Appendix D

Statutory Requirements

# STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

1.  The 1996 Act conditions BOC entry into the provision of in-region
    interLATA services on compliance with certain provisions of section
    271.[^1] BOCs must apply to the Federal Communications Commission
    (Commission or FCC) for authorization to provide interLATA services
    originating in any in-region state.[^2] The Commission must issue a
    written determination on each application no later than 90 days
    after receiving such application.[^3] Section 271(d)(2)(A) requires
    the Commission to consult with the Attorney General before making
    any determination approving or denying a section 271 application.
    The Attorney General is entitled to evaluate the application "using
    any standard the Attorney General considers appropriate," and the
    Commission is required to "give substantial weight to the Attorney
    General's evaluation."[^4]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  In addition, the Commission must consult with the relevant state
    commission to verify that the BOC has one or more state-approved
    interconnection agreements with a facilities-based competitor, or a
    Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions (SGAT), and
    that either the agreement(s) or general statement satisfy the
    "competitive checklist."[^5] Because the Act does not prescribe any
    standard for the consideration of a state commission's verification
    under section 271(d)(2)(B), the Commission has discretion in each
    section 271 proceeding to determine the amount of weight to accord
    the state commission's verification.[^6] The Commission has held
    that, although it will consider carefully state determinations of
    fact that are supported by a detailed and extensive record, it is
    the FCC's role to determine whether the factual record supports the
    conclusion that particular requirements of section 271 have been
    met.[^7]

2.  Section 271 requires the Commission to make various findings before
    approving BOC entry. In order for the Commission to approve a BOC's
    application to provide in-region, interLATA services, a BOC must
    first demonstrate, with respect to each state for which it seeks
    authorization, that it satisfies the requirements of either section
    271(c)(1)(A) (Track A) or 271(c)(1)(B) (Track B).[^8] In order to
    obtain authorization under section 271, the BOC must also show
    that: (1) it has "fully implemented the competitive checklist"
    contained in section 271(c)(2)(B);[^9] (2) the requested
    authorization will be carried out in accordance with the
    requirements of section 272;[^10] and (3) the BOC's entry into the
    in-region interLATA market is "consistent with the public interest,
    convenience, and necessity."[^11] The statute specifies that, unless
    the Commission finds that these criteria have been satisfied, the
    Commission "shall not approve" the requested authorization.[^12]

# PROCEDURAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

3.  To determine whether a BOC applicant has met the prerequisites for
    entry into the long distance market, the Commission evaluates its
    compliance with the competitive checklist, as developed in the FCC's
    local competition rules and orders in effect at the time the
    application was filed. Despite the comprehensiveness of these rules,
    there will inevitably be, in any section 271 proceeding, disputes
    over an incumbent LEC's precise obligations to its competitors that
    FCC rules have not addressed and that do not involve *per se*
    violations of self-executing requirements of the Act. As explained
    in prior orders, the section 271 process simply could not function
    as Congress intended if the Commission were required to resolve all
    such disputes as a precondition to granting a section 271
    application.[^13] In the context of section 271's adjudicatory
    framework, the Commission has established certain procedural rules
    governing BOC section 271 applications.[^14] The Commission has
    explained in prior orders the procedural rules it has developed to
    facilitate the review process.[^15] Here we describe how the
    Commission considers the evidence of compliance that the BOC
    presents in its application.

4.  As part of the determination that a BOC has satisfied the
    requirements of section 271, the Commission considers whether the
    BOC has fully implemented the competitive checklist in subsection
    (c)(2)(B). The BOC at all times bears the burden of proof of
    compliance with section 271, even if no party challenges its
    compliance with a particular requirement.[^16] In demonstrating its
    compliance, a BOC must show that it has a concrete and specific
    legal obligation to furnish the item upon request pursuant to
    state-approved interconnection agreements that set forth prices and
    other terms and conditions for each checklist item, and that it is
    currently furnishing, or is ready to furnish, the checklist items in
    quantities that competitors may reasonably demand and at an
    acceptable level of quality.[^17] In particular, the BOC must
    demonstrate that it is offering interconnection and access to
    network elements on a nondiscriminatory basis.[^18] Previous
    Commission orders addressing section 271 applications have
    elaborated on this statutory standard.[^19] First, for those
    functions the BOC provides to competing carriers that are analogous
    to the functions a BOC provides to itself in connection with its own
    retail service offerings, the BOC must provide access to competing
    carriers in "substantially the same time and manner" as it provides
    to itself.[^20] Thus, where a retail analogue exists, a BOC must
    provide access that is equal to (*i.e.,* substantially the same as)
    the level of access that the BOC provides itself, its customers, or
    its affiliates, in terms of quality, accuracy, and timeliness.[^21]
    For those functions that have no retail analogue, the BOC must
    demonstrate that the access it provides to competing carriers would
    offer an efficient carrier a "meaningful opportunity to
    compete."[^22]

5.  The determination of whether the statutory standard is met is
    ultimately a judgment the Commission must make based on its
    expertise in promoting competition in local markets and in
    telecommunications regulation generally.[^23] The Commission has not
    established, nor does it believe it appropriate to establish,
    specific objective criteria for what constitutes "substantially the
    same time and manner" or a "meaningful opportunity to compete."[^24]
    Whether this legal standard is met can only be decided based on an
    analysis of specific facts and circumstances. Therefore, the
    Commission looks at each application on a case-by-case basis and
    considers the totality of the circumstances, including the origin
    and quality of the information in the record, to determine whether
    the nondiscrimination requirements of the Act are met.

## Performance Data

6.  As established in prior section 271 orders, the Commission has found
    that performance measurements provide valuable evidence regarding a
    BOC's compliance or noncompliance with individual checklist items.
    The Commission expects that, in its *prima facie* case in the
    initial application, a BOC relying on performance data will:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  provide sufficient performance data to support its contention that
    the statutory requirements are satisfied;

b)  identify the facial disparities between the applicant's performance
    for itself and its performance for competitors;

c)  explain why those facial disparities are anomalous, caused by forces
    beyond the applicant's control (*e.g.*, competing carrier-caused
    errors), or have no meaningful adverse impact on a competing
    carrier's ability to obtain and serve customers; and

d)  provide the underlying data, analysis, and methodologies necessary
    to enable the Commission and commenters meaningfully to evaluate and
    contest the validity of the applicant's explanations for performance
    disparities, including, for example, carrier specific
    carrier-to-carrier performance data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  The Commission has explained in prior orders that parity and
    benchmark standards established by state commissions do not
    represent absolute maximum or minimum levels of performance
    necessary to satisfy the competitive checklist. Rather, where these
    standards are developed through open proceedings with input from
    both the incumbent and competing carriers, these standards can
    represent informed and reliable attempts to objectively approximate
    whether competing carriers are being served by the incumbent in
    substantially the same time and manner, or in a way that provides
    them a meaningful opportunity to compete.[^25] Thus, to the extent
    there is no statistically significant difference between a BOC's
    provision of service to competing carriers and its own retail
    customers, the Commission generally need not look any further.
    Likewise, if a BOC's provision of service to competing carriers
    satisfies the performance benchmark, the analysis is usually done.
    Otherwise, the Commission will examine the evidence further to make
    a determination whether the statutory nondiscrimination requirements
    are met.[^26] Thus, the Commission will examine the explanations
    that a BOC and others provide about whether these data accurately
    depict the quality of the BOC's performance. The Commission also may
    examine how many months a variation in performance has existed and
    what the recent trend has been. The Commission may find that
    statistically significant differences exist, but conclude that such
    differences have little or no competitive significance in the
    marketplace. In such cases, the Commission may conclude that the
    differences are not meaningful in terms of statutory compliance.
    Ultimately, the determination of whether a BOC's performance meets
    the statutory requirements necessarily is a contextual decision
    based on the totality of the circumstances and information before
    the Commission.

8.  Where there are multiple performance measures associated with a
    particular checklist item, the Commission would consider the
    performance demonstrated by all the measurements as a whole.
    Accordingly, a disparity in performance for one measure, by itself,
    may not provide a basis for finding noncompliance with the
    checklist. The Commission may also find that the reported
    performance data is affected by factors beyond a BOC's control, a
    finding that would make it less likely to hold the BOC wholly
    accountable for the disparity. This is not to say, however, that
    performance discrepancies on a single performance metric are
    unimportant. Indeed, under certain circumstances, disparity with
    respect to one performance measurement may support a finding of
    statutory noncompliance, particularly if the disparity is
    substantial or has endured for a long time, or if it is accompanied
    by other evidence of discriminatory conduct or evidence that
    competing carriers have been denied a meaningful opportunity to
    compete.

9.  In sum, the Commission does not use performance measurements as a
    substitute for the 14-point competitive checklist. Rather, it uses
    performance measurements as valuable evidence with which to inform
    the judgment as to whether a BOC has complied with the checklist
    requirements. Although performance measurements add necessary
    objectivity and predictability to the review, they cannot wholly
    replace the Commission's own judgment as to whether a BOC has
    complied with the competitive checklist.

## Relevance of Previous Section 271 Approvals

10. In some section 271 applications, the volumes of the BOC's
    commercial orders may be significantly lower than they were in prior
    proceedings. In certain instances, volumes may be so low as to
    render the performance data inconsistent and inconclusive.[^27]
    Performance data based on low volumes of orders or other
    transactions is not as reliable an indicator of checklist compliance
    as performance based on larger numbers of observations. Indeed,
    where performance data is based on a low number of observations,
    small variations in performance may produce wide swings in the
    reported performance data. It is thus not possible to place the same
    evidentiary weight upon -- and to draw the same types of conclusions
    from -- performance data where volumes are low, as for data based on
    more robust activity.

11. In such cases, findings in prior, related section 271 proceedings
    may be a relevant factor in the Commission's analysis. Where a BOC
    provides evidence that a particular system reviewed and approved in
    a prior section 271 proceeding is also used in the proceeding at
    hand, the Commission's review of the same system in the current
    proceeding will be informed by the findings in the prior one.
    Indeed, to the extent that issues have already been briefed,
    reviewed and resolved in a prior section 271 proceeding, and absent
    new evidence or changed circumstances, an application for a related
    state should not be a forum for re-litigating and reconsidering
    those issues. Appropriately employed, such a practice can give us a
    fuller picture of the BOC's compliance with the section 271
    requirements while avoiding, for all parties involved in the section
    271 process, the delay and expense associated with redundant and
    unnecessary proceedings and submissions.

12. However, the statute requires the Commission to make a separate
    determination of checklist compliance for each state and,
    accordingly, we do not consider any finding from previous section
    271 orders to be dispositive of checklist compliance in current
    proceedings. While the Commission's review may be informed by prior
    findings, the Commission will consider all relevant evidence in the
    record, including state-specific factors identified by commenting
    parties, the states, the Department of Justice. However, the
    Commission has always held that an applicant's performance towards
    competing carriers in an actual commercial environment is the best
    evidence of nondiscriminatory access to OSS and other network
    elements. [^28] Thus, the BOC's actual performance in the applicant
    state may be relevant to the analysis and determinations with
    respect to the 14 checklist items. Evidence of satisfactory
    performance in another state cannot trump convincing evidence that
    an applicant fails to provide nondiscriminatory access to a network
    element in the applicant state.

13. Moreover, because the Commission's review of a section 271
    application must be based on a snapshot of a BOC's recent
    performance at the time an application is filed, the Commission
    cannot simply rely on findings relating to an applicant's
    performance in an anchor state at the time it issued the
    determination for that state. The performance in that state could
    change due to a multitude of factors, such as increased order
    volumes or shifts in the mix of the types of services or UNEs
    requested by competing carriers. Thus, even when the applicant makes
    a convincing showing of the relevance of anchor state data, the
    Commission must examine how recent performance in that state
    compares to performance at the time it approved that state's section
    271 application, in order to determine if the systems and processes
    continue to perform at acceptable levels.

