*Pages 1--240 from  Microsoft Word - 2221.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc., 
 Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company, 
 And  Southwestern  Bell  Communications 
 Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long 
 Distance 


 Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the 
 Telecommunications  Act  of  1996 
 To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services 
 In  Texas 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  00-  65 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  30,  2000  Released:  June  30,  2000 
 By  the  Commission:  Commissioner  Furchtgott-  Roth  concurring  and  issuing  a  statement. 
 Paragraph 


 I.  INTRODUCTION  ............................................................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................  8 
 A.  STATUTORY  FRAMEWORK  ...............................................................................................  8 
 B.  HISTORY  OF  THIS  APPLICATION  .......................................................................................  12 
 C.  TEXAS  COMMISSION  AND  DEPARTMENT  OF  JUSTICE  EVALUATIONS  .................................  17 


 III.  ANALYTICAL  FRAMEWORK  ....................................................................................  21 
 A.  OVERVIEW  .....................................................................................................................  21 
 B.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  UNBUNDLING  RULES  ........................................................................  28 
 C.  SCOPE  OF  EVIDENCE  IN  THE  RECORD  ..............................................................................  34 
 1.  Procedural  Framework  ...............................................................................................  34 
 2.  Ex  Parte  Submissions  .................................................................................................  41 
 D.  FRAMEWORK  FOR  ANALYZING  COMPLIANCE  WITH  STATUTORY  REQUIREMENTS  ..............  43 
 1.  Legal  Standard  ...........................................................................................................  44 
 2.  Evidentiary  Case  ........................................................................................................  47 


 IV.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SECTION  271(  C)(  1)(  A)  ...........................................................  59 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 2 
 A.  BACKGROUND  ................................................................................................................  59 
 B.  DISCUSSION  ...................................................................................................................  60 


 V.  CHECKLIST  COMPLIANCE  .......................................................................................  61 
 A.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  1    INTERCONNECTION  .........................................................................  61 
 1.  Non-  Pricing  Aspects  of  Interconnection  .....................................................................  61 
 2.  Pricing  of  Interconnection  ..........................................................................................  79 
 B.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  2    UNBUNDLED  NETWORK  ELEMENTS  .................................................  91 
 1.  Operations  Support  Systems  ......................................................................................  92 
 2.  UNE  Combinations  and  Other  Issues  ........................................................................  213 
 3.  Pricing  of  Network  Elements  ....................................................................................  231 
 C.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  3    POLES,  DUCTS,  CONDUITS  AND  RIGHTS  OF  WAY  ...........................  243 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  243 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  245 
 D.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  4    UNBUNDLED  LOCAL  LOOPS  ..........................................................  246 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  246 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  251 
 E.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  5    UNBUNDLED  LOCAL  TRANSPORT  ..................................................  331 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  331 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  332 
 F.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  6    UNBUNDLED  LOCAL  SWITCHING  ...................................................  336 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  336 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  337 
 G.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  7  ........................................................................................................  343 
 1.  911  and  E911  Access  ...............................................................................................  343 
 2.  Directory  Assistance/  Operator  Services  ....................................................................  345 
 H.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  8    WHITE  PAGES  DIRECTORY  LISTINGS  .............................................  352 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  352 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  355 
 I.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  9    NUMBERING  ADMINISTRATION  .....................................................  359 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  359 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  361 
 J.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  10    DATABASES  AND  ASSOCIATED  SIGNALING  ..................................  362 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  362 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  364 
 K.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  11    NUMBER  PORTABILITY  ...............................................................  369 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  369 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  371 
 L.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  12    LOCAL  DIALING  PARITY  .............................................................  373 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  373 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  375 
 M.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  13    RECIPROCAL  COMPENSATION  .....................................................  378 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  378 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  379 
 N.  CHECKLIST  ITEM  14    RESALE  ......................................................................................  387 
 1.  Background  .............................................................................................................  387 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 3 
 2.  Discussion  ................................................................................................................  388 
 VI.  SECTION  272  COMPLIANCE  ....................................................................................  394 
 A.  BACKGROUND  ..............................................................................................................  394 
 B.  DISCUSSION  .................................................................................................................  395 
 1.  Structural,  Transactional,  and  Accounting  Requirements  of  Section  272  ...................  397 


 VII.  PUBLIC  INTEREST  ANALYSIS.............................................................................  416 
 A.  OVERVIEW  ...................................................................................................................  416 
 B.  COMPETITION  IN  LOCAL  EXCHANGE  AND  LONG  DISTANCE  MARKETS  ............................  419 
 C.  ASSURANCE  OF  FUTURE  COMPLIANCE  ..........................................................................  420 
 1.  Performance  Remedy  Plan  ........................................................................................  422 
 2.  Key  Elements  of  the  Enforcement  Plan  .....................................................................  423 
 D.  OTHER  ARGUMENTS  .....................................................................................................  431 


 VIII.  SECTION  271(  D)(  6)  ENFORCEMENT  AUTHORITY  ..........................................  434 


 IX.  CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................  437 
 X.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  ................................................................................................  438 


 APPENDIX  A:  LIST  OF  COMMENTERS 
 APPENDIX  B:  SWBT  OSS  OVERVIEW 


 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  April  5,  2000,  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone 
 Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long 
 Distance  (collectively,  SWBT)  filed  its  second  application  for  authorization  under  section  271  of 
 the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  1  to  provide  interLATA  services  in  the  State  of 
 Texas.  2  Although  SWBT  initially  filed  for  in-  region,  interLATA  authority  for  the  State  of  Texas 


 1  47  U.  S.  C.    271.  Section  271  was  added  by  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  104,  110 
 Stat.  56  (1996),  codified  at  47  U.  S.  C.    151  et  seq.  We  refer  to  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  as 
 the  Communications  Act  or  the  Act.  We  refer  to  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  as  the  1996  Act. 


 2  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell 


 Communications  Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance  for  Provision  of  In-  Region,  InterLATA 
 Services  in  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65  (filed  Apr.  5,  2000)  (SWBT  Texas  I  Application);  see  Comments 
 Requested  on  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.  for  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the 
 Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  Texas  (CC  Docket  No.  00-  65),  Public 
 Notice,  DA  No.  00-  750  (rel.  Apr.  6,  2000).  Unless  an  affidavit  or  appendix  reference  is  included,  all  citations  to 
 the  SWBT  Application  refer  to  SWBTs  Brief  in  Support  of  Application  by  Southwestern  Bell  for  Provision  of 
 In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Texas.  References  to  all  affidavits  or  other  sources  contained  in  the  appendices 
 submitted  by  SWBT  are  initially  cited  to  the  Appendix,  Volume,  and  Tab  number  indicating  the  location  of  the 
 source  in  the  record.  Subsequent  citations  to  affidavits  are  cited  by  the  affiant's  name,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Dysart  Aff. 
 (continued.) 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 4 
 on  January  10,  2000,  3  that  application  was  withdrawn  at  SWBTs  request.  4  We  therefore  take  no 
 action  with  respect  to  SWBTs  first  application.  In  this  Order,  we  grant  SWBTs  second 
 application  to  enter  the  in-  region,  interLATA  market  in  Texas  based  on  evidence  that  SWBT  has 
 taken  the  statutorily  required  steps  to  open  its  local  exchange  and  exchange  access  markets  to 
 competition. 


 2.  This  approval  marks,  for  the  first  time,  an  application  that  is  supported  by  both  the 
 Department  of  Justice  and  relevant  state  commission,  in  this  case  the  Texas  Public  Utility 
 Commission  (Texas  Commission).  The  success  of  this  application  is  due,  in  large  part,  to  the 
 extensive  review  conducted  by  both  the  Department  of  Justice  and  the  Texas  Commission. 


 3.  We  applaud  the  efforts  of  the  Texas  Commission,  which  has  expended  significant 
 time  and  effort  overseeing  SWBTs  implementation  of  the  requirements  of  section  271.  For  more 
 than  two  years,  the  Texas  Commission  has  worked  with  SWBT  and  competing  carriers  to  identify 
 and  resolve  a  number  of  key  issues  related  to  SWBTs  compliance  with  the  Act.  As  a  result  of 
 the  Texas  Commissions  efforts,  competition  has  taken  root,  and  is  expanding  in  local 
 telecommunications  markets,  which  ultimately  benefits  consumers.  The  Texas  Commission 
 utilized  a  number  of  effective  methods  to  ensure  that  the  local  markets  in  Texas  are  open  to 
 competition  today,  and  will  remain  so  in  the  future.  Of  particular  note,  the  Texas  Commission 
 ensured  that  its  section  271  review  process  was  open  to  participation  by  all  interested  parties,  and 
 supplemented  its  review  of  the  operational  readiness  of  SWBTs  OSS  with  an  independent  third 
 party  test.  As  part  of  its  section  271  review,  the  Texas  Commission  also  developed  clearly 
 defined  performance  measurements  and  standards,  and  adopted  a  performance  remedy  plan  to 
 discourage  backsliding.  In  a  continuing  effort  to  refine  and  monitor  performance  measurements, 
 the  Texas  Commission  has  a  six  month  review  process  in  place.  The  Texas  Commission  is 
 currently  considering  modifying  existing  measurements  and  adding  new  measurements  based  on 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Comments  on  the  current  application  are  cited  by  party  name,  e.  g.,  ALTS  Comments.  Documents,  such  as 
 affidavits  and  declarations,  submitted  by  commenters  are  cited  by  the  affiant's  name  and  the  party  submitting  the 
 affidavit,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Aff.,  Covad  Goodpastor  Decl.  A  list  of  parties  that  submitted  comments  or 
 replies  is  set  forth  in  Appendix  A. 


 3  See  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell 


 Communications  Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance  for  Provision  of  In-  Region,  InterLATA 
 Services  in  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  (filed  Jan.  10,  2000)  (SWBT  Texas  II  Application);  see  Comments 
 Requested  on  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.  for  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the 
 Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  Texas  (CC  Docket  No.  00-  4),  Public 
 Notice,  DA  No.  00-  37  (rel.  Jan.  10,  2000). 


 4  See  Letter  from  James  D.  Ellis,  Paul  K.  Mancini,  Martin  E.  Grambow,  Counsel  for  SBC  Communications  Inc., 


 to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC  (dated  Apr.  5,  2000)  (SBC  Apr.  5,  2000  Ex  Parte  Letter)  at  2;  see  also 
 Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell 
 Communications  Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance  for  Provision  of  In-  Region  InterLATA 
 Services  in  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4,  FCC  00-  124,  Order  (rel.  Apr.  6.  2000)  (SWBT  Texas  I  Withdrawal  Order) 
 (granting  SWBTs  request  to  withdraw  its  January  10  Application  and  to  initiate  a  new  application  pursuant  to 
 section  271  based  on  the  existing  record  in  CC  Docket  00-  4  and  the  new  information  provided  by  SBC  in  its  April 
 5  filing). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 5 
 input  from  SWBT  and  competing  carriers. 
 4.  In  addition  to  overseeing  SWBTs  implementation  of  the  requirements  to  section 
 271  approval,  the  Texas  Commission  has  actively  implemented  our  rules  issued  under  section  251, 
 including  the  Commissions  pricing  standards  and  the  rules  relating  to  advanced  services. 
 Moreover,  to  address  the  concerns  raised  by  the  Department  of  Justice  and  commenters  with 
 respect  to  SWBTs  initial  application,  the  Texas  Commission  conducted  a  further  review  with 
 respect  to  a  number  of  key  section  271  issues.  Because  of  those  efforts,  this  second  application 
 by  SWBT  is  an  improvement  over  its  first  one,  especially  in  those  areas  identified  as  deficient  by 
 the  Department  of  Justice  in  its  evaluation  of  SWBTs  first  application.  Furthermore,  we  accord 
 the  Texas  Commissions  verification  of  SWBTs  compliance  substantial  weight  based  on  the 
 totality  of  its  efforts  and  the  extent  of  expertise  it  has  developed  on  section  271  issues. 


