order, the Commission described the circumstances under which a BOC is permitted to file under section 271(c)(1)(B) and when a BOC is  X 4aforeclosed from proceeding under section 271(c)(1)(B).Vw c {Oj'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 23.V In particular, the Commission held that a BOC may not pursue inregion, interLATA entry under section 271(c)(1)(B) if that  X{4BOC has received a "qualifying request" for access and interconnection.Gx{c {O'ԍId. at para. 27.G For purposes of section 271(c)(1)(B), the Commission defined a "qualifying request" as a request for negotiation to obtain access and interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the  X64requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A).Ly64 c {O'ԍId. at paras. 27, 54.L The Commission further concluded that the "request for access and interconnection must be from an unaffiliated competing provider that seeks to  X4provide the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A),"Mz c yO!'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(A).M and that  X4the term "competing provider" includes both potential and actual competing providers.V{V c {O#'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 14.V "{,>(>(II" Moreover, in order for the request to be timely, and therefore foreclose Track B, it must be  X4made at least three months before the BOC's section 271 application is filed.r|Zc yOb'ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(1)(B). Thus, because BellSouth's section 271 application was filed on September30, 1997, a qualifying request in the instant proceeding is timely if it was made "before the date  {O'which is 3 months before" BellSouth's section 271 application was filed, i.e., June 30, 1997.r  X4.47.` ` The Commission also noted that pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B), a BOC,   Xshall be considered not to have received any request for access and interconnection if the State commission of such State certifies that the only provider or providers making such a request have (i) failed to negotiate in good faith as required by section 252, or (ii) violated the terms of an agreement approved under section 252 by the provider's failure to comply, within a reasonable period of time, with the  X 4implementation schedule contained in such agreement.|} +X {O'ԍSBC Oklahoma Order at para. 31 (quoting 47 U.S.C. 271(c)(1)(B)).|!  X 4  As the Commission explained in the SBC Oklahoma Order, these exceptions are designed to ensure that, after a request for access and interconnection, Track B would become available to the BOC if facilitiesbased competition does not emerge because the potential competitor fails either to bargain in good faith or to implement its interconnection agreement according to a  X4negotiated or arbitrated schedule.G~|c {O'ԍId. at para.37.G  Xd4  /48.` ` The Commission also recognized that in some circumstances there may be a basis for revisiting its decision that, because there has been a qualifying request, Track B is  X64foreclosed in a particular state.G6c {O'ԍId. at para. 58.G The Commission found that if, following a determination that Track B is foreclosed, a BOC refiles its section 271 application, the Commission may reevaluate whether a BOC is entitled to proceed under Track B "in the event relevant facts demonstrate that none of its potential competitors is taking reasonable steps toward  X4implementing its request in a fashion that will satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A).":c {O+ 'ԍId.: By adopting such a standard, the Commission intended to ensure that potential competitors will not be permitted "to delay indefinitely BOC entry by failing to provide the type of telephone  X4exchange service described in Track A."L2 c {Ox$'ԍId. at paras. 55, 58.L "~ ,>(>(II"Ԍ X' B.` ` Evidence in the Record (#`  X4  049.` ` In its application, BellSouth submits that it is eligible to apply for inregion, interLATA authorization in South Carolina pursuant to Track B on the grounds that it has an approved SGAT and, through no fault of BellSouth, no potential competitors are taking reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased service to residential and business  Xv4customers.Nvc yO'ԍBellSouth Application at 45.N  XH4150.` ` BellSouth states that it has executed interconnection and/or resale agreements with 83 different telecommunications carriers in South Carolina, and the South Carolina  X 4Commission has approved 67 of these agreements.@ Xc {O# 'ԍId. at 5.@ In addition, BellSouth contends that it has "actively invited entry" by competing LECs by offering interconnection and network  X 4access through its SGAT.L\ c {O'ԍId. at 67. As noted above, BellSouth's SGAT was approved, with modifications, by the South Carolina Commission on July 31, 1997. The South Carolina Commission approved further modifications to BellSouth's  {O'SGAT on September 9, 1997.  See id. at 78.L BellSouth further submits that, despite its efforts, no competing LEC has "made any significant, timely effort to provide the sort of facilitiesbased  X 4competition" intended by the 1996 Act.