# Compliance with entry requirements \-- Sections 271(c)(1)(A) & 271(c)(1)(B)

14. As noted above, in order for the Commission to approve a BOC's
    application to provide in-region, interLATA services, a BOC must
    first demonstrate that it satisfies the requirements of either
    section 271(c)(1)(A) (Track A) or 271(c)(1)(B) (Track B).[^29] To
    qualify for Track A, a BOC must have interconnection agreements with
    one or more competing providers of "telephone exchange service . . .
    to residential and business subscribers."[^30] The Act states that
    "such telephone service may be offered . . . either exclusively over
    \[the competitor's\] own telephone exchange service facilities or
    predominantly over \[the competitor's\] own telephone exchange
    facilities in combination with the resale of the telecommunications
    services of another carrier."[^31] The Commission concluded in the
    *Ameritech Michigan Order* that section 271(c)(1)(A) is satisfied if
    one or more competing providers collectively serve residential and
    business subscribers.[^32]

15. As an alternative to Track A, Section 271(c)(1)(B) permits BOCs to
    obtain authority to provide in-region, interLATA services if, after
    10 months from the date of enactment, no facilities-based provider,
    as described in subparagraph (A), has requested the access and
    interconnection arrangements described therein (referencing one or
    more binding agreements approved under Section 252), but the State
    has approved an SGAT that satisfies the competitive checklist of
    subsection (c)(2)(B). Under section 271(d)(3)(A)(ii), the Commission
    shall not approve such a request for in-region, interLATA service
    unless the BOC demonstrates that, "with respect to access and
    interconnection generally offered pursuant to \[an SGAT\], such
    statement offers all of the items included in the competitive
    checklist\...."[^33] Track B, however, is not available to a BOC if
    it has already received a request for access and interconnection
    from a prospective competing provider of telephone exchange
    service.[^34]

# COMPLIANCE WITH The COMPETitive CHECKLIST -- SECTION 271(c)(2)(B)

## Checklist Item 1-- Interconnection

16. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
    to provide "\[i\]nterconnection in accordance with the requirements
    of sections 251(c)(2) and 252(d)(1)."[^35] Section 251(c)(2) imposes
    a duty on incumbent LECs "to provide, for the facilities and
    equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier,
    interconnection with the local exchange carrier's network . . . for
    the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and
    exchange access."[^36] In the *Local Competition First Report and
    Order*, the Commission concluded that interconnection referred "only
    to the physical linking of two networks for the mutual exchange of
    traffic."[^37] Section 251 contains three requirements for the
    provision of interconnection. First, an incumbent LEC must provide
    interconnection "at any technically feasible point within the
    carrier's network."[^38] Second, an incumbent LEC must provide
    interconnection that is "at least equal in quality to that provided
    by the local exchange carrier to itself."[^39] Finally, the
    incumbent LEC must provide interconnection "on rates, terms, and
    conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, in
    accordance with the terms of the agreement and the requirements of
    \[section 251\] and section 252."[^40]

17. To implement the equal-in-quality requirement in section 251, the
    Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to design and operate
    its interconnection facilities to meet "the same technical criteria
    and service standards" that are used for the interoffice trunks
    within the incumbent LEC's network.[^41] In the *Local Competition
    First Report and Order*, the Commission identified trunk group
    blockage and transmission standards as indicators of an incumbent
    LEC's technical criteria and service standards.[^42] In prior
    section 271 applications, the Commission concluded that disparities
    in trunk group blockage indicated a failure to provide
    interconnection to competing carriers equal-in-quality to the
    interconnection the BOC provided to its own retail operations.[^43]

18. In the *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the Commission
    concluded that the requirement to provide interconnection on terms
    and conditions that are "just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory"
    means that an incumbent LEC must provide interconnection to a
    competitor in a manner no less efficient than the way in which the
    incumbent LEC provides the comparable function to its own retail
    operations.[^44] The Commission's rules interpret this obligation to
    include, among other things, the incumbent LEC's installation time
    for interconnection service[^45] and its provisioning of two-way
    trunking arrangements.[^46] Similarly, repair time for troubles
    affecting interconnection trunks is useful for determining whether a
    BOC provides interconnection service under "terms and conditions
    that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions" the BOC
    provides to its own retail operations.[^47]

19. Competing carriers may choose any method of technically feasible
    interconnection at a particular point on the incumbent LEC's
    network.[^48] Incumbent LEC provision of interconnection trunking is
    one common means of interconnection. Technically feasible methods
    also include, but are not limited to, physical and virtual
    collocation and meet point arrangements.[^49] The provision of
    collocation is an essential prerequisite to demonstrating compliance
    with item 1 of the competitive checklist.[^50] In the *Advanced
    Services First Report and Order*, the Commission revised its
    collocation rules to require incumbent LECs to include shared cage
    and cageless collocation arrangements as part of their physical
    collocation offerings.[^51] To show compliance with its collocation
    obligations, a BOC must have processes and procedures in place to
    ensure that all applicable collocation arrangements are available on
    terms and conditions that are "just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory" in accordance with section 251(c)(6) and the
    FCC's implementing rules.[^52] Data showing the quality of
    procedures for processing applications for collocation space, as
    well as the timeliness and efficiency of provisioning collocation
    space, helps the Commission evaluate a BOC's compliance with its
    collocation obligations.[^53]

20. As stated above, checklist item 1 requires a BOC to provide
    "interconnection in accordance with the requirements of sections
    251(c)(2) [and]{.underline} 252(d)(1)."[^54] Section 252(d)(1)
    requires state determinations regarding the rates, terms, and
    conditions of interconnection to be based on cost and to be
    nondiscriminatory, and allows the rates to include a reasonable
    profit.[^55] The Commission's pricing rules require, among other
    things, that in order to comply with its collocation obligations, an
    incumbent LEC provide collocation based on TELRIC.[^56]

21. To the extent pricing disputes arise, the Commission will not
    duplicate the work of the state commissions. As noted in the *SWBT
    Texas Order*, the Act authorizes the state commissions to resolve
    specific carrier-to-carrier disputes arising under the local
    competition provisions, and it authorizes the federal district
    courts to ensure that the results of the state arbitration process
    are consistent with federal law.[^57] Although the Commission has an
    independent statutory obligation to ensure compliance with the
    checklist, section 271 does not compel us to preempt the orderly
    disposition of intercarrier disputes by the state commissions,
    particularly now that the Supreme Court has restored the
    Commission's pricing jurisdiction and has thereby directed the state
    commissions to follow FCC pricing rules in their disposition of
    those disputes.[^58]

22. Consistent with the Commission's precedent, the mere presence of
    interim rates will not generally threaten a section 271 application
    so long as: (1) an interim solution to a particular rate dispute is
    reasonable under the circumstances; (2) the state commission has
    demonstrated its commitment to the Commission's pricing rules;
    and (3) provision is made for refunds or true-ups once permanent
    rates are set.[^59] In addition, the Commission has determined that
    rates contained within an approved 271 application, including those
    that are interim, are reasonable starting points for interim rates
    for the same carrier in an adjoining state.[^60]

23. Although the Commission has been willing to grant a section 271
    application with a limited number of interim rates where the
    above-mentioned three-part test is met, it is clearly preferable to
    analyze a section 271 application on the basis of rates derived from
    a permanent rate proceeding.[^61] At some point, states will have
    had sufficient time to complete these proceedings. The Commission
    will, therefore, become more reluctant to continue approving section
    271 applications containing interim rates. It would not be sound
    policy for interim rates to become a substitute for completing these
    significant proceedings.

## Checklist Item 2 -- Unbundled Network Elements. 

### Access to Operations Support Systems

24. Incumbent LECs use a variety of systems, databases, and personnel
    (collectively referred to as OSS) to provide service to their
    customers.[^62] The Commission consistently has found that
    nondiscriminatory access to OSS is a prerequisite to the development
    of meaningful local competition.[^63] For example, new entrants must
    have access to the functions performed by the incumbent's OSS in
    order to formulate and place orders for network elements or resale
    services, to install service to their customers, to maintain and
    repair network facilities, and to bill customers.[^64] The
    Commission has determined that without nondiscriminatory access to
    the BOC's OSS, a competing carrier "will be severely disadvantaged,
    if not precluded altogether, from fairly competing" in the local
    exchange market.[^65]

25. Section 271 requires the Commission to determine whether a BOC
    offers nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. Section
    271(c)(2)(B)(ii) requires a BOC to provide "nondiscriminatory access
    to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
    251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)."[^66] The Commission has determined that
    access to OSS functions falls squarely within an incumbent LEC's
    duty under section 251(c)(3) to provide unbundled network elements
    under terms and conditions that are nondiscriminatory and just and
    reasonable, and its duty under section 251(c)(4) to offer resale
    services without imposing any limitations or conditions that are
    discriminatory or unreasonable.[^67] The Commission must therefore
    examine a BOC's OSS performance to evaluate compliance with section
    271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (xiv).[^68] In addition, the Commission has
    also concluded that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access to
    OSS functions is embodied in other terms of the competitive
    checklist as well.[^69] Consistent with prior orders, the Commission
    examines a BOC's OSS performance directly under checklist items 2
    and 14, as well as other checklist terms.[^70]

26. As part of its statutory obligation to provide nondiscriminatory
    access to OSS functions, a BOC must provide access that sufficiently
    supports each of the three modes of competitive entry envisioned by
    the 1996 Act -- competitor-owned facilities, unbundled network
    elements, and resale.[^71] For OSS functions that are analogous to
    those that a BOC provides to itself, its customers or its
    affiliates, the nondiscrimination standard requires the BOC to offer
    requesting carriers access that is equivalent in terms of quality,
    accuracy, and timeliness.[^72] The BOC must provide access that
    permits competing carriers to perform these functions in
    "substantially the same time and manner" as the BOC.[^73] The
    Commission has recognized in prior orders that there may be
    situations in which a BOC contends that, although equivalent access
    has not been achieved for an analogous function, the access that it
    provides is nonetheless nondiscriminatory within the meaning of the
    statute.[^74]

27. For OSS functions that have no retail analogue, the BOC must offer
    access "sufficient to allow an efficient competitor a meaningful
    opportunity to compete."[^75] In assessing whether the quality of
    access affords an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to
    compete, the Commission will examine, in the first instance, whether
    specific performance standards exist for those functions.[^76] In
    particular, the Commission will consider whether appropriate
    standards for measuring OSS performance have been adopted by the
    relevant state commission or agreed upon by the BOC in an
    interconnection agreement or during the implementation of such an
    agreement.[^77] If such performance standards exist, the Commission
    will evaluate whether the BOC's performance is sufficient to allow
    an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.[^78]

28. The Commission analyzes whether a BOC has met the nondiscrimination
    standard for each OSS function using a two-step approach. First, the
    Commission determines "whether the BOC has deployed the necessary
    systems and personnel to provide sufficient access to each of the
    necessary OSS functions and whether the BOC is adequately assisting
    competing carriers to understand how to implement and use all of the
    OSS functions available to them."[^79] The Commission next assesses
    "whether the OSS functions that the BOC has deployed are
    operationally ready, as a practical matter."[^80]

29. Under the first inquiry, a BOC must demonstrate that it has
    developed sufficient electronic (for functions that the BOC accesses
    electronically) and manual interfaces to allow competing carriers
    equivalent access to all of the necessary OSS functions.[^81] For
    example, a BOC must provide competing carriers with the
    specifications necessary for carriers to design or modify their
    systems in a manner that will enable them to communicate with the
    BOC's systems and any relevant interfaces.[^82] In addition, a BOC
    must disclose to competing carriers any internal business rules[^83]
    and other formatting information necessary to ensure that a
    carrier's requests and orders are processed efficiently.[^84]
    Finally, a BOC must demonstrate that its OSS is designed to
    accommodate both current demand and projected demand for competing
    carriers' access to OSS functions.[^85] Although not a prerequisite,
    the Commission continues to encourage the use of industry standards
    as an appropriate means of meeting the needs of a competitive local
    exchange market.[^86]