 5.  The  fact  that  SWBT  has  implemented  the  competitive  checklist  in  Texas  can  be 
 seen  in  the  degree  of  entry  into  the  local  exchange  market.  According  to  SWBT,  it  has  unbundled 
 more  than  302,000  loops  (including  nearly  244,000  loops  as  part  of  an  unbundled  network 
 element  platform  or  UNE-  P).  5  SWBT  also  reported  resale  of  approximately  349,000  access 
 lines  to  competitors  (including  191,000  residential  lines).  6  The  Department  of  Justice  estimates 
 that  competitors  have  captured  approximately  eight  percent  of  access  lines  in  SWBTs  territory  in 
 Texas.  7 


 6.  In  addition  to  competition  for  voice  services,  SWBT  provisioned  nearly  7,000 
 unbundled  loops  to  broadband  competitors  for  provision  of  xDSL  services.  8  Although  this  is  only 
 a  fraction  of  SWBTs  ADSL  customer  base  in  Texas,  9  recent  implementation  of  our  line  sharing 
 requirements  will  give  xDSL  providers  additional  opportunities  to  compete  for  residential  and 
 small  business  customers  on  an  equal  footing  with  SWBTs  separate  affiliate  for  advanced 


 5  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply,  App.  A-  4,  Vol.  1,  Tab  3,  Reply  Affidavit  of  John  S.  Habeeb  (SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb 
 Reply  Aff.),  Attach.  A  (reporting  58,704  stand-  alone  unbundled  loops  and  243,  922  UNE  loop/  port  combinations 
 through  March  2000). 


 6  Id.  (reporting  resale  of  157,700  business  lines  and  191,040  residential  lines  through  March  2000).  Parties  to 


 this  proceeding  dispute  SWBTs  methodology  for  estimating  the  number  of  facilities-  based  lines  that  are  served 
 by  competitors  (through  means  other  than  resale  or  unbundled  loops).  Most,  however  seem  to  agree  that,  at  a 
 minimum,  several  hundred  thousand  access  lines  are  served  this  way,  primarily  for  business  customers  in  urban 
 areas. 


 7  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  9  (estimating  840,000    890,000  competitive  LEC  lines  compared 


 with  9.  6  million  SWBT  retail  lines). 
 8  SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb  Reply  Aff.  Attach.  A  (reporting  6,978  unbundled  loops  to  xDSL  service  providers 


 through  March  2000). 
 9  Letter  from  Austin  C.  Schlick,  Kellogg,  Huber,  Hansen,  Todd  &  Evans,  P.  L.  L.  C.,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas, 


 Esq.,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  at  Tab  5  (filed  Apr.  21,  2000)  (SWBT 
 Apr.  21  Ex  Parte  Letter)  (reporting  deployment  of  36,000  ADSL  lines  in  Texas  during  the  six-  month  period  from 
 October  1999  through  March  2000);  see  also  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Reply  Aff.  (anticipating  monthly  volume  of 
 9,000  ADSL  orders  for  SWBTs  advanced  services  affiliate  in  Texas  by  June  2000). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 6 
 services.  10  Monthly  order  volumes  for  unbundled  xDSL-  capable  loops  are  steadily  increasing,  11  as 
 are  UNE-  P  volumes.  12  Additionally,  another  branded  player  for  voice  services  WorldCom 
 joined  AT&  T  in  the  Texas  market  in  April  with  a  focus  on  residential  customers.  13 


 7.  As  we  noted  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  the  grant  of  this  application 
 merely  closes  a  chapter.  It  does  not  end  the  story.  SWBT  must  continue  to  comply  with  the 
 checklist  obligations  set  forth  in  section  271,  and  the  separate  affiliate  requirements  of  section 
 272.  As  noted  throughout  this  Order,  should  the  evidence  demonstrate  that  SWBT  ceases  to 
 comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Act,  enforcement  action  may  be  appropriate.  14  Most  notably, 
 section  271(  d)(  6)  authorizes  the  Commission  to  suspend  or  revoke  the  authorization  granted 
 herein.  15 


 II.  BACKGROUND 
 A.  Statutory  Framework 
 8.  In  the  1996  Act,  Congress  conditioned  BOC  provision  of  in-  region,  interLATA 
 service  on  compliance  with  certain  provisions  of  section  271.  16  Pursuant  to  section  271,  BOCs 


 10  See  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability  and  Implementation 
 of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Third  Report  and  Order  in  CC 
 Docket  No.  98-  147,  Fourth  Report  and  Order  in  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98,  FCC  99-  355,  paras.  4-  5  (rel.  Dec.  9,  1999) 
 (Line  Sharing  Order). 


 11  SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb  Reply  Aff.  Attach.  A;  SWBT  Texas  II  Application,  App.,  Vol.  A,  Tab  1,  Affidavit  of 


 John  S.  Habeeb  (SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb  Aff.),  Attach.  A  (reflecting  monthly  order  totals  of  1160  loops  in  January, 
 1489  loops  in  February,  and  2166  loops  in  March). 


 12  SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb  Reply  Aff.  Attach.  A;  SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb  Aff.  Attach.  A  (reflecting  monthly 


 order  totals  of  23,338  lines  in  January,  32,997  lines  in  February,  and  40,750  lines  in  March). 
 13  WorldCom,  Inc.  Texas  II  Reply  at  1.  WorldCom,  Inc.  changed  its  corporate  name  from  MCI  WorldCom,  Inc. 


 effective  May  1,  2000.  Id.  at  n.  1.  AT&  T  reported  capturing  130,000  local  phone  customers  in  Texas  over  UNE-  P 
 through  March  2000,  which  represents  greater  than  half  of  the  UNE-  P  lines  served  by  competitive  carriers  in 
 Texas.  AT&  T  Reports  Flat  Earnings,  Lowers  Growth  Estimates,  Communications  Daily  (May  3,  2000). 


 14  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic-  New  York  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-Region, 


 InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  New  York,  File  No.  EB-  00-  IH-  0085,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  5413,  5414 
 (2000)  (adopting  consent  decree  after  investigation  into  potential  violations  of  section  271  after  grant  of  in-  region, 
 interLATA  authority). 


 15  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6)(  A)(  iii). 


 16  We  note  here  that,  for  the  provision  of  international  services,  a  U.  S.  carrier  must  separately  receive  section  214 
 authorization  from  the  Commission.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    214;  see  also  Streamlining  the  International  Section  214 
 Authorization  Process  and  Tariff  Requirements,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  12884  (1996);  Rules  and  Policies 
 on  Foreign  Participation  in  the  U.  S.  Telecommunications  Market,  Report  and  Order  and  Order  on 
 Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  23891  (1997),  recon.  pending.  This  requirement  applies  notwithstanding  a  BOCs 
 approval  under  section  271  for  the  provision  of  in-  region,  interLATA  service  originating  in  a  particular  state. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 7 
 must  apply  to  this  Commission  for  authorization  to  provide  interLATA  services  originating  in  any 
 in-  region  state.  17  Congress  has  directed  the  Commission  to  issue  a  written  determination  on  each 
 application  no  later  than  90  days  after  the  application  is  filed.  18 


 9.  To  obtain  authorization  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  under  section 
 271,  the  BOC  must  show  that:  (1)  it  satisfies  the  requirements  of  either  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A), 
 known  as  Track  A  or  271(  c)(  1)(  B),  known  as  Track  B;  (2)  it  has  fully  implemented  the 
 competitive  checklist  or  that  the  statements  approved  by  the  state  under  section  252  satisfy  the 
 competitive  checklist  contained  in  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B);  19  (3)  the  requested  authorization  will  be 
 carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  272;  20  and  (4)  the  BOCs  entry  into  in-region, 
 interLATA  market  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  convenience,  and  necessity.  21 
 The  statute  specifies  that,  unless  the  Commission  finds  that  these  four  criteria  have  been  satisfied, 
 the  Commission  shall  not  approve  the  requested  authorization.  22 


 10.  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  Generals  evaluation.  23 


 11.  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.  24  Because  the 
 Act  does  not  prescribe  any  standard  for  Commission  consideration  of  a  state  commissions 
 verification  under  section  271(  d)(  2)(  B),  the  Commission  has  discretion  in  each  section  271 


 17  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271. 
 18  Id.    271(  d)(  3). 
 19  Id.    271(  d)(  3)(  A).  The  critical,  market-  opening  provisions  of  section  251  are  incorporated  into  the 
 competitive  checklist  found  in  section  271.  See  id.    251;  see  also  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition 
 Provisions  in  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98,  11  FCC  Rcd  15499  (1996)  (Local 
 Competition  First  Report  and  Order),  affd  in  part  and  vacated  in  part  sub  nom,  Competitive  Telecommunications 
 Assn  v.  FCC,  117  F.  3d  1068  (8th  Cir.  1997)  and  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  753  (8th  Cir.  1997),  affd  in 
 part  and  remanded,  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999). 


 20  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  B). 


 21  Id.    271(  d)(  3)(  C). 
 22  Id.    271(  d)(  3);  see  SBC  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  138  F.  3d  410,  413,  416  (D.  C.  Cir.  1998). 
 23  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  2)(  A). 
 24  Id.    271(  d)(  2)(  B). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 8 
 proceeding  to  determine  the  amount  of  weight  to  accord  the  state  commissions  verification.  25 
 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  Commissions  role  to  determine  whether 
 the  factual  record  supports  the  conclusion  that  particular  requirements  of  section  271  have  been 
 met.  26  As  noted  in  the  Introduction,  we  accord  the  Texas  Commissions  verification  of  SWBTs 
 compliance  substantial  weight  based  on  the  totality  of  its  efforts  and  the  extent  of  its  expertise  on 
 section  271  issues.  Like  the  New  York  Commission,  whose  section  271  verification  we  also 
 accorded  substantial  weight,  the  Texas  Commission  directed  a  lengthy,  rigorous  and  open 
 collaborative  process  with  active  participation  by  Commission  staff  and  competitive  LECs.  27  The 
 Texas  Commission  also  developed  a  comprehensive  performance  measurement  and  remedy  plan, 
 which  it  continues  to  monitor  and  refine.  28  In  addition,  the  Texas  Commission  has  taken  the  lead 
 on  a  number  of  emerging  technical  and  legal  issues  related  to  provisioning  of  xDSL-  capable 
 loops.  We  thus  place  substantial  weight  on  the  Texas  Commissions  comments  in  this  matter,  as 
 they  reflect  its  role  not  only  as  a  driving  force  behind  these  proceedings,  but  also  as  an  active 
 participant  in  bringing  competition  for  local  telecommunications  services  to  Texas. 