@ c {O}'ԍId. at 8.@  X4251.` ` According to BellSouth, because information held by its competitors may demonstrate that BellSouth has satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A), the Commission, during the pendency of its review of BellSouth's section 271 application, should conduct an inquiry into the status of local competition in South Carolina and require  X44commenters to give "specific details regarding their telephone exchange service operations."4c {O'ԍId. at 16. BellSouth does not suggest that the Commission toll the statutory 90day period while the Commission conduct such an inquiry. BellSouth contends that, if the evidence in the record reveals the existence of a competing provider of the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A), then it is  X4eligible to proceed under section 271(c)(1)(A) and section 271(c)(1)(B).D c {O!'ԍId. at 1617.D BellSouth further maintains that, "[i]f the evidence shows that a [competing LEC] has begun supplementing facilitiesbased service to business customers with resale of BellSouth's residential service in" ,>(>(II1" South Carolina, BellSouth would be eligible for interLATA relief under both Track A and  X4Track B."c {Ob'ԍId. In support of its contention that Track A may be satisfied in this manner, BellSouth points out that "[t]he Department of Justice has explained that the Act does not require . . . that each class of customers (i.e., business and residential) must be served over a facilitiesbased competitor's own facilities. It does not matter whether the competitor reaches one class of customers e.g., residential only through resale, provided the  {O'competitor's local exchange services as a whole are provided 'predominately' over its own facilities." Id. at 17 (quoting Department of Justice SBC Oklahoma Evaluation at 3).  X4352. TWOPART ` ` BellSouth asserts that a BOC is eligible to proceed under Track B unless a potential facilitiesbased competitor has made a timely request for interconnection and access from BellSouth in South Carolina that, if implemented, will lead to the type of telephone exchange service described in section 271(c)(1)(A) and is taking reasonable steps toward implementing that request in a fashion that satisfies the requirements of section  XH4271(c)(1)(A).AHDc {O='ԍId. at 10.A Moreover, according to BellSouth, in deciding whether requesting carriers are taking reasonable steps toward providing facilitiesbased service to residential and business customers, the Commission may only consider the state of local competition as of three months before the date a BOC's application for inregion, interLATA authorization was filed,  X 4or in this case, before June 30, 1997.D c {Os'ԍId. at 1011.D BellSouth maintains that "Congress established this cutoff date to 'ensure' the [BOCs'] ability to file Track B applications when facilitiesbased  X 4competition is not developing despite an open market."g h c {O'ԍId. (citing Joint Explanatory Statement at 148).g BellSouth concludes that, because no potential competitors are taking reasonable steps to satisfy the requirements of section  X4271(c)(1)(A), it is eligible to proceed under Track B. c {O;'ԍId. at 12 (citing South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 19).  Xb4453.` ` In evaluating BellSouth's compliance with the requirements of section 271(c), the South Carolina Commission maintains that it considered the business plans "of those  X44companies seeking to provide local dialtone service in South Carolina."\4 c {Oq 'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 5 (citing South Carolina Commission Compliance Order at 19). We note that MCI filed a petition before the South Carolina Commission requesting a declaratory ruling that BellSouth is ineligible to proceed under Track B. In its response to this petition, BellSouth argued that "the availability of Track A or Track B is a decision that has been delegated to the FCC." BellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 1, Tab 21, BellSouth Brief in Response, South Carolina Commission Docket No. 97101C (May 19, 1997), at 18. The South Carolina Commission agreed with BellSouth and in a July 7, 1997 order held that the "final decision on the applicability of either Track should be deferred to the FCC, since Federal law is  {O%'involved in this issue." BellSouth Application, App. C, Vol. 3, Tab 57, South Carolina Commission, Order  {O&'Denying MCI's Petition for Rehearing or Reconsideration, Docket No. 97101C, Order No. 97575 (July 7,"&,>(>(&"  {O'1997) (South Carolina Commission July 7, 1997 Order). In that proceeding, MCI had requested the South Carolina Commission to reconsider its position with regard to the availability of Track B in light of the  {O"'Commission's decision in the SBC Oklahoma Order. Id.  Based upon this"4,>(>(II" information, the South Carolina Commission found that "none of BellSouth's potential competitors are taking reasonable steps toward implementing any business plan for facilities X4based local service."c {Oo'ԍSouth Carolina Commission Comments at 5 (citing South Carolina