30. Under the second inquiry, the Commission examines performance
    measurements and other evidence of commercial readiness to ascertain
    whether the BOC's OSS is handling current demand and will be able to
    handle reasonably foreseeable future volumes.[^87] The most
    probative evidence that OSS functions are operationally ready is
    actual commercial usage.[^88] Absent sufficient and reliable data on
    commercial usage, the Commission will consider the results of
    carrier-to-carrier testing, independent third-party testing, and
    internal testing in assessing the commercial readiness of a BOC's
    OSS.[^89] Although the Commission does not require OSS testing, a
    persuasive test will provide us with an objective means by which to
    evaluate a BOC's OSS readiness where there is little to no evidence
    of commercial usage, or may otherwise strengthen an application
    where the BOC's evidence of actual commercial usage is weak or is
    otherwise challenged by competitors, The persuasiveness of a
    third-party review, however, is dependent upon the qualifications,
    experience and independence of the third party and the conditions
    and scope of the review itself.[^90] If the review is limited in
    scope or depth or is not independent and blind, the Commission will
    give it minimal weight. As noted above, to the extent the Commission
    reviews performance data, it looks at the totality of the
    circumstances and generally does not view individual performance
    disparities, particularly if they are isolated and slight, as
    dispositive of whether a BOC has satisfied its checklist
    obligations.[^91] Individual performance disparities may,
    nevertheless, result in a finding of checklist noncompliance,
    particularly if the disparity is substantial or has endured for a
    long time, or if it is accompanied by other evidence of
    discriminatory conduct or evidence that competing carriers have been
    denied a meaningful opportunity to compete.

#### Relevance of a BOC's Prior 271 Orders

31. The *Kansas/Oklahoma Order* specifically outlined a non-exhaustive
    evidentiary showing that must be made in the initial application
    when a BOC seeks to rely on evidence presented in another
    application.[^92] First, a BOC's application must explain the extent
    to which the OSS are "the same" -- that is, whether it employs the
    shared use of a single OSS, or the use of systems that are
    identical, but separate.[^93] To satisfy this inquiry, the
    Commission looks to whether the relevant states utilize a common set
    of processes, business rules, interfaces, systems and, in many
    instances, even personnel.[^94] The Commission will also carefully
    examine third party reports that demonstrate that the BOC's OSS are
    the same in each of the relevant states.[^95] Finally, where a BOC
    has discernibly separate OSS, it must demonstrate that its OSS
    reasonably can be expected to behave in the same manner.[^96]
    Second, unless an applicant seeks to establish only that certain
    discrete components of its OSS are the same, an applicant must
    submit evidence relating to *all* aspects of its OSS, including
    those OSS functions performed by BOC personnel.

#### Pre-Ordering

32. A BOC must demonstrate that: (i) it offers nondiscriminatory access
    to OSS pre-ordering functions associated with determining whether a
    loop is capable of supporting xDSL advanced technologies; (ii)
    competing carriers successfully have built and are using
    application-to-application interfaces to perform pre-ordering
    functions and are able to integrate pre-ordering and ordering
    interfaces; [^97] and (iii) its pre-ordering systems provide
    reasonably prompt response times and are consistently available in a
    manner that affords competitors a meaningful opportunity to
    compete.[^98]

33. The pre-ordering phase of OSS generally includes those activities
    that a carrier undertakes to gather and verify the information
    necessary to place an order.[^99] Given that pre-ordering represents
    the first exposure that a prospective customer has to a competing
    carrier, it is critical that a competing carrier is able to
    accomplish pre-ordering activities in a manner no less efficient and
    responsive than the incumbent.[^100] Most of the pre-ordering
    activities that must be undertaken by a competing carrier to order
    resale services and UNEs from the incumbent are analogous to the
    activities a BOC must accomplish to furnish service to its own
    customers. For these pre-ordering functions, a BOC must demonstrate
    that it provides requesting carriers access that enables them to
    perform pre-ordering functions in substantially the same time and
    manner as its retail operations.[^101] For those pre-ordering
    functions that lack a retail analogue, a BOC must provide access
    that affords an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to
    compete.[^102] In prior orders, the Commission has emphasized that
    providing pre-ordering functionality through an
    application-to-application interface is essential in enabling
    carriers to conduct real-time processing and to integrate
    pre-ordering and ordering functions in the same manner as the
    BOC.[^103]

##### Access to Loop Qualification Information

34. In accordance with the *UNE Remand Order*,[^104] the Commission
    requires incumbent carriers to provide competitors with access to
    all of the same detailed information about the loop that is
    available to the incumbents,[^105] and in the same time frame, so
    that a competing carrier can make an independent judgment at the
    pre-ordering stage about whether an end user loop is capable of
    supporting the advanced services equipment the competing carrier
    intends to install.[^106] Under the *UNE Remand Order*, the relevant
    inquiry is not whether a BOC's retail arm accesses such underlying
    information but whether such information exists anywhere in a BOC's
    back office and can be accessed by any of a BOC's personnel. [^107]
    Moreover, a BOC may not "filter or digest" the underlying
    information and may not provide only information that is useful in
    provisioning of a particular type of xDSL that a BOC offers.[^108] A
    BOC must also provide loop qualification information based, for
    example, on an individual address or zip code of the end users in a
    particular wire center, NXX code or on any other basis that the BOC
    provides such information to itself. Moreover, a BOC must also
    provide access for competing carriers to the loop qualifying
    information that the BOC can itself access manually or
    electronically. Finally, a BOC must provide access to loop
    qualification information to competitors within the same time
    intervals it is provided to the BOC's retail operations or its
    advanced services affiliate.[^109] As the Commission determined in
    the *UNE Remand Order*, however, "to the extent such information is
    not normally provided to the incumbent's retail personnel, but can
    be obtained by contacting back office personnel, it must be provided
    to requesting carriers within the same time frame that any incumbent
    personnel are able to obtain such information."[^110]

#### Ordering

35. Consistent with Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii), a BOC must demonstrate its
    ability to provide competing carriers with access to the OSS
    functions necessary for placing wholesale orders. For those
    functions of the ordering systems for which there is a retail
    analogue, a BOC must demonstrate, with performance data and other
    evidence, that it provides competing carriers with access to its OSS
    systems in substantially the same time and manner as it provides to
    its retail operations. For those ordering functions that lack a
    direct retail analogue, a BOC must demonstrate that its systems and
    performance allow an efficient carrier a meaningful opportunity to
    compete. As in prior section 271 orders, the Commission looks
    primarily at the applicant's ability to return order confirmation
    notices, order reject notices, order completion notices and
    jeopardies, and at its order flow-through rate.[^111]

#### Provisioning

36. A BOC must provision competing carriers' orders for resale and UNE-P
    services in substantially the same time and manner as it provisions
    orders for its own retail customers. [^112] Consistent with the
    approach in prior section 271 orders, the Commission examines a
    BOC's provisioning processes, as well as its performance with
    respect to provisioning timeliness (*i.e.,* missed due dates and
    average installation intervals) and provisioning quality (*i.e.,*
    service problems experienced at the provisioning stage).[^113]

#### Maintenance and Repair

37. A competing carrier that provides service through resale or
    unbundled network elements remains dependent upon the incumbent LEC
    for maintenance and repair. Thus, as part of its obligation to
    provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions, a BOC must
    provide requesting carriers with nondiscriminatory access to its
    maintenance and repair systems.[^114] To the extent a BOC performs
    analogous maintenance and repair functions for its retail
    operations, it must provide competing carriers access that enables
    them to perform maintenance and repair functions "in substantially
    the same time and manner" as a BOC provides its retail
    customers.[^115] Equivalent access ensures that competing carriers
    can assist customers experiencing service disruptions using the same
    network information and diagnostic tools that are available to BOC
    personnel.[^116] Without equivalent access, a competing carrier
    would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage, as its
    customer would perceive a problem with a BOC's network as a problem
    with the competing carrier's own network.[^117]

#### Billing

38. A BOC must provide nondiscriminatory access to its billing
    functions, which is necessary to enable competing carriers to
    provide accurate and timely bills to their customers.[^118] In
    making this determination, the Commission assesses a BOC's billing
    processes and systems, and its performance data. Consistent with
    prior section 271 orders, a BOC must demonstrate that it provides
    competing carriers with complete and accurate reports on the service
    usage of competing carriers' customers in substantially the same
    time and manner that a BOC provides such information to itself, and
    with wholesale bills in a manner that gives competing carriers a
    meaningful opportunity to compete.[^119]

#### Change Management Process

39. Competing carriers need information about, and specifications for,
    an incumbent's systems and interfaces to develop and modify their
    systems and procedures to access the incumbent's OSS
    functions.[^120] Thus, in order to demonstrate that it is providing
    nondiscriminatory access to its OSS, a BOC must first demonstrate
    that it "has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide
    sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and . . .
    is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how to
    implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them."[^121]
    By showing that it adequately assists competing carriers to use
    available OSS functions, a BOC provides evidence that it offers an
    efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.[^122] As
    part of this demonstration, the Commission will give substantial
    consideration to the existence of an adequate change management
    process and evidence that the BOC has adhered to this process over
    time.[^123]

40. The change management process refers to the methods and procedures
    that the BOC employs to communicate with competing carriers
    regarding the performance of, and changes in, the BOC's OSS
    system.[^124] Such changes may include updates to existing functions
    that impact competing carrier interface(s) upon a BOC's release of
    new interface software; technology changes that require competing
    carriers to meet new technical requirements upon a BOC's software
    release date; additional functionality changes that may be used at
    the competing carrier's option, on or after a BOC's release date for
    new interface software; and changes that may be mandated by
    regulatory authorities.[^125] Without a change management process in
    place, a BOC can impose substantial costs on competing carriers
    simply by making changes to its systems and interfaces without
    providing adequate testing opportunities and accurate and timely
    notice and documentation of the changes.[^126] Change management
    problems can impair a competing carrier's ability to obtain
    nondiscriminatory access to UNEs, and hence a BOC's compliance with
    section 271(2)(B)(ii).[^127]

41. In evaluating whether a BOC's change management plan affords an
    efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete, the
    Commission first assesses whether the plan is adequate. In making
    this determination, it assesses whether the evidence
    demonstrates: (1) that information relating to the change management
    process is clearly organized and readily accessible to competing
    carriers;[^128] (2) that competing carriers had substantial input in
    the design and continued operation of the change management
    process;[^129] (3) that the change management plan defines a
    procedure for the timely resolution of change management
    disputes;[^130] (4) the availability of a stable testing environment
    that mirrors production;[^131] and (5) the efficacy of the
    documentation the BOC makes available for the purpose of building an
    electronic gateway.[^132] After determining whether the BOC's change
    management plan is adequate, the Commission evaluates whether the
    BOC has demonstrated a pattern of compliance with this plan.[^133]

### UNE Combinations*.*

42. In order to comply with the requirements of checklist item 2, a BOC
    must show that it is offering "\[n\]ondiscriminatory access to
    network elements in accordance with the requirements of section
    251(c)(3) . . . ."[^134] Section 251(c)(3) requires an incumbent LEC
    to "provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier . . .
    nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis
    at any technically feasible point on rates, terms and conditions
    that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory . . . ."[^135]
    Section 251(c)(3) of the Act also requires incumbent LECs to provide
    unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting
    carriers to combine such elements in order to provide a
    telecommunications service.[^136]