 B.  History  of  this  Application 
 12.  In  March  1998,  SWBT  filed  with  the  Texas  Commission  a  draft  application  to 
 provide  in-  region,  interLATA  authority  in  the  State  of  Texas.  29  On  April  7,  1998,  after  a  number 
 of  technical  conferences  and  collaborative  meetings,  the  Texas  Commission  concluded  that 
 SWBT  had  not  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  section  271(  c).  30  Shortly 
 thereafter,  on  June  1,  1998,  the  Texas  Commission  issued  Order  Number  25  in  which  it  listed  129 
 key  issues  that  needed  to  be  resolved  before  it  could  recommend  approval  of  SWBTs  application.  31 


 13.  To  facilitate  the  resolution  of  the  issues  identified  in  Order  Number  25,  the  Texas 
 Commission  invited  SWBT  and  interested  competing  carriers  to  participate  in  a  series  of 
 collaborative  meetings  and  workshops  and  technical  conferences,  known  as  the  Texas  271 


 25  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. 


 26  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20560;  SBC  Communications  v.  FCC,  138  F.  3d  at  416-  17. 


 27  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3962,  para.  20. 
 28  Id. 
 29  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  2. 
 30  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  2. 
 31  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  2. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 9 
 Collaborative  Process.  32  During  this  process,  staff  of  the  Texas  Commission,  SWBT,  and 
 competing  carriers  worked  collaboratively  to  identify  and  resolve  a  number  of  key  issues  related 
 to  SWBTs  compliance  with  section  271,  including  the  operational  readiness  of  SWBTs  OSS, 
 and  the  development  of  a  performance  monitoring  and  enforcement  mechanism.  33  Another  key 
 component  of  the  Texas  Commissions  section  271  proceeding  was  the  development  and  adoption 
 of  a  model  interconnection  agreement,  which  is  referred  to  as  the  Texas  271  Agreement  or 
 T2A.  34  The  Texas  Commission  ensured  that  its  collaborative  process  was  open  to  participation 
 by  all  interested  parties  and,  as  a  result,  received  and  reviewed  a  massive  record  of  public 
 comments. 


 14.  In  connection  with  its  review  of  the  operational  readiness  of  SWBTs  OSS,  the 
 Texas  Commission  retained  Telcordia  (formerly  Bellcore)  to  conduct  an  independent  third  party 
 evaluation  of  SWBTs  OSS.  35  The  Telcordia  test  was  intended  to  address  a  multitude  of  issues, 
 including  the  ability  of  SWBTs  OSS  to  handle  commercial  volumes  of  orders,  and  SWBTs 
 implementation  of  the  performance  measurements  that  had  been  approved  by  the  Texas 
 Commission  during  its  collaborative  process.  36  Following  the  completion  of  initial  and  follow-  up 
 testing,  37  Telcordia  issued  a  final  report,  in  which  it  concluded  that  SWBTs  OSS  were 


 32  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  2. 


 33  During  the  collaborative  process,  the  staff  of  the  Texas  Commission  worked  with  SWBT  and  competing 
 carriers  to  develop  a  comprehensive  set  of  performance  measures  and  business  rules  that  are  intended  to  capture 
 whether  SWBT  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  service  to  competing  carriers.  The  Texas  Commission  also 
 approved  a  performance  remedy  plan  that  is  intended  to  provide  financial  incentives  for  SWBT  to  maintain  an 
 open  market  and  prevent  backsliding.  Pursuant  to  the  Plan,  SWBT  must  compensate  either  competing  carriers 
 or  the  Texas  Treasury  for  noncompliance  performance  in  connection  with  particular  performance  measurements. 
 Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  3-  4. 


 34  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  3. 


 35  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  5-  6. 
 36  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  5. 
 37  Telcordia  issued  two  reports  on  the  operational  readiness  of  SWBTs  OSS.  In  its  initial  report,  Telcordia 
 presented  the  results  of  its  functionality  and  capacity  testing  and  identified  issues  that  warranted  further  review. 
 Texas  Commission  Comments  at  30-  31.  The  issues  identified  by  Telcordia  in  its  initial  report  formed  the  basis  of 
 a  re-  test  plan.  Id.  Following  the  completion  of  a  retest,  Telcordia  issued  a  final  report.  Telcordia  Technologies, 
 The  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Texas  Southwestern  Bell  OSS  Readiness  Report  (Sept.  1999)  (Telcordia  Final 
 Report),  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.,  Attach.  A.  Although  in  its  final  report,  Telcordia  concluded  that  SWBTs  OSS 
 were  operationally  ready,  it  highlighted  seven  areas  in  which  the  Texas  Commission  should  focus  to  remove 
 service-  affecting  issues.  Id.  at  ES-  1,  7.  Specifically,  Telcordia  recommended:  (1)  the  revision  of  certain 
 procedures  for  scalability  forecasting;  (2)  the  implementation  of  eleven  new  performance  measures;  (3)  that  the 
 Texas  Commission  expeditiously  resolve  thirty  issues  that  were  identified  during  the  retest;  (4)  increased 
 automation  of  the  performance  measure  reporting  process;  (5)  increased  data  security  and  auditability;  (6) 
 confirmation  of  the  effectiveness  of  SWBTs  procedures  for  ordering  xDSL-  capable  loops;  and  (7)  further  training 
 for  SWBT  and  competing  carriers  to  improve  the  understanding  and  use  of  SWBTs  standard  methods  and 
 procedures.  Id.  After  Telcordias  final  report  was  issued,  the  Texas  Commission  worked  further  with  SWBT  and 
 competing  carriers  to  resolve  the  seven  issues  identified  in  Telcordias  final  report.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I 
 Comments  at  31-  32. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 10 
 operationally  ready  to  handle  commercial  volumes  of  transactions.  38 
 15.  Upon  concluding  that  all  outstanding  issues  relating  to  SWBTs  compliance  with 
 section  271  had  been  resolved,  the  Texas  Commission  voted  at  its  December  16,  1999  open 
 meeting  to  unanimously  support  SWBTs  section  271  application.  39 


 16.  As  noted  above,  on  January  10,  2000,  SWBT  filed  an  application  with  this 
 Commission  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  service  in  the  State  of  Texas.  On  April  5,  2000, 
 SWBT  filed  an  extensive  supplement  to  its  January  10  Application.  40  Recognizing  that  such  new 
 evidence  was  filed  shortly  before  the  expiration  of  the  90-  day  statutory  deadline,  in  its  April  5 
 filing,  SWBT  requested  that  the  Commission  restart  the  clock  on  its  January  10  Application.  41 
 Alternatively,  SWBT  asked  the  Commission  to  treat  its  supplemental  filing  as:  (1)  a  withdrawal  of 
 the  January  10  Application;  and  (2)  a  resubmission  of  a  new  application,  which  incorporates  both 
 the  January  10  and  April  5  filings.  42  On  April  6,  2000,  the  Commission  granted  SWBTs 
 alternative  request  to  withdraw  its  January  10  Application  and  to  initiate  a  new  application 
 pursuant  to  section  271  based  on  the  record  generated  in  response  to  the  January  10  and  April  5 
 filings.  43  Throughout  this  Order,  the  January  10  filing  will  be  referred  to  as  the  Texas  I 
 Application,  and  the  April  5  filing  will  be  referred  to  as  the  Texas  II  Application. 


 C.  Texas  Commission  and  Department  of  Justice  Evaluations 
 17.  The  Texas  Commission  submitted  its  evaluation  of  SWBTs  Texas  I  and  Texas  II 
 Applications  to  this  Commission  on  January  31,  2000  44  and  April  26,  2000,  45  respectively.  The 
 Texas  Commission  advises  the  Commission  that  SWBT  has  taken  the  statutorily  required  steps  to 
 open  its  local  markets  to  competition.  46  Specifically,  the  Texas  Commission  states  that  SWBT  has 
 met  its  obligation  under  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A)  by  entering  into  interconnection  agreements  with  at 


 38  Telcordia  Final  Report  at  7. 
 39  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  7. 
 40  The  supplemental  filing  included  a  brief  and  eight  affidavits.  According  to  SWBT,  this  new  evidence  is 
 intended  to  respond  to  issues  and  arguments  that  emerged  during  the  course  of  the  January  10  proceeding 
 subsequent  to  the  submission  of  reply  comments  on  February  22.  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  at  1. 


 41  Letter  from  James  D.  Ellis,  Paul  K.  Mancini,  Martin  E.  Grambow,  Counsel  for  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  to 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC  (dated  Apr.  5,  2000)  (SBC  Apr.  5,  2000  Ex  Parte  Letter)  at  2. 
 42  Id. 


 43  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Withdrawal  Order. 
 44  The  Evaluation  of  the  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  (filed  Jan.  31,  2000)  (Texas 
 Commission  Texas  I  Comments). 
 45  The  Evaluation  of  the  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65  (filed  Apr.  26,  2000)  (Texas 


 Commission  Texas  II  Comments). 
 46  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  1. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 11 
 least  17  competing  carriers  that  are  serving  residential  and  business  customers  either  exclusively 
 or  predominantly  over  their  own  facilities.  47  In  addition,  the  Texas  Commission  states  that  the 
 record  developed  in  the  Texas  proceeding  establishes  that  SWBT  has  a  legal  obligation,  under  its 
 interconnection  agreements  and  state-  approved  tariffs,  to  provide  the  14  items  required  under 
 section  271s  checklist,  and  that  SWBT  is  meeting  its  legal  obligation  to  provide  these  14  items.  48 


 18.  In  its  evaluation  of  SWBTs  Texas  II  Application,  the  Texas  Commission 
 acknowledges  the  Department  of  Justices  finding  that  SWBTs  initial  application  was  deficient  in 
 certain  critical  areas.  49  To  address  these  concerns,  the  Texas  Commission  states  that  it  conducted 
 a  further  review.  Specifically,  the  Texas  Commission  states  that  it  reexamined  the  evidence  with 
 respect  to:  (1)  the  integration  of  SWBTs  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  interfaces;  (2)  the 
 coordination,  timing  and  quality  of  SWBT  hot  cut  process;  and  (3)  SWBTs  provisioning  of 
 loops  used  by  competing  carriers  to  provide  advanced  services.  50  Based  on  the  evidence 
 presented  in  SWBTs  Texas  I  Application,  and  its  further  review,  the  Texas  Commission 
 concludes  that  SWBT  has  taken  the  statutorily  required  steps  to  open  its  local  markets  to 
 competition.  51 


 19.  The  Department  of  Justice  filed  its  evaluation  of  SWBTs  Texas  I  Application  on 
 February  14,  2000.  52  In  this  evaluation,  the  Department  of  Justice  recommended  that  SWBTs 
 application  be  denied.  53  The  Department  of  Justice  submitted  evaluations  of  SWBTs  Texas  II 


