џWPC5 ћџ2џџBJџџZ џџ њCourier3|jОєxў6X@ЩЙ`7ћX@ўўўўўўўџўџџџўџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџHP LaserJet 4M (Addl rm 844)nal)HL4MPCAD.PRSлx Œ @Щ‡Я№\№ƒ# UX@ааћџ2dџџ6 ZF  КЊ3|jHP LaserJet 4M (Addl rm 844)nal)HL4MPCAD.PRSлx Œ @Щ‡Я№\№ƒ# UX@ааDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11б#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#бћџ2žФ–РZФРоendnote textendnote text;1ааб#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#бendnote referenceendnote reference44б#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггУУФФггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#бfootnote textfootnote text;1ааб#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#бfootnote referencefootnote reference44б#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггУУФФггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#бћџ2Hаю * toc 1toc 1шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`ААааггггааА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааtoc 2toc 2шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА` (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааггггааА` (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааtoc 3toc 3шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА` И (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`ААааггггааА` И (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааtoc 4toc 4 шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџАИ (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`ААааггггааАИ (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааћџ2J z ˜ vЖ ,toc 5toc 5 шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџАh(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`ААааггггааАh(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааtoc 6toc 6 шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ ААааггггааА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааtoc 7toc 7  ааггггtoc 8toc 8 шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ ААааггггааА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааћџ2є|šИжtoc 9toc 9шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`ААааггггааА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ`XА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааindex 1index 1шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА` (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааггггааА` (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааindex 2index 2шоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА` (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааггггааА` (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааtoa headingtoa headingшоааааXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааггггааА(#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџXА` И hРpШ xа (#џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџААааћџ2:$Ф&КъKЄKя!captioncaption;1ааб#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#б_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11б#XPє\  PŽ6QXP#бггггб#єCє\  PŽ6QєP#б"‚i~з'џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ^09CSSŒ‚999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]I™xnnxg]xx9?xg“xx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/‚SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZх9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxI“lnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxS“xn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006х"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""K,Hў6X@ЩЙ`7ћh@ўўўўўўўџўџџџўџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџЂ!H5!,iћ,5є\  PŽ6G;,Pўўўўўўўџўџџџўџџўџџџџџџўўўџџџџџџџџџџџ\"{,W80,I0єWє*f9 xŽr G;єXўўўўўўўџџџџџўџџўџџџџџџўўўџџџџџџџџџџџЂџџW!@(#,љбh@є\  PŽ6G;hPўўўўўўўџўџџџўџџўџџџџџџўўўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ `pИИП§џџўџџџџџ?ƒ№У№ќќЬ§< 3<ќќџџџџџџџя§тќџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџќџџџџќсp8 @{`AЦ?јо РПП~>Р€рP№џџo ‚ћџ25д ‘XД-дб#Xjє\  PŽ6G;9XP#бСxСС` `  ССИ И ШСС№ССhhССРР@ССhССppССШШИСDecember 24, 1997а Шщ ад ‘XщД-даадTьдУ У дTьд діxдSEPARATE STATEMENT OF дTьдаадPАдаадбV дCOMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL дTьдаадPАд д “VvД-дФ ФУУRe:ТXxТApplication of BellSouth Corporation et al. Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide InЉRegion, InterLATA Services д “VHД-дin South Carolina (CC Docket No. 97Љ208).ФФЦ(#Ц СxСIn denying BellSouth's bid to enter the long distance market in South Carolina, we recognize that the company has taken some significant steps in meeting the prerequisites for entry established by Congress under section 271. BellSouth's application is deficient in certain important areas, such that we cannot approve it in its present form. Nevertheless, these deficiencies can be corrected, and I encourage BellSouth to double its efforts to find workable and creative approaches that will enable it to satisfy the Act's requirements, which are designed to offer wouldЉbe local competitors a fighting chance to compete. I hope BellSouth accepts this challenge and returns to us with a more viable application that will lead to residents of South Carolina having an expanded number of choices for their local and long distance providers. I believe BellSouth can get there, but I caution that newspaper advertisements and letter writing campaigns will not remedy the deficiencies we have identified in this order. СxСIf BellSouth (or any applicant) is to be successful in future applications, it must understand the ground rules. Moreover, it must have some confidence that if it takes further steps to allow competitors to win away its customers, the company will be rewarded in kind with the right to compete in the long distance market. We must always endeavor to place the seeds of section 271 success in the hands of the BOC applicants. With respect to the present application, we