43. In the *Ameritech Michigan Order*, the Commission emphasized that
    the ability of requesting carriers to use unbundled network
    elements, as well as combinations of unbundled network elements, is
    integral to achieving Congress' objective of promoting competition
    in local telecommunications markets.[^137] Using combinations of
    unbundled network elements provides a competitor with the incentive
    and ability to package and market services in ways that differ from
    the BOCs' existing service offerings in order to compete in the
    local telecommunications market.[^138] Moreover, combining the
    incumbent's unbundled network elements with their own facilities
    encourages facilities-based competition and allows competing
    providers to provide a wide array of competitive choices.[^139]
    Because the use of combinations of unbundled network elements is an
    important strategy for entry into the local telecommunications
    market, as well as an obligation under the requirements of section
    271, the Commission examines section 271 applications to determine
    whether competitive carriers are able to combine network elements as
    required by the Act and the Commission's regulations.[^140]

### Pricing of Network Elements

44. Checklist item 2 of section 271 states that a BOC must provide
    "nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with
    sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)" of the Act.[^141] Section
    251(c)(3) requires local incumbent LECs to provide
    "nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis
    at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions
    that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory."[^142] Section
    252(d)(1) requires that a state commission's determination of the
    just and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the
    cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory,
    and may include a reasonable profit.[^143] Pursuant to this
    statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for
    unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element
    long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those
    elements.[^144] The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b),
    which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined
    elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on
    request.[^145] The Commission has previously held that it will not
    conduct a *de novo* review of a state's pricing determinations and
    will reject an application only if "basic TELRIC principles are
    violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual
    findings on matters so substantial that the end result falls outside
    the range that the reasonable application of TELRIC principles would
    produce."[^146]

45. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the
    Commission's pricing rules in 1996,[^147] the Supreme Court restored
    the Commission's pricing authority on January 25, 1999, and remanded
    to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of the merits of the
    challenged rules.[^148] On remand from the Supreme Court, the Eighth
    Circuit concluded that while TELRIC is an acceptable method for
    determining costs, certain specific requirements contained within
    the Commission's pricing rules were contrary to Congressional
    intent.[^149] The Eighth Circuit has stayed the issuance of its
    mandate pending review by the Supreme Court.[^150] Accordingly, the
    Commission's pricing rules remain in effect.

## Checklist Item 3 -- Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights of Way.

46. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iii) requires BOCs to provide
    "\[n\]ondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and
    rights-of-way owned or controlled by the \[BOC\] at just and
    reasonable rates in accordance with the requirements of section
    224."[^151] Section 224(f)(1) states that "\[a\] utility shall
    provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier
    with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or
    right-of-way owned or controlled by it."[^152] Notwithstanding this
    requirement, section 224(f)(2) permits a utility providing electric
    service to deny access to its poles, ducts, conduits, and
    rights-of-way, on a nondiscriminatory basis, "where there is
    insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and
    generally applicable engineering purposes."[^153] Section 224 also
    contains two separate provisions governing the maximum rates that a
    utility may charge for "pole attachments."[^154] Section 224(b)(1)
    states that the Commission shall regulate the rates, terms, and
    conditions governing pole attachments to ensure that they are "just
    and reasonable."[^155] Notwithstanding this general grant of
    authority, section 224(c)(1) states that "\[n\]othing in \[section
    224\] shall be construed to apply to, or to give the Commission
    jurisdiction with respect to the rates, terms, and conditions, or
    access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way as provided in
    \[section 224(f)\], for pole attachments in any case where such
    matters are regulated by a State."[^156] As of 1992, nineteen
    states, including Connecticut, had certified to the Commission that
    they regulated the rates, terms, and conditions for pole
    attachments.[^157]

## Checklist Item 4 -- Unbundled Local Loops.

47. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, item 4 of the competitive
    checklist, requires that a BOC provide "\[l\]ocal loop transmission
    from the central office to the customer's premises, unbundled from
    local switching or other services."[^158] The Commission has defined
    the loop as a transmission facility between a distribution frame, or
    its equivalent, in an incumbent LEC central office, and the
    demarcation point at the customer premises. This definition includes
    different types of loops, including two-wire and four-wire analog
    voice-grade loops, and two-wire and four-wire loops that are
    conditioned to transmit the digital signals needed to provide
    service such as ISDN, ADSL, HDSL, and DS1-level signals.[^159]

48. In order to establish that it is "providing" unbundled local loops
    in compliance with checklist item 4, a BOC must demonstrate that it
    has a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish loops and
    that it is currently doing so in the quantities that competitors
    demand and at an acceptable level of quality. A BOC must also
    demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to unbundled
    loops.[^160] Specifically, the BOC must provide access to any
    functionality of the loop requested by a competing carrier unless it
    is not technically feasible to condition the loop facility to
    support the particular functionality requested. In order to provide
    the requested loop functionality, such as the ability to deliver
    xDSL services, the BOC may be required to take affirmative steps to
    condition existing loop facilities to enable competing carriers to
    provide services not currently provided over the facilities. The BOC
    must provide competitors with access to unbundled loops regardless
    of whether the BOC uses digital loop carrier (DLC) technology or
    similar remote concentration devices for the particular loops sought
    by the competitor.

49. On December 9, 1999, the Commission released the *Line Sharing
    Order*, which introduced new rules requiring BOCs to offer
    requesting carriers unbundled access to the high-frequency portion
    of local loops (HFPL).[^161] HFPL is defined as "the frequency above
    the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry
    traditional POTS analog circuit-swtiched voiceband transmissions."
    This definition applies whether a BOC's voice customers are served
    by cooper or by digital loop carrier equipment. Competing carriers
    should have access to the HFPL at either a central office or at a
    remote terminal, however, the HFPL network element is *only*
    available on a copper loop facility.[^162]

50. To determine whether a BOC makes line sharing available consistent
    with Commission rules set out in the *Line Sharing Order*, the
    Commission examines categories of performance measurements
    identified in the Bell Atlantic New York and SWBT Texas Orders.
    Specifically, a successful BOC applicant could provide evidence of
    BOC-caused missed installation due dates, average installation
    intervals, trouble reports within 30 days of installation, mean time
    to repair, trouble report rates, and repeat trouble report rates. In
    addition, a successful BOC applicant should provide evidence that
    its central offices are operationally ready to handle commercial
    volumes of line sharing and that it provides competing carriers with
    nondiscriminatory access to the pre-ordering and ordering OSS
    functions associated with the provision of line shared loops,
    including access to loop qualification information and databases.

51. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) also requires that a BOC must demonstrate
    that it makes line splitting available to competing carriers so that
    competing carriers may provide voice and data service over a single
    loop"[^163] In addition, a BOC must demonstrate that a competing
    carrier, either alone or in conjunction with another carrier, is
    able to replace an existing UNE-P configuration used to provide
    voice service with an arrangement that enables it to provide voice
    and data service to a customer. To make such a showing, a BOC must
    show that it has a legal obligation to provide line splitting
    through rates, terms, and conditions in interconnection agreements
    and that it offers competing carriers the ability to order an
    unbundled xDSL-capable loop terminated to a collocated splitter and
    DSLAM equipment, and combine it with unbundled switching and shared
    transport.[^164]

## Checklist Item 5 -- Unbundled Local Transport.

52. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC
    to provide "\[l\]ocal transport from the trunk side of a wireline
    local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other
    services."[^165] The Commission has required that BOCs provide both
    dedicated and shared transport to requesting carriers.[^166]
    Dedicated transport consists of BOC transmission facilities
    dedicated to a particular customer or carrier that provide
    telecommunications between wire centers owned by BOCs or requesting
    telecommunications carriers, or between switches owned by BOCs or
    requesting telecommunications carriers.[^167] Shared transport
    consists of transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier,
    including the BOC, between end office switches, between end office
    switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches, in the
    BOC's network.[^168]

## Checklist Item 6 -- Unbundled Local Switching.

53. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vi) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide
    "\[l\]ocal switching unbundled from transport, local loop
    transmission, or other services."[^169] In the *Second BellSouth
    Louisiana Order,* the Commission required BellSouth to provide
    unbundled local switching that included line-side and trunk-side
    facilities, plus the features, functions, and capabilities of the
    switch.[^170] The features, functions, and capabilities of the
    switch include the basic switching function as well as the same
    basic capabilities that are available to the incumbent LEC's
    customers.[^171] Additionally, local switching includes all vertical
    features that the switch is capable of providing, as well as any
    technically feasible customized routing functions.[^172]

54. Moreover, in the *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order,* the Commission
    required BellSouth to permit competing carriers to purchase
    unbundled network elements, including unbundled switching, in a
    manner that permits a competing carrier to offer, and bill for,
    exchange access and the termination of local traffic.[^173] The
    Commission also stated that measuring daily customer usage for
    billing purposes requires essentially the same OSS functions for
    both competing carriers and incumbent LECs, and that a BOC must
    demonstrate that it is providing equivalent access to billing
    information.[^174] Therefore, the ability of a BOC to provide
    billing information necessary for a competitive LEC to bill for
    exchange access and termination of local traffic is an aspect of
    unbundled local switching.[^175] Thus, there is an overlap between
    the provision of unbundled local switching and the provision of the
    OSS billing function.[^176]

55. To comply with the requirements of unbundled local switching, a BOC
    must also make available trunk ports on a shared basis and routing
    tables resident in the BOC's switch, as necessary to provide access
    to shared transport functionality.[^177] In addition, a BOC may not
    limit the ability of competitors to use unbundled local switching to
    provide exchange access by requiring competing carriers to purchase
    a dedicated trunk from an interexchange carrier's point of presence
    to a dedicated trunk port on the local switch.[^178]

## Checklist Item 7 -- 911/E911 Access and Directory Assistance/Operator Services.

56. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act requires a BOC to provide
    "\[n\]ondiscriminatory access to -- (I) 911 and E911
    services."[^179] In the *Ameritech Michigan Order,* the Commission
    found that "section 271 requires a BOC to provide competitors access
    to its 911 and E911 services in the same manner that a BOC obtains
    such access, *i.e.,* at parity."[^180] Specifically, the Commission
    found that a BOC "must maintain the 911 database entries for
    competing LECs with the same accuracy and reliability that it
    maintains the database entries for its own customers."[^181] For
    facilities-based carriers, the BOC must provide "unbundled access to
    \[its\] 911 database and 911 interconnection, including the
    provision of dedicated trunks from the requesting carrier's
    switching facilities to the 911 control office at parity with what
    \[the BOC\] provides to itself."[^182] Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(II)
    and section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(III) require a BOC to provide
    nondiscriminatory access to "directory assistance services to allow
    the other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers" and
    "operator call completion services," respectively.[^183] Section
    251(b)(3) of the Act imposes on each LEC "the duty to permit all
    \[competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone
    toll service\] to have nondiscriminatory access to . . . operator
    services, directory assistance, and directory listing, with no
    unreasonable dialing delays."[^184] The Commission concluded in the
    *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order* that a BOC must be in compliance
    with the regulations implementing section 251(b)(3) to satisfy the
    requirements of sections 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(II) and
    271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(III).[^185] In the *Local Competition Second
    Report and Order*, the Commission held that the phrase
    "nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance and directory
    listings" means that "the customers of all telecommunications
    service providers should be able to access each LEC's directory
    assistance service and obtain a directory listing on a
    nondiscriminatory basis, notwithstanding: (1) the identity of a
    requesting customer's local telephone service provider; or (2) the
    identity of the telephone service provider for a customer whose
    directory listing is requested."[^186] The Commission concluded that
    nondiscriminatory access to the dialing patterns of 4-1-1 and
    5-5-5-1-2-1-2 to access directory assistance were technically
    feasible, and would continue.[^187] The Commission specifically held
    that the phrase "nondiscriminatory access to operator services"
    means that ". . . a telephone service customer, regardless of the
    identity of his or her local telephone service provider, must be
    able to connect to a local operator by dialing '0,' or '0 plus' the
    desired telephone number."[^188]