 47  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  95. 
 48  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  90. 
 49  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  11,  34,  36;  see  also  infra  note  55  and  accompanying  text. 
 50  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  1. 
 51  Id. 
 52  Evaluation  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Justice,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  (filed  Feb.  14,  2000)  (Department 
 of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation). 
 53  In  its  evaluation,  the  Department  of  Justice  concluded  that,  although  SWBT  had  shown  substantial  progress  in 


 opening  its  local  markets  to  competition,  it  failed  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  section  271  in  the  critical  area  of 
 providing  unbundled  loops.  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  2.  Specifically,  the  Department  of 
 Justice  found  that  SWBTs  performance  was  deficient  with  respect  to  providing  unbundled  loops  for  advanced 
 services  and  coordinated  conversions,  or  hot  cuts.  Id.  at  2-  3.  In  addition  to  its  findings  with  respect  to  xDSL 
 and  hot  cuts,  the  Department  of  Justice  expressed  concern  about  some  of  the  evidence  presented  by  SWBT  to 
 demonstrate  compliance  with  other  section  271  requirements.  For  example,  the  Department  of  Justice  noted  that 
 there  was  insufficient  evidence  in  the  record  to  determine  whether  SWBT  could  provide  interconnection  trunks  in  a 
 timely  manner,  and  whether  carriers  could  compete  effectively  using  the  UNE-  platform.  Id.  at  44-  49 
 (interconnection),  49-  53  (UNE-  platform).  The  Department  of  Justice  recommended  that  the  Commission  defer 
 judgment  on  these  issues  until  additional  commercial  data  is  available.  Id.  at  52-  53.  Moreover,  the  Department  of 
 Justice  stated  that  the  OSS  test  performed  by  Telcordia  had  significant  limitations.  In  particular,  the  Department 
 of  Justice  noted  that,  due  to  its  limited  scope  and  depth,  the  Telcordia  test  does  not  provide  evidence  that  SBC 
 provides  adequate  wholesale  services  overall  to  CLECs  in  Texas.  Id.  at  5. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 12 
 Application  on  May  12  54  and  June  13,  2000.  55  In  its  May  12  evaluation,  the  Department  of  Justice 
 concluded  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to  interconnection  trunking  had  sufficiently 
 improved  to  alleviate  its  concerns  with  respect  to  this  issue.  56  It  stated,  however,  that  it  would 
 provide  the  Commission  with  its  analysis  of  SWBTs  performance  in  providing  DSL-  capable 
 loops,  hot  cuts  for  analog  loops,  and  UNE-  platform  after  it  had  reviewed  SWBTs  April 
 performance  data.  In  its  June  13,  2000  evaluation,  the  Department  of  Justice  recommends 
 approval  of  SWBTs  application  to  provide  long  distance  service  in  Texas,  subject  to  certain 
 qualifications.  57 


 20.  In  recommending  approval  of  SWBTs  Texas  II  Application,  the  Department  of 
 Justice  notes  that  SWBT  has  addressed  many  of  the  deficiencies  associated  with  its  first 
 application.  More  specifically,  the  Department  of  Justice  concludes  that  SWBT  has  significantly 
 improved  the  process  by  which  it  measures  and  reports  its  performance  in  providing  unbundled 
 loops  for  DSL  services,  and  has  demonstrated  improvement  in  its  ability  to  provision  DSL-capable 
 loops  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  58  Indeed,  the  Department  of  Justice  concludes  that 
 recent  data  indicate  that  SWBT  is  now  providing  parity  under  virtually  all  measures  relating  to 
 the  provisioning  of  DSL  loops.  59  The  Department  of  Justice  further  finds  that  SWBT  has 
 demonstrated  improvement  in  cutting  over  a  loop  to  a  competing  carrier  through  both  the 
 coordinated  hot  cut  (CHC)  and  frame  due  time  (FDT)  processes.  60  Finally,  the  Department  of 
 Justice  states  that  commercial  data  with  respect  to  competing  carriers  ability  to  compete  via  the 
 UNE-  platform  are  encouraging.  Indeed,  the  Department  of  Justice  notes  that  entry  by  competing 
 carriers  using  the  UNE-  platform  has  increased  steadily  over  the  last  few  months. 


 III.  ANALYTICAL  FRAMEWORK 
 A.  Overview 


 54  Evaluation  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Justice,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65  (filed  May,  12,  2000) 
 (Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  May  12  Evaluation). 
 55  Letter  from  Donald  J.  Russell,  Chief,  Telecommunications  Task  Force,  Antitrust  Division,  Department  of 


 Justice,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC  (dated  June  13,  2000)  (Department  of  Justice  Texas  II 
 Evaluation). 


 56  Id.  at  5. 


 57  Id.  at  1.  For  example,  the  Department  of  Justice  recommends  that  the  Commission  ensure  that  adequate 
 mechanisms  exist  to  resolve  emerging  issues  that  will  affect  competition,  such  as  DSL  line  sharing  and  SBCs 
 Project  Pronto.  Id.  at  20.  As  the  Department  of  Justice  notes,  Project  Pronto  is  an  SBC  network  upgrade  that  will 
 employ  fiber  optic  cable  and  remote  terminals  to  provide  DSL  services  to  customers  that  are  out  of  reach  to  central 
 office  digital  subscriber  line  access  multiplexers  (  DSLAMS).  Id.  at  7. 


 58  Id.  at  2-  8. 


 59  Id.  at  4. 
 60  Id.  at  8-  9. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 13 
 21.  As  part  of  our  determination  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  section 
 271,  we  consider  whether  SWBT  has  fully  implemented  the  competitive  checklist  in  subsection 
 (c)(  2)(  B).  61  In  demonstrating  compliance  with  each  item  on  the  competitive  checklist,  a  BOC 
 must  demonstrate  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  item  in  quantities  that  competitors  may  reasonably  demand  and  at  an 
 acceptable  level  of  quality.  62 


 22.  Section  271  conditions  authorization  to  enter  the  long-  distance  market  on  a  BOCs 
 compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  competitive  checklist,  and  those  terms  generally  incorporate  by 
 reference  the  core  local  competition  obligations  that  sections  251  and  252  impose  on  all 
 incumbent  LECs.  In  a  variety  of  proceedings  since  1996,  this  Commission  has  discharged  its 
 statutory  authority  to  issue  comprehensive  rules  and  orders  giving  specific  content  to  those 
 obligations,  often  in  considerable  detail.  In  determining  whether  a  BOC  applicant  has  met  the 
 local  competition  prerequisites  for  entry  into  the  long-  distance  market,  therefore,  we  evaluate  its 
 compliance  with  our  rules  and  orders  in  effect  at  the  time  the  application  was  filed. 


 23.  Despite  the  comprehensiveness  of  our  local  competition  rules,  there  will  inevitably 
 be,  at  any  given  point  in  time,  a  variety  of  new  and  unresolved  interpretive  disputes  about  the 
 precise  content  of  an  incumbent  LECs  obligations  to  its  competitors,  disputes  that  our  rules  have 
 not  yet  addressed  and  that  do  not  involve  per  se  violations  of  self-  executing  requirements  of  the 
 Act.  Several  commenters  seek  to  use  this  section  271  proceeding  as  a  forum  for  the  mandatory 
 resolution  of  many  such  local  competition  disputes,  including  disputes  on  issues  of  general 
 application  that  are  more  appropriately  the  subjects  of  industry-  wide  notice-  and-  comment 
 rulemaking.  Indeed,  those  commenters  would  apparently  compel  this  Commission  to  resolve 
 those  disputes  in  this  proceeding,  and  to  resolve  each  one  in  favor  of  SWBT,  as  a  precondition  to 
 determining  that  SWBT  has  met  the  statutory  obligations  of  section  271. 


 24.  The  position  of  those  commenters  is  irreconcilable  with  this  statutory  scheme. 
 There  may  be  other  kinds  of  statutory  proceedings,  such  as  certain  complaint  proceedings,  in 
 which  we  may  bear  an  obligation  to  resolve  particular  interpretive  disputes  raised  by  a  carrier  as 
 the  basis  for  its  complaint.  63  But  the  section  271  process  simply  could  not  function  as  Congress 
 intended  if  we  were  generally  required  to  resolve  all  such  disputes  as  a  precondition  to  granting  a 
 section  271  application. 


 25.  First,  Congress  designed  section  271  proceedings  as  highly  specialized,  90-  day 
 proceedings  for  examining  the  performance  of  a  particular  carrier  in  a  particular  State  at  a 
 particular  time.  Such  fast-  track,  narrowly  focused  adjudications  --  generally  dominated  by 


 61  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3).  As  set  forth  below,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of 
 subsection  (c)(  1)(  A)  (  Track  A)  and  thus  merits  analysis  under  section  271(  d)(  3)(  A)(  i)  of  our  rules. 
 62  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3973-  74,  para.  52  (Ameritech  Michigan  Order). 


 63  American  Tel.  &  Tel.  Co.  v.  FCC,  978  F.  2d  727  (D.  C.  Cir.  1992). 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 14 
 extremely  fact-  intensive  disputes  about  an  individual  BOCs  empirical  performance  --  are  often 
 inappropriate  forums  for  the  considered  resolution  of  industry-  wide  local  competition  questions  of 
 general  applicability.  If  Congress  had  intended  to  compel  us  to  use  section  271  proceedings  for 
 that  purpose,  it  would  not  have  confined  our  already  intensive  review  to  an  extraordinarily 
 compressed  90-  day  timetable. 


 26.  Second,  Congress  designed  section  271  to  give  the  BOCs  an  important  incentive 
 to  open  their  local  markets  to  competition,  and  that  incentive  presupposes  a  realistic  hope  of 
 attaining  section  271  authorization.  That  hope  would  largely  vanish  if  a  BOCs  opponents  could 
 effectively  doom  any  section  271  application  by  freighting  their  comments  with  novel  interpretive 
 disputes  and  demand  that  authorization  be  denied  unless  each  one  of  those  disputes  is  resolved  in 
 the  BOCs  favor.  Indeed,  if  that  were  the  required  approach,  the  BOCs  would  face  enormous 
 uncertainty  about  the  steps  they  need  to  take  to  win  section  271  authorization,  and  they  would 
 therefore  lose  much  of  their  incentive  to  cooperate  in  opening  their  local  markets  to  competition 
 in  the  first  place.  That  result  would  disserve  the  public  interest  in  greater  competition  in  both 
 local  and  long-  distance  markets,  and  it  would  defeat  the  congressional  intent  underlying  this 
 statutory  scheme. 


 27.  Finally,  simply  as  a  matter  of  statutory  construction,  few  of  the  substantive 
 obligations  contained  in  the  local  competition  provisions  of  sections  251  and  252  are  altogether 
 self-  executing;  they  rely  for  their  content  on  the  Commissions  rules.  That  is  most  obviously  true 
 in  the  case  of  our  legislative  rules  under  section  251(  d)(  2)  identifying  what  network  elements 
 should  be  made  available,  64  but  it  is  also  true  of  our  many  other  rules  and  orders  giving  content 
 to  the  broadly-  worded  provisions  of  the  1996  Act.  Our  rules  vary  with  time,  redefining  the 
 statutory  obligations  that  govern  the  market.  Just  as  our  long-  standing  approach  to  the 
 procedural  framework  for  section  271  applications  focuses  our  factual  inquiry  on  a  BOCs 
 performance  at  the  time  of  its  application,  so  too  may  we  fix  at  that  same  point  the  local 
 competition  obligations  against  which  the  BOCs  performance  is  generally  measured  for  purposes 
 of  deciding  whether  to  grant  the  application.  Nothing  in  section  271  or  any  other  provision  of  the 
 Act  compels  us  to  require  a  BOC  applicant  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  new  local 
 competition  obligations  that  were  unrecognized  at  the  time  the  application  was  filed. 


 B.  Compliance  With  Unbundling  Rules 
 28.  One  element  of  the  required  showing,  as  explained  in  more  detail  below,  is  that  the 
 applicant  satisfies  the  Commissions  rules  governing  unbundled  network  elements.  It  is  necessary 
 to  clarify  the  aspects  of  the  new  rules  governing  incumbent  LECs  unbundling  and  line  sharing 
 obligations  with  which  we  expect  SWBT  to  demonstrate  compliance  in  this  proceeding.  We  note 
 that  both  the  UNE  Remand  Order  and  the  Line  Sharing  Order  introduced  new  rules  which  did 
 not  become  binding  until  after  SWBT  filed  its  second  section  271  application  for  Texas,  on  April 
 5,  2000.  65  We  conclude  that,  for  the  purpose  of  evaluating  compliance  with  checklist  item  2,  we 


 64  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  d)(  2). 
 65  See  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Third  Report 
 and  Order  and  Fourth  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3696  (1999)  (UNE  Remand  Order); 
 (continued.) 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 15 
 require  SWBT  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  currently  in  compliance  with  the 
 rules  in  effect  on  the  date  of  filing,  but  do  not  require  SWBT  to  demonstrate  that  it  complies  with 
 rules  that  become  effective  during  the  pendency  of  its  application. 