have attempted to offer clear guidance in a number of areas. Nonetheless, we could have done much more if we had had the time and resources to work more cooperatively with BellSouth to reach agreement on many of the checklist items, rather than having to retreat into the bowels of the Commission to slog through a 33,000 page application. Section 271 review is inefficient if it results in an applicant having to file two and three times just to obtain a clear picture of what it is doing right and what it is doing wrong. I believe we must do more or adopt a new approach to this process if we hope to provide the clarity that BOCs and new entrants need to open up local markets. СxСAccordingly, I want to commend my colleagues for attempting with me to clarify our interpretation of Track B, as well as for applying the competitive checklist to BellSouth's application, despite the fact that we found Track B unavailable to BellSouth. I believe that both BOCs and entrants need as much direction as we can possibly provide. In the past, there has been an inclination to fight the section 271 battle at the Track A/B "shore." Such an approach wastes time and resources, detracts from the thoroughness of our checklist analysis and clouds the guidance that incumbents and competitors alike desperately need. While I acknowledge that our interpretation of section 271 is an evolving one, I believe that our efforts in this order to flesh out the circumstances in which Track B and certain checklistд"ѕ(0*0*0*АА'с"д items are or are not satisfied constitute a step in the right direction. СxСIn addition, I believe the Commission, the BOCs and potential competitors must do much more to offer workable solutions to the vexing problems that are impeding the arrival of local competition. The proper standards and benchmarks for OSS is one such area. How to ensure the viable use of unbundled network elements (UNEs) in light of current legal precedent is another. Consider our own treatment of UNEs in the present application. We note, correctly, that a BOC must offer UNEs in a manner that allows them to be recombined by the new entrant. In this order, however, we fault BellSouth's collocation proposal, but offer no possible solution of our own. Rather, we (like the Department of Justice) reject the application on the grounds that the BOC failed to satisfy its burden of proving that it has met the checklist. I do not question that the BOC does and should bear the burden of proof, but I believe we could do much more to help develop and implement a workable, collaborative framework for promoting compliance with section 271, rather than relying on burdens of proof and other adjudicative devices to dispense with these applications. д “XД-дСxСIn this regard, let me say more about the UNE problem. In its recent УУRehearing д “X{в-дOrderФФ,жЭ’{эГд {OєД-дб#єXє\  PŽ6G;‰јєP#бСxСУУSee Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC,ФФ 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), УУmodified on reh'g,ФФ No. 96Љ3321 (Oct. 14, 1997).Эж the Eighth Circuit held that new entrants, rather than incumbents, must rebundle network elements. By its holding, the court undermined an intellectual construct. Notwithstanding the Eighth Circuit's interpretation, the network elements that the Commission has held must be "unbundled" are not actually tangible, physical elements that can be unplugged and replugged as easily as an electric cord from a wall socket. With the exception, perhaps, of loops and ports, the "unbundling" of network elements is not a physical process but a cost allocation fiction. Most UNE's ЉЉ though representing discrete functional capabilities that one can offer and charge for separately ЉЉ cannot in any real sense be dissociated from the software and hardware that control their operation. Thus, it seems ridiculous to suggest that incumbent LECs can physically unbundle most network elements, or that a new entrant can actually pick up those elements and recombine them, be it in a collocation cage or elsewhere. СxСThe Commission and the various parties should stop perpetuating this myth. The UNE problem is arguably just a math problem that we should proactively address. That is, in the current environment, we should be dedicating our efforts toward crafting a method for allocating costs for UNEs that simulates the fiction of unbundling and rebundling, rather than spending time pretending that there are actually ways to take these elements apart, hand them to an entrant, and have that entrant put them back together like pieces in a Lego play set. In д ‘XШ Д-дshort, pending further review of the Eighth Circuit decisions, I believeУ У Ф Фwe should invite proposals whereby a BOC would voluntarily recombine elements for a modest charge ЉЉ a "glue charge." While we await further guidance from the courts, I would encourage both BOCs and new entrants to participate actively in finding a glue charge structure or other UNE framework that they can live with, lest we find ourselves playing "catch up" in the event theд"l$"0*((ААF#с"д courts do not reinstate our previous rulings. СxСFinally, I respect the genuinely held view of some that the statute confers independent jurisdiction on the Commission to establish pricing rules. I merely note that such an interpretation is not universally shared among the Commissioners. In particular, some of us question whether such an interpretation of section 271 is consistent with the Eighth Circuit's prior holdings regarding the states' ratemaking authority. I feel no need, however, to debate this legal point here. This interpretation has been challenged and is squarely presented in the mandamus action presently before the Eighth Circuit. Oral argument in that proceeding is scheduled for later next month. The Court itself will undoubtedly shed light on this important д ‘X Д-дquestion.