57. Competing carriers may provide operator services and directory
    assistance by either reselling the BOC's services or by using their
    own personnel and facilities to provide these services. The
    Commission's rules require BOCs to permit competitive LECs wishing
    to resell the BOC's operator services and directory assistance to
    request the BOC to brand their calls.[^189] Competing carriers
    wishing to provide operator services or directory assistance using
    their own facilities and personnel must be able to obtain directory
    listings either by obtaining directory information on a "read only"
    or "per dip" basis from the BOC's directory assistance database, or
    by creating their own directory assistance database by obtaining the
    subscriber listing information in the BOC's database.[^190] Although
    the Commission originally concluded that BOCs must provide directory
    assistance and operator services on an unbundled basis pursuant to
    sections 251 and 252, the Commission removed directory assistance
    and operator services from the list of required unbundled network
    elements in the *Local Competition Third Report and Order*.[^191]
    Checklist item obligations that do not fall within a BOC's
    obligations to provide unbundled network elements are not subject to
    the requirements of sections 251 and 252, including the requirement
    that rates be based on forward-looking economic costs.[^192]
    Checklist item obligations that do not fall within a BOC's UNE
    obligations, however, still must be provided in accordance with
    sections 201(b) and 202(a), which require that rates and conditions
    be just and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.[^193]

## Checklist Item 8 -- White Pages Directory Listings

58. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide
    "\[w\]hite pages directory listings for customers of the other
    carrier's telephone exchange service."[^194] Section 251(b)(3) of
    the 1996 Act obligates all LECs to permit competitive providers of
    telephone exchange service and telephone toll service to have
    nondiscriminatory access to directory listings.[^195]

59. In the *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order,* the Commission concluded
    that, "consistent with the Commission's interpretation of 'directory
    listing' as used in section 251(b)(3), the term 'white pages' in
    section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) refers to the local alphabetical
    directory that includes the residential and business listings of the
    customers of the local exchange provider."[^196] The Commission
    further concluded, "the term 'directory listing,' as used in this
    section, includes, at a minimum, the subscriber's name, address,
    telephone number, or any combination thereof."[^197] The
    Commission's *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order* also held that a BOC
    satisfies the requirements of checklist item 8 by demonstrating that
    it: (1) provided nondiscriminatory appearance and integration of
    white page directory listings to competitive LECs' customers;
    and (2) provided white page listings for competitors' customers with
    the same accuracy and reliability that it provides its own
    customers.[^198]

## Checklist Item 9 -- Numbering Administration.

60. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide
    "nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for assignment to the
    other carrier's telephone exchange service customers," until "the
    date by which telecommunications numbering administration,
    guidelines, plan, or rules are established."[^199] The checklist
    mandates compliance with "such guidelines, plan, or rules" after
    they have been established.[^200] A BOC must demonstrate that it
    adheres to industry numbering administration guidelines and
    Commission rules.[^201]

## Checklist Item 10 -- Databases and Associated Signaling.

61. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(x) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to provide
    "nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling
    necessary for call routing and completion."[^202] In the *Second
    BellSouth Louisiana Order,* the Commission required BellSouth to
    demonstrate that it provided requesting carriers with
    nondiscriminatory access to: "(1) signaling networks, including
    signaling links and signaling transfer points; (2) certain
    call-related databases necessary for call routing and completion, or
    in the alternative, a means of physical access to the signaling
    transfer point linked to the unbundled database; and (3) Service
    Management Systems (SMS)." [^203] The Commission also required
    BellSouth to design, create, test, and deploy Advanced Intelligent
    Network (AIN) based services at the SMS through a Service Creation
    Environment (SCE).[^204] In the *Local Competition First Report and
    Order*, the Commission defined call-related databases as databases,
    other than operations support systems, that are used in signaling
    networks for billing and collection or the transmission, routing, or
    other provision of telecommunications service.[^205] At that time
    the Commission required incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access
    to their call-related databases, including but not limited to: the
    Line Information Database (LIDB), the Toll Free Calling database,
    the Local Number Portability database, and Advanced Intelligent
    Network databases.[^206] In the *UNE Remand Order*, the Commission
    clarified that the definition of call-related databases "includes,
    but is not limited to, the calling name (CNAM) database, as well as
    the 911 and E911 databases."[^207]

## Checklist Item 11 -- Number Portability.

62. Section 271(c)(2)(B) of the 1996 Act requires a BOC to comply with
    the number portability regulations adopted by the Commission
    pursuant to section 251.[^208] Section 251(b)(2) requires all LECs
    "to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability
    in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission."[^209]
    The 1996 Act defines number portability as "the ability of users of
    telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
    existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
    reliability, or convenience when switching from one
    telecommunications carrier to another."[^210] In order to prevent
    the cost of number portability from thwarting local competition,
    Congress enacted section 251(e)(2), which requires that "\[t\]he
    cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration
    arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all
    telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
    determined by the Commission."[^211] Pursuant to these statutory
    provisions, the Commission requires LECs to offer interim number
    portability "to the extent technically feasible."[^212] The
    Commission also requires LECs to gradually replace interim number
    portability with permanent number portability.[^213] The Commission
    has established guidelines for states to follow in mandating a
    competitively neutral cost-recovery mechanism for interim number
    portability,[^214] and created a competitively neural cost-recovery
    mechanism for long-term number portability.[^215]

## Checklist Item 12 -- Local Dialing Parity.

63. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xii) requires a BOC to provide
    "\[n\]ondiscriminatory access to such services or information as are
    necessary to allow the requesting carrier to implement local dialing
    parity in accordance with the requirements of section
    251(b)(3)."[^216] Section 251(b)(3) imposes upon all LECs "\[t\]he
    duty to provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone
    exchange service and telephone toll service with no unreasonable
    dialing delays."[^217] Section 153(15) of the Act defines "dialing
    parity" as follows:

. . . a person that is not an affiliate of a local exchange carrier is
able to provide telecommunications services in such a manner that
customers have the ability to route automatically, without the use of
any access code, their telecommunications to the telecommunications
services provider of the customer's designation . . .[^218]

64. The rules implementing section 251(b)(3) provide that customers of
    competing carriers must be able to dial the same number of digits
    the BOC's customers dial to complete a local telephone call.[^219]
    Moreover, customers of competing carriers must not otherwise suffer
    inferior quality service, such as unreasonable dialing delays,
    compared to the BOC's customers.[^220]

## Checklist Item 13 -- Reciprocal Compensation.

65. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) of the Act requires that a BOC enter into
    "\[r\]eciprocal compensation arrangements in accordance with the
    requirements of section 252(d)(2)."[^221] In turn, pursuant to
    section 252(d)(2)(A), "a state commission shall not consider the
    terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation to be just and
    reasonable unless (i) such terms and conditions provide for the
    mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated
    with the transport and termination on each carrier's network
    facilities of calls that originate on the network facilities of the
    other carrier; and (ii) such terms and conditions determine such
    costs on the basis of a reasonable approximation of the additional
    costs of terminating such calls."[^222]

## Checklist Item 14 -- Resale

66. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the Act requires a BOC to make
    "telecommunications services . . . available for resale in
    accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and
    252(d)(3)."[^223] Section 251(c)(4)(A) requires incumbent LECs "to
    offer for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications service
    that the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not
    telecommunications carriers."[^224] Section 252(d)(3) requires state
    commissions to "determine wholesale rates on the basis of retail
    rates charged to subscribers for the telecommunications service
    requested, excluding the portion thereof attributable to any
    marketing, billing, collection, and other costs that will be avoided
    by the local exchange carrier."[^225] Section 251(c)(4)(B) prohibits
    "unreasonable or discriminatory conditions or limitations" on
    service resold under section 251(c)(4)(A).[^226] Consequently, the
    Commission concluded in the *Local Competition First Report and
    Order* that resale restrictions are presumed to be unreasonable
    unless the LEC proves to the state commission that the restriction
    is reasonable and non-discriminatory.[^227] If an incumbent LEC
    makes a service available only to a specific category of retail
    subscribers, however, a state commission may prohibit a carrier that
    obtains the service pursuant to section 251(c)(4)(A) from offering
    the service to a different category of subscribers.[^228] If a state
    creates such a limitation, it must do so consistent with
    requirements established by the Federal Communications
    Commission.[^229] In accordance with sections 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and
    271(c)(2)(B)(xiv), a BOC must also demonstrate that it provides
    nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems for the
    resale of its retail telecommunications services.[^230]

# Compliance with separate affiliate requirements -- section 272

67. Section 271(d)(3)(B) requires that the Commission shall not approve
    a BOC's application to provide interLATA services unless the BOC
    demonstrates that the "requested authorization will be carried out
    in accordance with the requirements of section 272."[^231] The
    Commission set standards for compliance with section 272 in the
    *Accounting Safeguards Order* and the *Non-Accounting Safeguards
    Order*.[^232] Together, these safeguards discourage and facilitate
    the detection of improper cost allocation and cross-subsidization
    between the BOC and its section 272 affiliate.[^233] In addition,
    these safeguards ensure that BOCs do not discriminate in favor of
    their section 272 affiliates.[^234]

68. As the Commission stated in the *Ameritech Michigan Order*,
    compliance with section 272 is "of crucial importance" because the
    structural, transactional, and nondiscrimination safeguards of
    section 272 seek to ensure that BOCs compete on a level playing
    field.[^235] The Commission's findings regarding section 272
    compliance constitute independent grounds for denying an
    application.[^236] Past and present behavior of the BOC applicant
    provides "the best indicator of whether \[the applicant\] will carry
    out the requested authorization in compliance with section
    272."[^237]

# compliance with the Public Interest -- section 271(d)(3)(C).

69. In addition to determining whether a BOC satisfies the competitive
    checklist and will comply with section 272, Congress directed the
    Commission to assess whether the requested authorization would be
    consistent with the public interest, convenience, and
    necessity.[^238] Compliance with the competitive checklist is itself
    a strong indicator that long distance entry is consistent with the
    public interest. This approach reflects the Commission's many years
    of experience with the consumer benefits that flow from competition
    in telecommunications markets.

70. Nonetheless, the public interest analysis is an independent element
    of the statutory checklist and, under normal canons of statutory
    construction, requires an independent determination.[^239] Thus, the
    Commission views the public interest requirement as an opportunity
    to review the circumstances presented by the application to ensure
    that no other relevant factors exist that would frustrate the
    congressional intent that markets be open, as required by the
    competitive checklist, and that entry will therefore serve the
    public interest as Congress expected. Among other things, the
    Commission may review the local and long distance markets to ensure
    that there are not unusual circumstances that would make entry
    contrary to the public interest under the particular circumstances
    of the application at issue.[^240] Another factor that could be
    relevant to the analysis is whether the Commission has sufficient
    assurance that markets will remain open after grant of the
    application. While no one factor is dispositive in this analysis,
    the overriding goal is to ensure that nothing undermines the
    conclusion, based on the Commission's analysis of checklist
    compliance, that markets are open to competition.