 29.  We  emphasize  that,  on  an  ongoing  basis,  SWBT  must  comply  with  all  of  the 
 Commissions  rules  implementing  the  requirements  of  sections  251  and  252  upon  the  dates 
 specified  by  those  rules.  This  includes  such  rules  that  have  taken  effect  since  the  date  SWBT  filed 
 its  application,  such  as  the  new  unbundling  rules  that  became  effective  on  May  18,  2000. 


 30.  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  established  a 
 list  of  seven  unbundled  network  elements  (UNEs)  which  incumbent  LECs  were  obliged  to 
 provide.  66  This  obligation  was  codified  in  section  51.319  of  the  Commissions  rules  (rule  319).  67 
 In  January  1999,  the  Supreme  Court  vacated  rule  319  and  instructed  the  Commission  to  revise  the 
 standards  under  which  the  unbundling  obligation  is  determined  and  to  reevaluate  the  network 
 elements  subject  to  the  unbundling  requirement.  68  On  November  5,  1999,  we  released  the  UNE 
 Remand  Order,  in  which  we  reevaluated  the  unbundling  obligations  of  incumbent  LECs  and 
 promulgated  a  new  rule  319,  pursuant  to  the  Supreme  Courts  direction  and  sections  251(  c)(  3) 
 and  251(  d)(  2)  of  the  Act.  With  certain  exceptions,  the  new  rule  319  and  other  requirements  set 
 forth  in  the  UNE  Remand  Order  took  effect  on  February  17,  2000,  30  days  after  publication  in 
 the  Federal  Register.  69  The  remaining  aspects  of  the  new  rule  319  did  not  take  effect  until  120 
 days  after  the  publication  date,  or  May  18,  2000.  70  Therefore,  on  April  5,  2000,  when  SWBT 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 see  also  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability  and  Implementation 
 of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Third  Report  and  Order,  and  Fourth 
 Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20912  (1999)  (Line  Sharing  Order). 


 66  The  seven  network  elements  set  forth  in  the  Local  Competition  Order  were:  (1)  local  loops;  (2)  network 


 interface  devices;  (3)  local  and  tandem  switching;  (4)  interoffice  transmission  facilities;  (5)  signaling  networks  and 
 call-  related  databases;  (6)  operations  support  systems;  and  (7)  operator  services  and  directory  assistance.  See 
 Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No.  96- 
 98,  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  15499  (1996)  (Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order),  aff'd  in  part 
 and  vacated  in  part  sub  nom.  Competitive  Telecommunications  Ass'n  v.  FCC,  117  F.  3d  1068  (8th  Cir.  1997)  and 
 Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  753  (8th  Cir.  1997),  aff'd  in  part  and  remanded,  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525 
 U.  S.  366  (1999);  on  remand,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fourth  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  15  FCC  Rcd. 
 3696  (1999). 


 67  47  C.  F.  R.    51.319. 


 68  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999).  In  reaching  this  conclusion,  the  Court  held  that  the 
 Commission  had  not  adequately  considered  the  necessary  and  impair  standards  of  section  251(  d)(  2)  in 
 establishing  the  list  of  seven  network  elements.  Id.  at  387-  92. 


 69  UNE  Remand  Order  at  para.  526.  The  order  was  published  in  the  Federal  Register  on  January  18,  2000.  See 


 Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Specifying  the  Portions  of  the  Nations  Local  Telephone  Networks  That 
 Incumbent  Local  Telephone  Companies  Must  Make  Available  to  Competitors,  65  Fed.  Reg.  2542  (2000). 


 70  See  UNE  Remand  Order  at  para  526.  The  requirements  that  were  not  contained  in    51.319  prior  to  the  rule 


 being  vacated  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  became  effective  120  days  after  publication  in  the  Federal 
 (continued.) 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 16 
 filed  its  re-  application  for  section  271  authorization  in  Texas,  certain  aspects  of  the  new  rule  319 
 were  not  yet  in  effect. 


 31.  In  order  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  checklist  item  2,  SWBT  must 
 demonstrate  that  it  complies  fully  with  those  portions  of  the  new  rule  319  that  took  effect  in 
 February  2000,  and  thus  were  binding  on  the  date  SWBT  filed  this  second  application.  Indeed,  in 
 the  Texas  I  proceeding,  SWBT  had  already  committed  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the 
 requirements  of  the  UNE  Remand  Order  that  took  effect  in  February  2000.  71  No  commenter  has 
 objected  to  SWBTs  position. 


 32.  For  the  purpose  of  evaluating  whether  its  application  satisfies  section  271,  we  do 
 not  require  SWBT  to  demonstrate  that  it  complies  with  those  portions  of  the  new  rule  319  that 
 took  effect  in  May  2000.  Although  SWBT,  like  all  other  incumbent  LECs,  was  required  to 
 comply  with  rule  319  in  May  2000,  we  believe  it  would  be  unfair  to  require  SWBT  to 
 demonstrate  compliance  with  rules  that  become  effective  after  it  submits  an  application  for  section 
 271  authorization,  in  advance  of  the  effective  date  for  other  incumbent  LECs.  In  addition,  were 
 we  to  require  SWBT  to  supplement  the  record  with  additional  evidence  demonstrating  its 
 compliance  with  the  new  UNE  Remand  rules  once  they  became  effective  on  May  18,  2000,  such  a 
 re-  opening  of  the  record  would  be  administratively  complicated  and  inconsistent  with  our  well-established 
 procedural  framework  for  section  271  applications.  72  A  similar  procedural  situation 
 was  presented  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  proceeding.  Bell  Atlantic  filed  its  application  for 
 section  271  authorization  in  New  York  after  the  UNE  Remand  Order  had  been  adopted  but 
 before  it  had  taken  effect  and,  thus,  at  a  time  when  no  binding  section  319  rule  was  in  effect.  73 
 Bell  Atlantic  suggested,  and  we  agreed,  that  it  would  be  reasonable  for  the  Commission  to  use  the 
 original  seven  network  elements  identified  in  former  rule  319  in  evaluating  compliance  with 
 checklist  item  2  of  its  application.  74  We  declined  to  require  Bell  Atlantic  to  demonstrate  (Continued  from  previous  page) 


 Register.  These  are:  the  requirement  to  provide  access  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  dark  fiber  as  set  forth  in   
 51.319(  a)(  1);  the  requirement  to  provide  access  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  subloops  and  inside  wire  as  set  forth  in   
 51.319(  a)(  2);  the  requirement  to  provide  access  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  packet  switching  in  the  limited 
 circumstances  set  forth  in    51.319(  c)(  3)(  B);  the  requirement  to  provide  access  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  dark  fiber 
 transport  as  set  forth  in    51.319(  d)(  1)(  B);  the  requirement  to  provide  access  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  the  Calling 
 Name  Database,  911  Database,  and  E911  Database  as  set  forth  in  51.319(  e)(  2)(  A);  and  the  requirement  to  provide 
 access  on  an  unbundled  basis  to  loop  qualification  information  as  set  forth  in    51.319(  g).  Id.  n.  1040.  We  note 
 that  the  T2A  already  contains  provisions  addressing  many  of  these  items.  SWBT  Texas  1  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para. 
 86. 


 71  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  36-  37;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  85-  86.  SWBT  offers  access 


 through  the  T2A  to  the  UNEs  defined  in  the  original  rule  319.  In  addition,  SWBT  has  complied  with  the  UNE 
 Remand  Orders  revised  rule  319  by  developing  revised  definitions  of  the  loop,  network  interface  device  (NID), 
 and  interoffice  transport  network  elements,  and  making  these  new  definitions  available  to  competitive  LECs 
 through  an  amendment  to  the  T2A.  Id. 


 72  See  section  III.  C.  1,  infra. 


 73  Bell  Atlantic  filed  an  application  for  section  271  authority  in  New  York  on  September  29,  1999.  Bell  Atlantic 
 New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3953,  para.  1. 
 74  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3966-  67,  paras.  30-  31. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 17 
 compliance  with  the  new  rule  319  because  we  recognized  that  the  new  rule  would  not  take  effect 
 until  after  the  release  of  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  and  because  we  believed  it  would  be 
 unfair  to  require  Bell  Atlantic  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  new  rules  weeks  or  months  before 
 the  rule  became  binding  on  other  incumbent  LECs.  We  thus  find  SWBTs  approach  to  rule  319 
 to  be  reasonable,  and  consistent  with  our  analysis  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order. 


 33.  For  similar  reasons,  as  discussed  below,  we  do  not  require  SWBT  to  prove  that  it 
 has  implemented  the  OSS  and  other  loop  facility  modifications  necessary  to  accommodate 
 requests  for  line  sharing  as  required  in  the  Line  Sharing  Order.  75 


 C.  Scope  of  Evidence  in  the  Record 
 1.  Procedural  Framework 
 34.  Section  271  proceedings  are,  at  their  core,  adjudications  that  the  Act  requires  the 
 Commission  to  complete  within  ninety  days  of  the  application  filing.  The  statute  also  requires  us 
 to  consult  with  the  Department  of  Justice  and  the  relevant  state  commission  in  reviewing  the 
 application.  In  the  context  of  this  statutory  framework,  the  Commission  has  established 
 procedural  rules  governing  BOC  section  271  applications.  76  Among  other  things,  these  rules 
 provide  an  opportunity  for  parties  other  than  the  Department  of  Justice  and  the  relevant  state 
 commission  to  comment  on  section  271  applications. 


 35.  Under  our  procedural  rules  governing  BOC  section  271  applications,  we  expect 
 that  a  section  271  application,  as  originally  filed,  will  include  all  of  the  factual  evidence  on  which 
 the  applicant  would  have  the  Commission  rely  in  making  its  findings.  77  An  applicant  may  not,  at 
 any  time  during  the  pendency  of  its  application,  supplement  its  application  by  submitting  new 
 factual  evidence  that  is  not  directly  responsive  to  arguments  raised  by  parties  commenting  on  its 


 75  See  section  V.  D,  infra.  The  Line  Sharing  Order  amends  the  Commissions  rules  to  require  incumbent  LECs 
 to  provide,  as  a  network  element,  access  to  the  high-  frequency  portion  of  the  local  loop  to  a  requesting  competitive 
 LEC  on  loops  that  carry  the  incumbent  LECs  basic  telephone  service.  See  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20926,  para.  25. 


 76  See,  e.  g.,  Procedures  for  Bell  Operating  Company  Applications  Under  New  Section  271  of  the 


 Communications  Act,  Public  Notice,  11  FCC  Rcd  19708,  19711  (Dec.  6,  1996)  (Dec.  6,  1996  Public  Notice); 
 Revised  Comment  Schedule  for  Ameritech  Michigan  Application,  as  amended,  for  Authorization  under  Section  271 
 of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  Public  Notice,  DA 
 97-  127  (Jan.  17,  1997)  (Jan.  17,  1997  Public  Notice);  Revised  Procedures  for  Bell  Operating  Company 
 Applications  Under  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act,  Public  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  17457  (Sept.  19,  1997) 
 (Sept.  19,  1997  Public  Notice);  Updated  Filing  Requirements  for  Bell  Operating  Company  Applications  Under 
 Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act,  Public  Notice,  DA-  99-  1994  (Sept.  28,  1999)  (Sept.  28,  1999  Public 
 Notice). 