[^1]: For purposes of 271 proceedings, the Commission uses the
    definition of the term "Bell Operating Company" contained in 47
    U.S.C. § 153(4).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(1). For purposes of 271 proceedings, the
    Commission utilizes the definition of the term "in-region state"
    that is contained in 47 U.S.C. § 271(i)(1). Section 271(j) provides
    that a BOC's in-region services include 800 service, private line
    service, or their equivalents that terminate in an in-region state
    of that BOC and that allow the called party to determine the
    interLATA carrier, even if such services originate out-of-region.
    *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." *Id.* §
    153(21). Under the 1996 Act, a "local access and transport area"
    (LATA) is "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." *Id.* § 153(25). LATAs
    were created as part of the Modification of Final Judgment's (MFJ)
    "plan of reorganization." *United States v. Western Elec. Co.*, 569
    F. Supp. 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 upon a city or other identifiable
    community of interest." *United States v. Western Elec. Co.*, 569 F.
    Supp. 990, 993-94 (D.D.C. 1983).

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3).

[^4]: *Id*. § 271(d)(2)(A).

[^5]: *Id*. § 271(d)(2)(B).

[^6]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3962, para. 20;
    *Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,* CC Docket No. 97-137, 12
    FCC Rcd 20543, 20559-60 (1997) (*Ameritech Michigan Order*). As the
    D.C. Circuit has held, "\[A\]lthough the Commission must consult
    with the state commissions, the statute does not require the
    Commission to give State Commissions' views any particular weight."
    *SBC Communications v. FCC*, 138 F.3d at 416.

[^7]: *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20560; *SBC
    Communications v. FCC*, 138 F.3d at 416-17.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(A). *See* Section III, *infra*, for a
    complete discussion of Track A and Track B requirements.

[^9]: *Id.* §§ 271(c)(2)(B), 271(d)(3)(A)(i).

[^10]: *Id.* § 272. *See* *Implementation of the Non-Accounting
    Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended*, CC Docket No. 96-149, First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996)
    (*Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*), *recon.,* Order on
    Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997), *review pending sub nom.*,
    *SBC Communications v. FCC*, No. 97-1118 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 6,
    1997) (held in abeyance pursuant to court order filed May 7, 1997),
    *remanded in part sub nom., Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v.
    FCC*, No. 97-1067 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 31, 1997), *on remand*,
    Second Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97-222 (rel. June 24, 1997),
    *petition for review pending sub nom. Bell Atlantic Telephone
    Companies v. FCC,* No. 97-1423 (D.C. Cir. filed July 11, 1997);
    *Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Accounting
    Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Report and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996)*.*

[^11]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(C).

[^12]: *Id*. § 271(d)(3); *see SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 138
    F.3d 410, 413, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

[^13]: *See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6246, para. 19;
    *see also American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC*, 220 F.3d 607, 631 (D.C.
    Cir. 2000).

[^14]: *See* *Procedures for Bell Operating Company Applications Under
    New Section 271 of the Communications Act*, Public Notice, 11 FCC
    Rcd 19708, 19711 (Dec. 6, 1996); *Revised Comment Schedule For
    Ameritech Michigan Application, as amended,* *for Authorization
    Under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-Region,
    InterLATA Services in the State of Michigan*, Public Notice DA
    97-127 (Jan. 17, 1997); *Revised Procedures for Bell Operating
    Company Applications Under Section 271 of the Communications Act*,
    Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 17457 (Sept. 19, 1997); *Updated Filing
    Requirements for Bell Operating Company Applications Under Section
    271 of the Communications Act*, Public Notice, DA-99-1994 (Sept. 28,
    1999); *Updated Filing Requirements for Bell Operating Company
    Applications Under Section 271 of the Communications Act*, Public
    Notice, DA 01-734 (CCB rel. Mar. 23, 2001) (collectively "271
    Procedural Public Notices").

[^15]: *See, e.g.*, *SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order* 16 FCC Rcd at 6247-50,
    paras. 21-27; *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18370-73, paras.
    34-42; *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3968-71, paras.
    32-42.

[^16]: *See* *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18374, para. 46; *Bell
    Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3972, para. 46.

[^17]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, para.
    52.

[^18]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

[^19]: *See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6250-51, paras.
    28-29; *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3971-72, paras.
    44-46.

[^20]: *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18373, para. 44; *Bell Atlantic
    New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3971, para. 44.

[^21]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3971, para. 44;
    *Ameritech Michigan Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 20618-19.

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18374, para. 46; *Bell Atlantic
    New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3972, para. 46.

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: *See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6252, para. 31;
    *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18377, para. 55 & n.102.

[^26]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3970, para. 59.

[^27]: The Commission has never required, however, an applicant to
    demonstrate that it processes and provisions a substantial
    commercial volume of orders, or has achieved a specific market share
    in its service area, as a prerequisite for satisfying the
    competitive checklist. *See Ameritech Michigan Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    20585, para. 77 (explaining that Congress had considered and
    rejected language that would have imposed a "market share"
    requirement in section 271(c)(1)(A)).

[^28]: *See* *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18376, para. 53; *Bell
    Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3974, para. 53.

[^29]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(A).

[^30]: *Id*.

[^31]: *Id*.

[^32]: *See Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20589, para. 85;
    *see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20633-35,
    paras. 46-48.

[^33]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(A)(ii).

[^34]: *See Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20561-2, para. 34.
    Nevertheless, the above-mentioned foreclosure of Track B as an
    option is subject to limited exceptions. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(1)(B); *see also* *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    20563-64, paras. 37-38.

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i); *see Bell Atlantic New York Order,*
    15 FCC Rcd at 3977-78, para. 63; *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd at 20640, para. 61; *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 20662, para. 222.

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(A).

[^37]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15590,
    para. 176. Transport and termination of traffic are therefore
    excluded from the Commission's definition of interconnection. *See
    id.*

[^38]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(B). In the *Local Competition First Report
    and Order*, the Commission identified a minimum set of technically
    feasible points of interconnection. *See Local Competition First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15607-09, paras. 204-211.

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(C).

[^40]: *Id*. § 251(c)(2)(D).

[^41]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15613-15, paras. 221-225; *see* *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 64; *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 20641-42, paras. 63-64.

[^42]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15614-15, paras. 224-25.

[^43]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 3978*,* para.
    64*; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20648-50,
    paras. 74-77; *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20671-74,
    paras. 240-45. The Commission has relied on trunk blockage data to
    evaluate a BOC's interconnection performance. Trunk group blockage
    indicates that end users are experiencing difficulty completing or
    receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's
    perception of a competitive LEC's service quality.

[^44]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612,
    para. 218; *see also Bell Atlantic New York* Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
    3978*,* para. 65*; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    20642, para. 65.

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5).

[^46]: The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide
    two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking
    arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); *see
    also Bell Atlantic New York* Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para.
    65*; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para.
    65; *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13,
    paras. 219-220.

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5).

[^48]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779,
    paras. 549-50*; see Bell Atlantic New York Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    3979, para. 66*; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    20640-41, para. 61.

[^49]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); *Local Competition First Report and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; *see also Bell
    Atlantic New York Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 3979*,* para. 66*; Second
    BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62.

[^50]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide
    physical collocation); *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    3979, para. 66; *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    20640-41, paras. 61-62.

[^51]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4784-86, paras. 41-43.

[^52]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66;
    *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66;
    *BellSouth Carolina Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62.

[^53]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*.; *Second BellSouth
    Louisiana Order*, *id*. at 20640-41, paras. 61-62.

[^54]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added).

[^55]: *Id*. § 252(d)(1).

[^56]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); *Local Competition First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76,
    15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826.

[^57]: *See SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; *see also*
    47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); *American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils.
    Bd.,* 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (*AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd*.).

[^58]: *SWBT Texas Order*, *id*.; *AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd*., 525
    U.S. at \_\_\_ .

[^59]: *SWBT* *Texas Order*, *id*.; *see also Bell Atlantic New York
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4091, para. 258 (explaining the Commission's
    case-by-case review of interim prices).

[^60]: *SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6359-60, para 239.

[^61]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4091, para.
    260.

[^62]: *Id*. at 3989-90, para. 83; *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 585.

[^63]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order, id*. at 3990, para. 83;
    *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, *id*. at 547-48, 585; *Second
    BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20653.

[^64]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order, id*. at 3990, para. 83.

[^65]: *Id.*

[^66]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).

[^67]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 3990, para. 84.

[^68]: *Id.*

[^69]: *Id.* As part of a BOC's demonstration that it is "providing" a
    checklist item (*e.g.*, unbundled loops, unbundled local switching,
    resale services), it must demonstrate that it is providing
    nondiscriminatory access to the systems, information, and personnel
    that support that element or service. An examination of a BOC's OSS
    performance is therefore integral to the determination of whether a
    BOC is offering all of the items contained in the competitive
    checklist. *Id*.

[^70]: *Id.* at 3990-91, para. 84.

[^71]: *Id.* at 3991, para. 85.

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *Id.* For example, the Commission would not deem an incumbent LEC
    to be providing nondiscriminatory access to OSS if limitations on
    the processing of information between the interface and the back
    office systems prevented a competitor from performing a specific
    function in substantially the same time and manner as the incumbent
    performs that function for itself.

[^74]: *See id.*

[^75]: *Id.* at 3991, para. 86.

[^76]: *Id.*

[^77]: *Id.* As a general proposition, specific performance standards
    adopted by a state commission in an arbitration decision would be
    more persuasive evidence of commercial reasonableness than a
    standard unilaterally adopted by the BOC outside of its
    interconnection agreement. *Id*. at 20619-20.

[^78]: *See id.* at 3991-92, para. 86.

[^79]: *Id.* at 3992, para. 87; *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 20616; s*ee also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    20654; *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 592-93. In
    making this determination, the Commission "consider\[s\] all of the
    automated and manual processes a BOC has undertaken to provide
    access to OSS functions," including the interface (or gateway) that
    connects the competing carrier's own operations support systems to
    the BOC; any electronic or manual processing link between that
    interface and the BOC's OSS (including all necessary back office
    systems and personnel); and all of the OSS that a BOC uses in
    providing network elements and resale services to a competing
    carrier. *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20615; s*ee also
    Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20654 n.241.

[^80]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3992, para. 88.

[^81]: *Id*. at 3992, para. 87; *see also Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 20616, para. 136 (the Commission determines "whether the
    BOC has deployed the necessary systems and personnel to provide
    sufficient access to each of the necessary OSS functions and whether
    the BOC is adequately assisting competing carriers to understand how
    to implement and use all of the OSS functions available to them.").
    For example, a BOC must provide competing carriers the
    specifications necessary to design their systems interfaces and
    business rules necessary to format orders, and demonstrate that
    systems are scalable to handle current and projected demand. *Id.*

[^82]: *Id.*

[^83]: Business rules refer to the protocols that a BOC uses to ensure
    uniformity in the format of orders and include information
    concerning ordering codes such as universal service ordering codes
    (USOCs) and field identifiers (FIDs). *Id.; see also Ameritech
    Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20617 n. 335.

[^84]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 3992, para. 88.

[^85]: *Id.*

[^86]: *See id.*

[^87]: *Id.* at 3993, para. 89.

[^88]: *Id.*

[^89]: *Id.*

[^90]: *See id.; Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20659
    (emphasizing that a third-party review should encompass the entire
    obligation of the incumbent LEC to provide nondiscriminatory access,
    and, where applicable, should consider the ability of actual
    competing carriers in the market to operate using the incumbent's
    OSS access).

[^91]: *See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6301-02, para
    138.

[^92]: *See id*. at 6286-91, paras. 107-118

[^93]: *See id*. at 6288, para. 111.

[^94]: The Commission has consistently held that a BOC's OSS includes
    both mechanized systems and manual processes, and thus the OSS
    functions performed by BOC personnel have been part of the FCC's OSS
    functionality and commercial readiness reviews.

[^95]: *See* *SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, *id*. at 6287, para. 108.

[^96]: *See id*. at 6288, para. 111.

[^97]: In prior orders, the Commission has emphasized that providing
    pre-ordering functionality through an application-to-application
    interface is essential in enabling carriers to conduct real-time
    processing and to integrate pre-ordering and ordering functions in
    the same manner as the BOC. *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18426,
    para. 148.

[^98]: The Commission has held previously that an interface that
    provides responses in a prompt timeframe and is stable and reliable,
    is necessary for competing carriers to market their services and
    serve their customers as efficiently and at the same level of
    quality as a BOC serves its own customers. *See Bell Atlantic New
    York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4025 and 4029, paras. 145 and 154.

[^99]: *See Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4014, para.
    129; *see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd. at
    20660, para. 94 (referring to "pre-ordering and ordering"
    collectively as "the exchange of information between
    telecommunications carriers about current or proposed customer
    products and services or unbundled network elements or some
    combination thereof"). In prior orders, the Commission has
    identified the following five pre-order functions: (1) customer
    service record (CSR) information; (2) address validation; (3)
    telephone number information; (4) due date information; (5) services
    and feature information. *See Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 4015, para. 132; Second *BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd. at 20660, para. 94; *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd. at 619, para. 147.

[^100]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*. at 4014, para. 129.

[^101]: *Id.; see also* *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, 13 FCC Rcd. at
    623-29 (concluding that failure to deploy an
    application-to-application interface denies competing carriers
    equivalent access to pre-ordering OSS functions).

[^102]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*.

[^103]: *See* *id.* at 4014, para. 130; *Second BellSouth Louisiana
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20661-67, para. 105.

[^104]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3885, para. 426
    (determining "that the pre-ordering function includes access to loop
    qualification information.").

[^105]: *See id.* At a minimum, a BOC must provide (1) the composition
    of the loop material, including both fiber and copper; (2) the
    existence, location and type of any electronic or other equipment on
    the loop, including but not limited to, digital loop carrier or
    other remote concentration devices, feeder/distribution interfaces,
    bridge taps, load coils, pair-gain devices, disturbers in the same
    or adjacent binder groups; (3) the loop length, including the length
    and location of each type of transmission media; (4) the wire
    gauge(s) of the loop; and (5) the electrical parameters of the loop,
    which may determine the suitability of the loop for various
    technologies. *Id.*

[^106]: As the Commission has explained in prior proceedings, because
    characteristics of a loop, such as its length and the presence of
    various impediments to digital transmission, can hinder certain
    advanced services technologies, carriers often seek to "pre-qualify"
    a loop by accessing basic loop makeup information that will assist
    carriers in ascertaining whether the loop, either with or without
    the removal of the impediments, can support a particular advanced
    service. *See* *id.*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4021, para. 140.

[^107]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3885-3887, paras. 427-431
    (noting that "to the extent such information is not normally
    provided to the incumbent's retail personnel, but can be obtained by
    contacting back office personnel, it must be provided to requesting
    carriers within the same time frame that any incumbent personnel are
    able to obtain such information.").

[^108]: *See SWBT Kansas Oklahoma Order* at para. 121.

[^109]: *Id.*

[^110]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3885-3887, paras. 427-431.

[^111]: *See* *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18438, para. 170; *Bell
    Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4035-4039, paras. 163-166.
    The Commission examines (i) order flow-through rates, (ii) jeopardy
    notices and (iii) order completion notices using the "same time and
    manner" standard. The Commission examines order confirmation notices
    and order rejection notices using the "meaningful opportunity to
    compete" standard.

[^112]: *See* *Bell Atlantic New York*, *id*. at 4058, para. 196. For
    provisioning timeliness, the Commission looks to missed due dates
    and average installation intervals; for provisioning quality, the
    Commission looks to service problems experienced at the provisioning
    stage.

[^113]: *Id.*

[^114]: *Id*. at 4067, para. 212; *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 20692; *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20613,
    20660-61.

[^115]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*.; *see also Second
    BellSouth Louisiana Order*, *id*. at 20692-93.

[^116]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*.

[^117]: *Id*.

[^118]: *See* *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18461, para. 210.

[^119]: *See id.*; *SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6316-17,
    at para 163.

[^120]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3999-4000, para.
    102; *First BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd. at 6279 n. 197;
    *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, 13 FCC Rcd. at 625 n. 467;
    *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd. at 20617 n. 334; *Local
    Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd. at 19742.

[^121]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*. at 3999, para. 102.

[^122]: *Id.* at 3999-4000, para. 102

[^123]: *Id.* at 4000, para. 102.

[^124]: *Id.* at 4000, para. 103.

[^125]: *Id.*

[^126]: *Id.* at 4000, para. 103.

[^127]: *Id.*

[^128]: *Id.* at 4002, para. 107.

[^129]: *Id.* at 4000, para. 104.

[^130]: *Id.* at 4002, para. 108.

[^131]: *Id.* at 4002-03, paras. 109-10.

[^132]: *Id.* at 4003-04, para. 110. In the *Bell Atlantic New York
    Order*, the Commission used these factors in determining whether
    Bell Atlantic had an adequate change management process in place.
    *See id.* at 4004, para. 111. The Commission left open the
    possibility, however, that a change management plan different from
    the one implemented by Bell Atlantic may be sufficient to
    demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 271. *Id.*

[^133]: *Id.* at 3999, para. 101, 4004-05, para. 112.

[^134]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).

[^135]: *Id*. § 251(c)(3).

[^136]: *Id.*

[^137]: *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20718-19; *BellSouth
    South Carolina Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 646.

[^138]: *BellSouth South Carolina Order*, *id*. *See also Local
    Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15666-68.

[^139]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order* at para. 230.

[^140]: *Id.*

[^141]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii).

[^142]: *Id*. § 251(c)(3).

[^143]: 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1).

[^144]: *Local Competition First Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at
    15844-46, paras. 674-679; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 *et* *seq*. *See also
    Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications
    Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC
    Docket No. 96-98,* Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 *(Line Sharing Order)*
    (concluding that states should set the prices for line sharing as a
    new network element in the same manner as the state sets prices for
    other UNEs).

[^145]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b).

[^146]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4084, para. 244;
    *SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6266, para. 59.

[^147]: *Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC*, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (8^th^
    Cir. 1997).

[^148]: *AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd*., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). In
    reaching its decision, the Court acknowledged that section 201(b)
    "explicitly grants the FCC jurisdiction to make rules governing
    matters to which the 1996 Act applies." *Id.* at 380. Furthermore,
    the Court determined that section 251(d) also provides evidence of
    an express jurisdictional grant by requiring that "the Commission
    \[shall\] complete all actions necessary to establish regulations to
    implement the requirements of this section." *Id.* at 382. The Court
    also held that the pricing provisions implemented under the
    Commission's rulemaking authority do not inhibit the establishment
    of rates by the states. The Court concluded that the Commission has
    jurisdiction to design a pricing methodology to facilitate local
    competition under the 1996 Act, including pricing for
    interconnection and unbundled access, as "it is the States that will
    apply those standards and implement that methodology, determining
    the concrete result." *Id*.

[^149]: *Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC*, 219 F.3d 744 (8^th^ Cir. 2000),
    *petition for cert. filed sub nom. Verizon Communications v. FCC*,
    69 U.S.L.W. 3269 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2000) (No. 00-511).

[^150]: *Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC*, No. 96-3321 *et al.* (8^th^ Cir. Sept.
    25, 2000).

[^151]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iii). As originally enacted, section
    224 was intended to address obstacles that cable operators
    encountered in obtaining access to poles, ducts, conduits, or
    rights-of-way owned or controlled by utilities. The 1996 Act amended
    section 224 in several important respects to ensure that
    telecommunications carriers as well as cable operators have access
    to poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way owned or controlled by
    utility companies, including LECs. *Second BellSouth Louisiana
    Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 20706, n.574.

[^152]: 47 U.S.C. § 224(f)(1). Section 224(a)(1) defines "utility" to
    include any entity, including a LEC, that controls "poles, ducts,
    conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole or in part, for any wire
    communications." 47 U.S.C. § 224(a)(1).

[^153]: 47 U.S.C. § 224(f)(2). In the *Local Competition First Report
    and Order,* the Commission concluded that, although the statutory
    exception enunciated in section 224(f)(2) appears to be limited to
    utilities providing electrical service, LECs should also be
    permitted to deny access to their poles, ducts, conduits, and
    rights-of-way because of insufficient capacity and for reasons of
    safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes,
    provided the assessment of such factors is done in a
    nondiscriminatory manner. *Local Competition First Report and
    Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 16080-81, paras. 1175-77.

[^154]: Section 224(a)(4) defines "pole attachment" as "any attachment
    by a cable television system or provider of telecommunications
    service to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or
    controlled by a utility." 47 U.S.C. § 224(a)(4).

[^155]: 47 U.S.C. § 224(b)(1).

[^156]: *Id*. § 224(c)(1). The 1996 Act extended the Commission's
    authority to include not just rates, terms, and conditions, but also
    the authority to regulate nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts,
    conduits, and rights-of-way. *Local Competition First Report and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 16104, para. 1232; 47 U.S.C. § 224(f). Absent
    state regulation of terms and conditions of nondiscriminatory
    attachment access, the Commission retains jurisdiction. *Local
    Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 16104, para.
    1232; 47 U.S.C. § 224(c)(1); *see also Bell Atlantic New York
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4093, para. 264*.*

[^157]: *See States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole
    Attachments*, Public Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992); 47 U.S.C.
    § 224(f).

[^158]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv).

[^159]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15691,
    para. 380; *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772-73, paras.
    166-167, n.301 (retaining definition of the local loop from the
    *Local Competition First Report and Order*, but replacing the phrase
    "network interconnection device" with "demarcation point," and
    making explicit that dark fiber and loop conditioning are among the
    features, functions and capabilities of the loop).

[^160]: *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18481-81, para. 248; *Bell
    Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; *Second
    BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185.

[^161]: *See Line Sharing Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27.

[^162]: *Line Sharing Recon Order*, para. 10.

[^163]: *See generally* *SWBT Texas Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17,
    paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c)
    (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with
    access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers
    "to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by
    means of that network element.").

[^164]: *See* *Kansas/Oklahoma Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. *220.*

[^165]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v).

[^166]: *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para.
    201.

[^167]: *Id.* A BOC has the following obligations with respect to
    dedicated transport: (a) provide unbundled access to dedicated
    transmission facilities between BOC central offices or between such
    offices and serving wire centers (SWCs); between SWCs and
    interexchange carriers points of presence (POPs); between tandem
    switches and SWCs, end offices or tandems of the BOC, and the wire
    centers of BOCs and requesting carriers; (b) provide all technically
    feasible transmission capabilities such as DS1, DS3, and Optical
    Carrier levels that the competing carrier could use to provide
    telecommunications; (c) not limit the facilities to which dedicated
    interoffice transport facilities are connected, provided such
    interconnections are technically feasible, or restrict the use of
    unbundled transport facilities; and (d) to the extent technically
    feasible, provide requesting carriers with access to digital
    cross-connect system functionality in the same manner that the BOC
    offers such capabilities to interexchange carriers that purchase
    transport services. *Id.* at 20719*.*

[^168]: *Id.* at 20719, n. 650. The Commission also found that a BOC has
    the following obligations with respect to shared transport: (a)
    provide shared transport in a way that enables the traffic of
    requesting carriers to be carried on the same transport facilities
    that a BOC uses for its own traffic; (b) provide shared transport
    transmission facilities between end office switches, between its end
    office and tandem switches, and between tandem switches in its
    network; (c) permit requesting carriers that purchase unbundled
    shared transport and unbundled switching to use the same routing
    table that is resident in the BOC's switch; and (d) permit
    requesting carriers to use shared (or dedicated) transport as an
    unbundled element to carry originating access traffic from, and
    terminating traffic to, customers to whom the requesting carrier is
    also providing local exchange service. *Id.* at 20720, n. 652*.*

[^169]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vi); *see also Second BellSouth
    Louisiana Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 20722. A switch connects end user
    lines to other end user lines, and connects end user lines to trunks
    used for transporting a call to another central office or to a
    long-distance carrier. Switches can also provide end users with
    "vertical features" such as call waiting, call forwarding, and
    caller ID, and can direct a call to a specific trunk, such as to a
    competing carrier's operator services.