 77  Sept.  19,  1997  Public  Notice  at  Section  B. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 18 
 application.  78  This  includes  the  submission,  on  reply,  of  factual  evidence  gathered  after  the  initial 
 filing.  In  an  effort  to  meet  its  burden  of  proof,  however,  a  BOC  may  submit  new  factual 
 information  after  the  application  is  filed,  if  the  sole  purpose  of  that  evidence  is  to  rebut  arguments 
 or  facts  submitted  by  other  commenters.  79  The  new  evidence,  however,  must  cover  only  the 
 period  placed  in  dispute  by  commenters  and  may,  in  no  event,  post-  date  the  filing  of  the 
 comments  (i.  e.,  day  20).  80  In  the  event  that  the  applicant  submits  new  or  post-  dated  evidence  in 
 replies  or  ex  parte  filings  and  the  evidence  is  not  directly  responsive  to  commenting  parties,  we 
 retain  the  discretion  to  start  the  90-  day  review  process  anew  or  to  accord  such  evidence  no 
 weight.  81 


 36.  This  precedent  has  served  the  Commission  well  by  deterring  incomplete  filings 
 from  the  BOCs.  In  particular,  the  rule  is  designed  to  prevent  applicants  from  presenting  part  of 
 their  initial  prima  facie  showing  for  the  first  time  in  reply  comments.  82  The  rule  has  enabled  us 
 properly  to  manage  our  own  internal  consideration  of  the  application  and  ensures  that 
 commenters  are  not  faced  with  a  moving  target  in  the  BOCs  section  271  application.  We 
 continue  to  believe,  as  a  general  matter,  that  it  is  highly  disruptive  to  our  processes  to  have  a 
 record  that  is  constantly  evolving.  We  emphasize,  however,  that  our  precedent  makes  clear  that 
 this  rule  is  a  discretionary  one.  83 


 37.  We  do  not  expect  that  a  BOC,  in  its  initial  application,  will  anticipate  and  address 
 every  foreseeable  argument  its  opponents  might  make  in  their  subsequent  reply  comments,  but  we 
 have  previously  stated  that  a  BOC  must  address  in  its  initial  application  all  facts  that  the  BOC  can 
 reasonably  anticipate  will  be  at  issue.  Through  state  proceedings,  BOCs  should  be  able 
 reasonably  to  identify  and  anticipate  certain  arguments  and  allegations  that  parties  will  make  in 


 78  Id.;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3968,  para.  34;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20570-  71,  para.  50. 
 79  Id. 


 80  Sept.  19,  1997  Public  Notice  at  Section  B;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20570-  71,  para.  50. 
 81  Id.  (citing  Jan.  17,  1997  Public  Notice).  The  Commission  subsequently  released  a  procedural  public  notice 
 incorporating  this  policy  for  future  section  271  applications,  see  Sept.  19  Public  Notice  at  Section  B. 
 82  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20573,  para.  54. 


 83  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3969,  para.  36;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20571,  para.  51  ([  I]  f  a  BOC  chooses  to  submit  such  evidence  .  .  .  we  reserve  the  discretion  .  .  .  to  accord  the  new 
 evidence  no  weight  in  making  our  determination.);  id.  at  para.  54  ([  W]  e  find  that  using  our  discretion  to  accord 
 BOC  submissions  of  new  factual  evidence  no  weight  will  ensure  that  our  proceedings  are  conducted  in  such 
 manner  as  will  best  conduce  to  the  proper  dispatch  of  business  and  to  the  ends  of  justice.  );  id.  at  para.  57  (  By 
 retaining  the  discretion  to  accord  new  evidence  no  weight  .  .  .  .  );  id.  at  para.  59  (  Because  we  will  exercise  our 
 discretion  in  determining  whether  to  accord  new  factual  evidence  any  weight,  we  deny  [the  motion  to  strike]); 
 Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20674  (  Given  the  complexity  of  this  data  and  the  fact  that 
 interested  parties  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  address  it,  we  exercise  our  discretion  to  accord  the  information 
 minimal  weight.);  Dec.  10  Public  Notice  at  1  ([  I]  f  parties  choose  to  submit  new  evidence,  [the  Commission] 
 retains  the  discretion  to  accord  new  evidence  no  weight.). 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 19 
 their  filings  before  the  Commission.  84 
 38.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  found  that  a  BOCs  promises  of  future 
 performance  to  address  particular  concerns  raised  by  commenters  have  no  probative  value  in 
 demonstrating  its  present  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  section  271.  85  In  order  to  gain  in-region, 
 interLATA  entry,  a  BOC  must  support  its  application  with  actual  evidence  demonstrating 
 its  present  compliance  with  the  statutory  conditions  for  entry,  instead  of  prospective  evidence  that 
 is  contingent  on  future  behavior.  Thus,  we  must  be  able  to  make  a  determination  based  on  the 
 evidence  in  the  record  that  a  BOC  has  actually  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  requirements  of 
 section  271.  Changes  or  upgrades  (e.  g.,  development  of  new  processes  for  providing  access  to 
 checklist  items)  that  post-  date  the  application  will  not  be  relied  upon  for  checklist  compliance,  but 
 may  provide  us  with  further  assurances  that  the  applicant  will  continue  to  satisfy  the  conditions  of 
 market  entry  in  the  future. 


 39.  With  this  procedural  framework  in  mind,  we  find  it  appropriate  to  consider  in 
 connection  with  this  application  SWBTs  Texas  performance  data  for  the  month  of  April  2000, 
 even  though  the  month  contains  a  few  days  that  extend  beyond  the  comment  filing  date,  April  26, 
 2000.  We  believe  that  it  would  be  administratively  burdensome  and  would  not  result  in  any 
 material  change  to  the  submitted  data  if  we  were  to  formalistically  require  SWBT  to  omit  the  last 
 four  days  of  April  from  its  reports  for  the  purposes  of  this  proceeding.  SWBTs  state-  approved 
 procedures  are  geared  toward  generating  performance  reports  on  a  monthly  basis,  and 
 competitive  LECs  have  become  accustomed  to  receiving  them  in  the  same  form. 


 40.  Moreover,  generation  of  a  special  report,  e.  g.,  covering  only  the  dates  from  April  1 
 to  April  26,  2000,  would  pose  a  greater  risk  of  manipulation  or  miscalculation  and  would 
 presumably  make  it  more  difficult  for  competitive  LECs  to  compare  the  reported  data  with  their 
 own  records,  which  they  have  become  accustomed  to  receiving  in  monthly  reports.  We  find  the 
 monthly  performance  reports  created  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business  and  according  to 
 established  procedures  to  be  inherently  more  reliable  than  any  abbreviated  report.  In  addition, 
 submission  of  a  second  set  of  April  performance  data  (consisting  of  hundreds  of  pages  of  nearly 
 duplicative  material)  would  make  an  already  voluminous  and  complex  docket  even  more  difficult 
 for  interested  parties  to  follow.  Additionally,  a  partial  month  of  data  arguably  would  be  less 
 valuable  for  examining  trends  from  previous  full  months.  For  these  reasons  we  do  not  believe  that 
 any  party  to  this  proceeding  is  prejudiced  by  our  decision  to  include  consideration  of  the  last  four 
 days  of  SWBTs  April  performance  reports. 


 2.  Ex  Parte  Submissions 
 41.  Under  the  procedural  rules  governing  section  271  applications,  we  strongly 


 84  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3969,  para.  36;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20575. 
 85  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3969,  para.  37;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 


 20573-  74. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 20 
 encourage  parties  to  set  forth  their  views  comprehensively  in  their  formal  submissions  (i.  e.,  Brief 
 in  Support,  oppositions,  supporting  comments,  etc.),  and  not  to  rely  on  subsequent  ex  parte 
 presentations.  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  expressly  provided  that  parties  may  file  ex 
 partes.  Our  procedural  Public  Notice  thus  clearly  contemplates  that  parties  may  file  written  ex 
 partes,  when  appropriate,  to  clarify  the  record.  86  We  take  this  opportunity  to  clarify  that  like 
 reply  comments,  ex  partes  must  be  directly  responsive  to  arguments  raised  by  parties  commenting 
 on  the  application.  Such  ex  partes  may,  however,  elaborate  on,  or  provide  additional  explanation 
 or  detail  in  response  to  requests  from  Commission  staff  or  in  direct  response  to  post-  reply  ex 
 parte  filings. 


 42.  Nothing  in  our  procedural  rules  or  past  precedent  precludes  the  Commission  and 
 the  staff  from  requesting  clarification  or  an  explanation  about  information  or  data  contained  in  the 
 filings  specified  above.  Indeed,  our  procedural  Public  Notice  expressly  recognizes  that  the 
 Commission  may  request  additional  information  from  the  applicant,  as  the  page  limit  for  ex  partes 
 does  not  apply  to  written  material  filed  in  response  to  direct  requests  from  Commission  staff.  87  It 
 is  critical  to  the  agencys  deliberative  process  that  the  Commission  and  staff  fully  understand  the 
 evidence  and  arguments  presented  in  the  BOCs  section  271  application,  arguments  raised  in 
 opposition,  and  responses  made  by  parties  on  reply.  Accordingly,  the  Commission  retains  the 
 discretion  to  request  additional  information  from  the  applicant  or  other  parties  that  elaborates  on 
 positions  set  forth  in  the  original  application,  comments,  or  reply  comments.  88  We  emphasize  that 
 we  are  not  departing  from  our  view  that  the  applicant  should  set  forth  its  position  in  a  clear  and 
 concise  manner  in  its  formal  filings.  However,  it  is  imperative  that,  as  part  of  the  Commissions 
 deliberative  process,  we  have  the  ability  to  engage  in  an  ongoing  dialogue  with  parties  to  ensure 
 that  we  have  a  clear  and  accurate  understanding  of  the  information  contained  in  all  formal 
 submissions. 


 D.  Framework  for  Analyzing  Compliance  with  Statutory  Requirements 
 43.  In  this  section,  we  discuss  two  aspects  of  the  framework  for  analyzing  compliance 
 with  the  statutory  requirements  of  section  271.  First,  we  discuss  the  legal  standards  we  have 
 enunciated  in  past  orders  for  determining  whether  a  BOC  is  meeting  the  statutory 
 nondiscrimination  requirements.  Second,  we  discuss  the  evidentiary  requirements  of  a  BOCs 
 section  271  application  and,  in  particular,  the  types  of  showings  we  will  find  probative  in  deciding 
 whether  a  BOC  has  met  the  statutory  standards. 


 1.  Legal  Standard 
 44.  In  order  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  section  271s  competitive  checklist,  a 
 BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  has  fully  implemented  the  competitive  checklist  in  subsection 


 86  Sept.  19  Public  Notice  at  Section  H  (establishing  page  limitations  for  ex  partes,  subject  to  certain  exceptions). 
 87  Id. 
 88  Consistent  with  section  1.1204(  a)(  b)  of  our  rules,  responses  to  Commission  inquiries  will  generally  be  placed 
 in  the  record.  47  C.  F.  R    1.204(  a)(  b). 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 21 
 (c)(  2)(  B).  89  In  particular,  the  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  is  offering  interconnection  and 
 access  to  network  elements  on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis.  90  Previous  Commission  orders 
 addressing  section  271  applications  have  elaborated  on  this  statutory  standard.  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.  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.  91  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.  92 


 45.  We  do  not  view  the  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  standard  to  be  a  weaker 
 test  than  the  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  standard.  Where  the  BOC  provides 
 functions  to  its  competitors  that  it  also  provides  for  itself  in  connection  with  its  retail  service,  its 
 actual  performance  can  be  measured  to  determine  whether  it  is  providing  access  to  its  competitors 
 in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  does  to  itself.  Where  the  BOC,  however,  does 
 not  provide  a  retail  service  that  is  similar  to  its  wholesale  service,  its  actual  performance  with 
 respect  to  competitors  cannot  be  measured  against  how  it  performs  for  itself  because  the  BOC 
 does  not  perform  analogous  activities  for  itself.  In  those  situations,  our  examination  of  whether 
 the  quality  of  access  provided  to  competitors  offers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  is 
 intended  to  be  a  proxy  for  whether  access  is  being  provided  in  substantially  the  same  time  and 
 manner  and,  thus,  is  nondiscriminatory. 