[^170]: *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20722, para.
    207.

[^171]: *Id*.

[^172]: *Id.* at 20722-23, para. 207.

[^173]: *Id.* at 20723, para. 208.

[^174]: *Id.* at 20723, para. 208 (citing the *Ameritech Michigan
    Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 20619, para. 140).

[^175]: *Id.*

[^176]: *Id.*

[^177]: *Id.* at 20723, para. 209 (citing the *Ameritech Michigan
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20705, para. 306).

[^178]: *Id.* (citing the *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    20714-15, paras. 324-25).

[^179]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vii). 911 and E911 services transmit
    calls from end users to emergency personnel. It is critical that a
    BOC provide competing carriers with accurate and nondiscriminatory
    access to 911/E911 services so that these carriers' customers are
    able to reach emergency assistance. Customers use directory
    assistance and operator services to obtain customer listing
    information and other call completion services.

[^180]: *Ameritech Michigan Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 20679, para. 256.

[^181]: *Id.*

[^182]: *Id.*

[^183]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(II), (III).

[^184]: *Id*. § 251(b)(3). The Commission implemented section 251(b)(3)
    in the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*. 47 C.F.R. §
    51.217; *In re Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Second Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996) (*Local
    Competition Second Report and Order*) *vacated in part, People of
    the State of California v. FCC,* 124 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 1997),
    *overruled in part, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd.,* 119 S.Ct. 721
    (1999)*; see also Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996: Provision of Directory Listings Information under the
    Telecommunications Act of 1934*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14
    FCC Rcd 15550 (1999) (*Directory Listings Information NPRM*).

[^185]: While both sections 251(b)(3) and 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(II) refer to
    nondiscriminatory access to "directory assistance," section
    251(b)(3) refers to nondiscriminatory access to "operator services,"
    while section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(III) refers to nondiscriminatory
    access to "operator call completion services." 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 251(b)(3), 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(III). The term "operator call
    completion services" is not defined in the Act, nor has the
    Commission previously defined the term. However, for section
    251(b)(3) purposes, the term "operator services" was defined as
    meaning "any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange
    for billing or completion, or both, of a telephone call." *Local
    Competition Second Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 19448, para.
    110. In the same order the Commission concluded that busy line
    verification, emergency interrupt, and operator-assisted directory
    assistance are forms of "operator services," because they assist
    customers in arranging for the billing or completion (or both) of a
    telephone call. *Id.* at 19449, para. 111. All of these services may
    be needed or used to place a call. For example, if a customer tries
    to direct dial a telephone number and constantly receives a busy
    signal, the customer may contact the operator to attempt to complete
    the call. Since billing is a necessary part of call completion, and
    busy line verification, emergency interrupt, and operator-assisted
    directory assistance can all be used when an operator completes a
    call, the Commission concluded in the *Second BellSouth Louisiana
    Order* that for checklist compliance purposes, "operator call
    completion services" is a subset of or equivalent to "operator
    service." *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 20740,
    n.763. As a result, the Commission uses the nondiscriminatory
    standards established for operator services to determine whether
    nondiscriminatory access is provided.

[^186]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.217(c)(3); *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 19456-58, paras. 130-35. The *Local
    Competition Second Report and Order's* interpretation of section
    251(b)(3) is limited "to access to each LEC's directory assistance
    service." *Id.* at 19456, para. 135. However, section
    271(c)(2)(B)(vii) is not limited to the LEC's systems but requires
    "nondiscriminatory access to . . . directory assistance to allow the
    other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers." 47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(2)(B)(vii). Combined with the Commission's conclusion that
    "incumbent LECs must unbundle the facilities and functionalities
    providing operator services and directory assistance from resold
    services and other unbundled network elements to the extent
    technically feasible," *Local Competition First Report and Order,*
    11 FCC Rcd at 15772-73, paras. 535-37, section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)'s
    requirement should be understood to require the BOCs to provide
    nondiscriminatory access to the directory assistance service
    provider selected by the customer's local service provider,
    regardless of whether the competitor; provides such services itself;
    selects the BOC to provide such services; or chooses a third party
    to provide such services. *See Directory Listings Information NPRM*.

[^187]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19464, para. 151.

[^188]: *Id*. at para. 112.

[^189]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.217(d); *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 19463, para. 148. For example, when customers
    call the operator or calls for directory assistance, they typically
    hear a message, such as "thank you for using XYZ Telephone Company."
    Competing carriers may use the BOC's brand, request the BOC to brand
    the call with the competitive carriers name or request that the BOC
    not brand the call at all. 47 C.F.R. § 51.217(d).

[^190]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.217(C)(3)(ii); *Local Competition Second Report
    and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 19460-61, paras. 141-44.

[^191]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3891-92, paras. 441-42.

[^192]: *Local Competition Third Report and Order* at para. 470. *See
    generally* 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-52; *see also* 47 U.S.C. §
    252(d)(1)(A)(i) (requiring UNE rates to be "based on the cost
    (determined without reference to a rate-of-return or other
    rate-based proceeding) of providing the ... network element").

[^193]: *Local Competition Third Report and Order* at paras. 470-73;
    *see also* 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 202(a).

[^194]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(viii).

[^195]: *Id*. § 251(b)(3).

[^196]: *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20748, para.
    255.

[^197]: *Id*. In the *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order,* the Commission
    stated that the definition of "directory listing" was synonymous
    with the definition of "subscriber list information." *Id.* at 20747
    (citing the *Local Competition Second Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd
    at 19458-59). However, the Commission's decision in a recent
    proceeding obviates this comparison, and supports the definition of
    directory listing delineated above. *See Implementation of the
    Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
    Information and Other Customer Information,* CC Docket No. 96-115,
    Third Report and Order; *Implementation of the Local Competition
    Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC Docket No.
    96-98, Second Order on Reconsideration; *Provision of Directory
    Listing Information under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, As
    Amended,* CC Docket No. 99-273, FCC 99-227, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, para. 160 (rel. Sept. 9, 1999).

[^198]: *Id.*

[^199]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ix).

[^200]: *Id.*

[^201]: *See Second Bell South Louisiana Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 20752*;
    see also* *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (2000);
    *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Second Report and Order, Order on
    Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 99-200 and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, CC Docket Nos. 96-98;
    99-200 (rel. Dec. 29, 2000).

[^202]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(x).

[^203]: *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 20753, para.
    267.

[^204]: *Id.* at 20755-56, para. 272.

[^205]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15741,
    n.1126; *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3875, para. 403.

[^206]: *Id*. at 15741-42, para. 484.

[^207]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3875, para. 403.

[^208]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xii).

[^209]: *Id.* at § 251(b)(2).

[^210]: *Id.* at § 153(30).

[^211]: *Id.* at § 251(e)(2); *see also Second BellSouth Louisiana
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20757, para. 274; *In the Matter of Telephone
    Number Portability*, Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11701,
    11702-04 (1998) (*Third Number Portability Order*); *In the Matter
    of Telephone Number Portability*, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 95-116, at paras. 1, 6-9
    (Jun. 23, 1999) (*Fourth Number Portability Order*).

[^212]: *Fourth Number Portability Order* at para. 10; *In re Telephone
    Number Portability*, First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8409-12, paras. 110-116 (1996)
    (*First Number Portability Order*); *see also* 47 U.S.C. §
    251(b)(2).

[^213]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.3(b)-(f); *Second BellSouth Louisiana
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20758, para. 275; *First Number Portability
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8355 and 8399-8404, paras. 3 and 91; *Third
    Number Portability Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11708-12, paras. 12-16.

[^214]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.29; *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 20758, para. 275; *First Number Portability Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd at 8417-24, paras. 127-140.

[^215]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.32, 52.33; *Second BellSouth Louisiana
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20758, para. 275; *Third Number Portability
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11706-07, para. 8; *Fourth Number Portability
    Order* at para. 9.

[^216]: Based on the Commission's view that section 251(b)(3) does not
    limit the duty to provide dialing parity to any particular form of
    dialing parity (*i.e*., international, interstate, intrastate, or
    local), the Commission adopted rules in August 1996 to implement
    broad guidelines and minimum nationwide standards for dialing
    parity. *Local Competition Second Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at
    19407; *Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers*, CC Docket No. 95-185,
    Further Order On Reconsideration, FCC 99-170 (rel. July 19, 1999).

[^217]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3).

[^218]: *Id.* at § 153(15).

[^219]: 47 C.F.R §§ 51.205, 51.207.

[^220]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.207 (requiring same number of digits to be
    dialed); *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19400, 19403.

[^221]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii).

[^222]: *Id*. § 252(d)(2)(A).

[^223]: *Id*. § 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv).

[^224]: *Id*. § 251(c)(4)(A).

[^225]: *Id*. § 252(d)(3).

[^226]: *Id*. § 251(c)(4)(B).

[^227]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15966,
    para. 939; 47 C.F.R. § 51.613(b). The Eighth Circuit acknowledged
    the Commission's authority to promulgate such rules, and
    specifically upheld the sections of the Commission's rules
    concerning resale of promotions and discounts in *Iowa Utilities
    Board*. *Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC*, 120 F.3d at 818-19, *aff'd in part
    and remanded on other grounds*, *AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.*, 525 U.S.
    366 (1999). *See* *also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.613-51.617.

[^228]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(4)(B).

[^229]: *Id.*

[^230]: *See, e.g., Bell Atlantic New York Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    4046-48, paras. 178-81 (Bell Atlantic provides nondiscriminatory
    access to its OSS ordering functions for resale services and
    therefore provides efficient competitors a meaningful opportunity to
    compete).

[^231]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(B).

[^232]: *See Implementation of the Accounting Safeguards Under the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-150, Report and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996) (*Accounting Safeguards Order*),
    Second Order On Reconsideration, FCC 00-9 (rel. Jan. 18, 2000);
    *Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and
    272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended*, CC Docket No.
    96-149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905 (1996) (*Non-Accounting Safeguards
    Order*), petition for review pending sub nom. SBC Communications v.
    FCC, No. 97-1118 (filed D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 1997) (held in abeyance
    May 7, 1997), First Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997)
    (*First Order on Reconsideration*), Second Order on Reconsideration,
    12 FCC Rcd 8653 (1997) (*Second Order on Reconsideration*), *aff'd
    sub nom. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC*, 131 F.3d 1044
    (D.C. Cir. 1997), Third Order on Reconsideration, FCC 99-242 (rel.
    Oct. 4, 1999) (*Third Order on Reconsideration*).

[^233]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21914;
    *Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 17550; *Ameritech
    Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20725.

[^234]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, *id*. at paras. 15-16;
    *Ameritech Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20725, para. 346.

[^235]: *Ameritech Michigan Order*, *id*.; *Bell Atlantic New York
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4153, para. 402.

[^236]: *Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20785-20786 at
    para. 322; *Bell Atlantic New York Order*, *id*.

[^237]: *Bell Atlantic New York Order,* *id*.

[^238]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(C).

[^239]: In addition, Congress specifically rejected an amendment that
    would have stipulated that full implementation of the checklist
    necessarily satisfies the public interest criterion. *See Ameritech
    Michigan Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 20747 at para. 360-366; *see also*
    141 Cong. Rec. S7971, S8043 (June. 8, 1995).

[^240]: *See Second BellSouth Louisiana Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 20805-06,
    para. 360 (the public interest analysis may include consideration of
    "whether approval . . . will foster competition in all relevant
    telecommunications markets").