 46.  Finally,  we  note  that  a  determination  of  whether  the  statutory  standard  is  met  is 
 ultimately  a  judgment  we  must  make  based  on  our  expertise  in  promoting  competition  in  local 
 markets  and  in  telecommunications  regulation  generally.  We  have  not  established,  nor  do  we 
 believe  it  appropriate  to  establish,  specific  objective  criteria  for  what  constitutes  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner  or  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  We  look  at  each  application 
 on  a  case-  by-  case  basis  and  consider  the  totality  of  the  circumstances,  including  the  origin  and 
 quality  of  the  information  before  us,  to  determine  whether  the  nondiscrimination  requirements  of 
 the  Act  are  met.  Whether  this  legal  standard  is  met  can  only  be  decided  based  on  an  analysis  of 
 specific  facts  and  circumstances. 


 2.  Evidentiary  Case 


 89  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3971,  para.  44;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20599. 
 90  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  1)(  B)(  i),  (ii). 


 91  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3971,  para.  44;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20618-  19. 
 92  Id. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 22 
 47.  We  have  set  forth  above  the  analytical  framework  that  we  use  in  assessing  whether 
 a  BOC  has  demonstrated  compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements  of  section  271.  At  the 
 outset,  we  reemphasize  that  the  BOC  applicant  retains  at  all  times  the  ultimate  burden  of  proof 
 that  its  application  satisfies  all  of  the  requirements  of  section  271,  even  if  no  party  files  comments 
 challenging  its  compliance  with  a  particular  requirement.  93 


 48.  The  evidentiary  standards  governing  our  review  of  section  271  applications  are 
 intended  to  balance  our  need  for  reliable  evidence  against  our  recognition  that,  in  such  a  complex 
 endeavor  as  a  section  271  proceeding,  no  finder  of  fact  can  expect  proof  to  an  absolute  certainty. 
 While  we  expect  the  BOC  to  demonstrate  as  thoroughly  as  possible  that  it  satisfies  each  checklist 
 item,  the  public  interest  standard,  and  the  other  statutory  requirements,  we  reiterate  that  the  BOC 
 needs  only  to  prove  each  element  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  which  generally  means 
 the  greater  weight  of  evidence,  evidence  which  is  more  convincing  that  the  evidence  which  is 
 offered  in  opposition  to  it.  94 


 49.  As  we  held  in  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  we  first  determine  whether 
 the  BOC  has  made  a  prima  facie  case  that  it  meets  the  requirements  of  a  particular  checklist  item. 
 The  BOC  must  plead,  with  appropriate  supporting  evidence,  facts  which,  if  true,  are  sufficient  to 
 establish  that  the  requirements  of  section  271  have  been  met.  Once  the  BOC  has  made  such  a 
 showing,  opponents  must  produce  evidence  and  arguments  to  show  that  the  application  does  not 
 satisfy  the  requirements  of  section  271,  or  risk  a  ruling  in  the  BOCs  favor.  95 


 50.  When  considering  commenters  filings  in  opposition  to  the  BOCs  application,  we 
 look  for  evidence  that  the  BOCs  policies,  procedures,  or  capabilities  preclude  it  from  satisfying 
 the  requirements  of  the  checklist  item.  Mere  unsupported  evidence  in  opposition  will  not  suffice.  96  Although  anecdotal  evidence  may  be  indicative  of  systemic  failures,  isolated  incidents 


 may  not  be  sufficient  for  a  commenter  to  overcome  the  BOCs  prima  facie  case.  Moreover,  a 
 BOC  may  overcome  such  anecdotal  evidence  by,  for  example,  providing  objective  performance 
 data  that  demonstrate  that  it  satisfies  the  statutory  nondiscrimination  requirement. 


 51.  We  will  look  to  the  state  to  resolve  factual  disputes  wherever  possible.  Indeed,  we 
 view  the  states  and  the  Department  of  Justices  roles  to  be  similar  to  that  of  an  expert  witness. 
 Given  the  90-  day  statutory  deadline  to  reach  a  decision  on  a  section  271  application,  the 


 93  Bell  Atlantic  New  York,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3972,  para.  47;  Application  of  BellSouth  Corporation  for  Provision  of 
 In-  Region,  Inter-  LATA  Services  in  Louisiana,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  20599  at  20635-  36, 
 para.  57  (Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order);  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20567-  68,  para.  43. 


 94  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3972-  73,  para.  48;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20638-  39,  para.  59;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20568-  69,  para.  45. 
 95  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3973,  para.  49;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd 


 at  20638-  39,  para.  59. 
 96  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20569,  para.  45  (concluding  that  greater  weight  will  be 


 attached  to  comments  and  pleadings  supported  by  an  affidavit  or  sworn  statement  than  to  an  unsupported  contrary 
 pleading);  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3972,  para.  47. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 23 
 Commission  does  not  have  the  time  or  the  resources  to  resolve  the  enormous  number  of  factual 
 disputes  that  inevitably  arise  from  the  technical  details  and  data  involved  in  such  a  complex 
 endeavor.  Accordingly,  as  discussed  above,  where  the  state  has  conducted  an  exhaustive  and 
 rigorous  investigation  into  the  BOCs  compliance  with  the  checklist,  we  may  give  evidence 
 submitted  by  the  state  substantial  weight  in  making  our  decision. 


 52.  To  make  a  prima  facie  case  that  the  BOC  is  meeting  the  requirements  of  a 
 particular  checklist  item  under  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A),  the  BOC  must  demonstrate  that  it  is 
 providing  access  or  interconnection  pursuant  to  the  terms  of  that  checklist  item.  In  particular,  a 
 BOC  must  demonstrate  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  item  in  quantities  that  competitors  may  reasonably  demand  and  at  an 
 acceptable  level  of  quality.  97 


 53.  The  particular  showing  required  to  demonstrate  compliance  will  vary  depending  on 
 the  individual  checklist  item  and  the  circumstances  of  the  application.  We  have  given  BOCs 
 substantial  leeway  with  respect  to  the  evidence  they  present  to  satisfy  the  checklist.  Although  our 
 orders  have  provided  guidance  on  which  types  of  evidence  we  find  more  persuasive,  we  reiterate 
 that  we  remain  open  to  approving  an  application  based  on  other  types  of  evidence  if  a  BOC  can 
 persuade  us  that  such  evidence  demonstrates  nondiscriminatory  treatment  and  other  aspects  of  the 
 statutory  requirements.  98  In  past  orders  we  have  encouraged  BOCs  to  provide  performance  data 
 in  their  section  271  applications  to  demonstrate  that  they  are  providing  nondiscriminatory  access 
 to  unbundled  network  elements  to  requesting  carriers.  99  We  have  concluded  that  the  most 
 probative  evidence  that  a  BOC  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  is  evidence  of  actual 
 commercial  usage.  100  Performance  measurements  are  an  especially  effective  means  of  providing  us 
 with  evidence  of  the  quality  and  timeliness  of  the  access  provided  by  a  BOC  to  requesting 
 carriers. 


 97  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3973,  para.  52;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20601-  02,  para.  110. 
 98  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3974,  para.  53;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd 


 at  20638-  39,  para.  59. 
 99  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  3974,  para.  53;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at 


 20658-  59,  para.  92;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20627-  52;  Application  by  BellSouth  Corp.  et  al. 
 Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA 
 Services  in  Louisiana,  CC  Docket  No.  97-  231,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13 
 FCC  Rcd  6245,  6258-  81,  paras.  21-  58  (1998)  (First  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order);  Application  by  BellSouth  et  al. 
 Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  to  Provide  InterLATA  Services  in  South 
 Carolina,  CC  Docket  No.  97-  208,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  539,  597-  634  (BellSouth  South 
 Carolina  Order). 


 100  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3974,  para.  53;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd 


 at  20655,  para.  86;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20618,  para.  138; 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 24 
 54.  A  number  of  state  commissions,  including  Texas,  have  established  a  collaborative 
 process  through  which  they  have  developed,  in  conjunction  with  the  incumbent  and  competing 
 carriers,  a  set  of  measures,  or  metrics,  for  reporting  of  performance  in  various  areas.  101  Through 
 such  collaborative  processes,  Texas  has  also  adopted  performance  standards  for  certain  functions, 
 typically  where  there  can  be  no  comparable  measure  based  on  the  incumbent  LECs  retail 
 performance.  We  strongly  encourage  this  type  of  process,  because  it  allows  the  technical  details 
 that  determine  how  the  metrics  are  defined  and  measured  to  be  worked  out  with  the  participation 
 of  all  concerned  parties.  We  also  strongly  support  the  efforts  of  state  commissions  to  build  and 
 oversee  a  process  that  ensures  the  development  of  local  competition  that  Congress  intended.  An 
 extensive  and  rigorous  evaluation  of  the  BOCs  performance  by  the  states  provides  greater 
 certainty  that  barriers  to  competition  have  been  eliminated  and  the  local  markets  in  a  state  are 
 open  to  competition. 


 55.  We  caution,  however,  that  adoption  by  a  state  of  a  particular  performance  standard 
 pursuant  to  its  state  regulatory  authority  is  not  determinative  of  what  is  necessary  to  establish 
 checklist  compliance  under  section  271.  We  recognize  that  metric  definitions  and  incumbent  LEC 
 operating  systems  will  likely  vary  among  states,  and  that  individual  states  may  set  standards  at  a 
 particular  level  that  would  not  apply  in  other  states  and  that  may  constitute  more  or  less  than  the 
 checklist  requires.  Therefore,  in  evaluating  checklist  compliance  in  each  application,  we  consider 
 the  BOCs  performance  within  the  context  of  each  respective  state.  For  example,  where  a  state 
 develops  a  performance  benchmark  with  input  from  affected  competitors  and  the  BOC,  such  a 
 standard  may  well  reflect  what  competitors  in  the  marketplace  feel  they  need  in  order  to  have  a 
 meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  102 


 56.  We  emphasize  that,  because  the  Commission  is  statutorily  required  to  determine 
 checklist  compliance,  we  must  independently  evaluate  whether  a  BOC  is  fulfilling  the 
 nondiscrimination  requirements  of  section  271.  Nevertheless,  in  making  our  evaluation  we  will 
 examine  whether  the  state  commission  has  adopted  a  retail  analogue  or  a  benchmark  to  measure 
 BOC  performance  and  then  review  the  particular  level  of  performance  the  state  has  required.  If 
 the  state  commission  has  made  these  determinations  in  the  type  of  rigorous  collaborative 
 proceeding  described  above,  we  are  much  more  likely  to  find  that  they  are  reasonable  and 
 appropriate  measures  of  parity.  Accordingly,  we  are  inclined  to  rely  on  such  standards  and 
 measurements  in  our  own  analysis  but  may  reach  a  different  conclusion  where  justified. 


 57.  In  determining  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  each  element  of  the  competitive  checklist, 
 101  In  our  Performance  Measurements  NPRM  we  proposed  a  model  set  of  reporting  requirements  that  states  could 
 adopt  to  measure  whether  an  incumbent  LEC  is  providing  interconnection,  resale,  and  unbundled  network 
 elements  on  nondiscriminatory  terms.  Performance  Measurements  and  Reporting  Requirements  for  Operations 
 Support  Systems,  Interconnection,  and  Operator  Services  and  Directory  Assistance,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  56,  Notice 
 of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  13  FCC  Rcd  12817  (rel.  Apr.  17,  1998)  (Performance  Measurements  NPRM).  This 
 Commission  has  not,  however,  adopted,  as  a  federal  requirement,  a  particular  set  of  metrics  or  performance 
 standards. 


 102  We  also  recognize  that  states  may  choose  to  set  their  performance  benchmarks  at  levels  higher  than  what  is 


 necessary  to  meet  the  statutory  nondiscrimination  standard.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  55,  n.  107. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 25 
 we  rely,  among  other  factors,  on  performance  data  collected  and  submitted  by  SWBT.  Several 
 commenters  challenge  the  validity  of  certain  data  submitted  by  SWBT,  however,  including 
 performance  data  collected  and  reported  pursuant  to  the  performance  measurements  developed 
 under  the  auspices  of  the  Texas  Commission.  103  We  reject  the  contention  that  SWBTs  data  are 
 generally  invalid  because  they  have  not  been  audited,  and  thus  cannot  be  relied  upon  to  support  its 
 application.  We  note  that  the  data  submitted  by  SWBT  in  this  proceeding  have  been  subject  to 
 scrutiny  and  review  by  interested  parties.  To  a  large  extent,  moreover,  the  accuracy  of  the 
 specific  performance  data  relied  upon  by  SWBT  is  not  contested.  Where  particular  SWBT  data 
 are  disputed  by  commenters,  we  discuss  these  challenges  in  our  checklist  analysis,  below.  In  such 
 instances,  we  first  look  to  the  results  of  data  reconciliations  between  SWBT  and  competing 
 carriers.  In  other  instances,  we  examine  data  collected  and  submitted  by  commenters  in  addition 
 to  SWBTs  data. 


 58.  The  determination  of  whether  a  BOCs  performance  meets  the  statutory 
 requirements  necessarily  is  a  contextual  decision  based  on  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  and 
 information  before  us.  There  may  be  multiple  performance  measures  associated  with  a  particular 
 checklist  item,  and  an  apparent  disparity  in  performance  for  one  measure,  by  itself,  may  not 
 provide  a  basis  for  finding  noncompliance  with  the  checklist.  Other  measures  may  tell  a  different 
 story,  and  provide  us  with  a  more  complete  picture  of  the  quality  of  service  being  provided. 
 Whether  we  are  applying  the  substantially  same  time  and  manner  standard  or  the  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete  standard,  we  will  examine  whether  any  differences  in  the  measured 
 performance  are  large  enough  to  be  deemed  discriminatory  under  the  statute.  For  this  reason,  and 
 because  standards  established  by  the  Texas  Commission  are  not  necessarily  determinative  of 
 checklist  compliance,  we  note  that  SWBTs  failure  of  individual  performance  measurements  does 
 not,  in  itself,  warrant  denial  of  this  application.  104 


 IV.  COMPLIANCE  WITH  SECTION  271(  C)(  1)(  A) 
 A.  Background 
 59.  In  order  for  the  Commission  to  approve  a  BOCs  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).  105  To  qualify  for  Track  A,  a  BOC 
 must  have  interconnection  agreements  with  one  or  more  competing  providers  of  telephone 


 103  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  36  (arguing  that  SWBT  should  be  required  to  prove  the  accuracy  and 
 reliability  of  its  data  collection  and  reporting  processes);  AT&  T  Texas  I  Pfau/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  15,  25,  56-58; 
 WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  34  (arguing  that  SWBTs  data  have  not  been  sufficiently  audited  and  thus  are 
 unreliable). 


 104  We  thus  reject  AT&  Ts  contention  that  the  application  should  be  denied  on  the  ground  that  SWBT  failed  to 


 satisfy  the  Texas  Commissions  parity  or  benchmark  standards  for  certain  Texas  performance  measurements.  See 
 AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  64. 


 105  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  A). 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 26 
 exchange  service  .  .  .  to  residential  and  business  subscribers.  106  The  Act  states  that  such 
 telephone  service  may  be  offered  .  .  .  either  exclusively  over  [the  competitors]  own  telephone 
 exchange  service  facilities  or  predominantly  over  [the  competitors]  own  telephone  exchange 
 facilities  in  combination  with  the  resale  of  the  telecommunications  services  of  another  carrier.  107 
 The  Commission  concluded  in  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order  that,  when  a  BOC  relies  upon  more 
 than  one  competing  provider  to  satisfy  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A),  each  carrier  need  not  provide  service 
 to  both  residential  and  business  customers.  108 


 B.  Discussion 
 60.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  satisfies  the  requirements  of  Track  A 
 based  on  the  interconnection  agreements  it  has  implemented  with  competing  carriers  in  Texas. 
 Specifically,  we  find  that  AT&  T,  Birch,  CoServ,  ETS,  Optel,  Sage,  and  KMC  all  provide 
 telephone  exchange  service  either  exclusively  or  predominantly  over  their  own  facilities  to 
 residential  subscribers  and  to  business  subscribers.  109  The  Texas  Commission  also  concludes  that 
 SWBT  has  met  the  requirements  of  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A).  110  None  of  the  commenting  parties, 
 including  the  competitors  cited  by  SWBT  in  support  of  its  showing,  challenge  SWBTs  assertion 
 in  this  regard. 


 V.  CHECKLIST  COMPLIANCE 
 A.  Checklist  Item  1    Interconnection 
 1.  Non-  Pricing  Aspects  of  Interconnection 
 a.  Background 
 61.  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).  111 
 Section  251(  c)(  2)  imposes  a  duty  on  incumbent  LECs  to  provide,  for  the  facilities  and  equipment 


 106  Id. 
 107  Id. 
 108  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20589,  para.  85.  See  also  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  20633-  35  at  paras.  46-  48. 
 109  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  96. 


 110  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  95-  96.  Although  the  Department  of  Justice  does  not  address 
 business  and  residential  subscribers  separately,  it  states  that  competitive  LECs  have  a  total  of  approximately 
 840,000    890,000  access  lines,  representing  approximately  eight  percent  of  SWBTs  Texas  market.  Department 
 of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  9. 


 111  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-  63, 
 para.  222. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 27 
 of  any  requesting  telecommunications  carrier,  interconnection  with  the  local  exchange  carriers 
 network  .  .  .  for  the  transmission  and  routing  of  telephone  exchange  service  and  exchange 
 access.  112  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.  113  Section  251  contains  three  requirements  for  the  provision  of  interconnection.  First,  an 
 incumbent  LEC  must  provide  interconnection  at  any  technically  feasible  point  within  the  carriers 
 network.  114  Second,  an  incumbent  LEC  must  provide  interconnection  that  is  at  least  equal  in 
 quality  to  that  provided  by  the  local  exchange  carrier  to  itself.  115  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.  116 


 62.  To  implement  the  equal-  in-  quality  requirement  in  section  251,  the  Commissions 
 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  LECs  network.  117  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission 
 identified  trunk  group  blockage  and  transmission  standards  as  indicators  of  an  incumbent  LECs 
 technical  criteria  and  service  standards.  118  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.  119 


 63.  In  the  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that 


 112  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  A). 
 113  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15590,  para.  176.  Transport  and  termination  of 
 traffic  are  therefore  excluded  from  the  Commissions  definition  of  interconnection.  See  Id. 
 114  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. 


 115  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  C). 


 116  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  D). 
 117  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. 


 118  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15614-  15,  paras.  224-  25. 


 119  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  BOCs  interconnection  performance.  Trunk  group 
 blockage  indicates  that  end  users  are  experiencing  difficulty  completing  or  receiving  calls,  which  may  have  a  direct 
 impact  on  the  customers  perception  of  a  competitive  LECs  service  quality. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 28 
 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.  120  The  Commissions  rules  interpret  this  obligation  to 
 include,  among  other  things,  the  incumbent  LECs  installation  time  for  interconnection  service  121 
 and  its  provisioning  of  two-  way  trunking  arrangements.  122  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.  123 


 64.  Competing  carriers  may  choose  any  method  of  technically  feasible  interconnection 
 at  a  particular  point  on  the  incumbent  LECs  network.  124  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.  125  The  provision  of  collocation  is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  demonstrating 


 compliance  with  item  1  of  the  competitive  checklist.  126  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.  127  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  our 


 120  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. 
 121  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  a)(  5). 


 122  Our  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. 


 123  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  a)(  5). 


 124  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. 
 125  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. 


 126  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. 
 127  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  147, 


 First  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  4761  (1999)  vacated  in  part, 
 GTE  Services  Corp.  V.  FCC,  Nos.  99-  1176  et  al.  (D.  C.  Cir.  Mar.  17,  2000)  (Advanced  Services  First  Report  and 
 Order  or  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order  and  FNPRM). 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 29 
 implementing  rules.  128  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  BOCs  compliance  with  its  collocation  obligations.  129 


 b.  Discussion 
 65.  We  conclude,  as  described  below,  that  SWBT  demonstrates  it  provides  equal-  in-quality 
 interconnection  on  terms  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory  in 
 accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections  251(  c)(  2)  and  as  specified  in  section  271.  We 
 further  find  that  SWBT  meets  its  burden  of  proof  that  it  designs  its  interconnection  facilities  to 
 meet  the  same  technical  criteria  and  service  standards  that  are  used  for  the  interoffice  trunks 
 within  its  own  network.  We  also  find  that  SWBT  makes  interconnection  available  at  any 
 technically  feasible  point,  and  that  it  is  providing  collocation  in  Texas  in  accordance  with  the 
 Commissions  rules.  We  note  that  the  Texas  Commission  finds  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  all 
 aspects  of  this  checklist  item.  130 


 (i)  Interconnection  Trunking 
 66.  Based  on  our  review  of  the  record,  we  are  persuaded  that  SWBT  provides 
 competing  carriers  with  interconnection  trunking  that  is  equal-  in-  quality  to  the  interconnection 
 SWBT  provides  to  its  own  retail  operations,  and  on  terms  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable, 
 and  nondiscriminatory.  131  SWBT  makes  interconnection  available  in  Texas  through 
 interconnection  agreements,  including  its  state-  approved  T2A  agreement.  132  SWBT  receives 
 orders  for  interconnection  trunks  through  the  Access  Service  Request  (ASR)  process,  and  accepts 
 ASRs  through  an  electronic  application-  to-  application  interface,  through  a  proprietary  OSS 


 128  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd 
 at  20640-  41,  paras.  183-  84  ;  BellSouth  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  649-  51,  para.  62. 
 129  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3979,  para.  66;  see  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20640-  41,  paras.  61-  62. 
 130  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  22. 


 131  For  certain  interconnection  performance  metrics,  the  Texas  Commission  established  a  benchmark  standard  for 
 evaluating  SWBTs  performance  (e.  g.,  percent  of  trunk  blockage  and  average  interconnection  trunk  installation 
 intervals).  For  other  interconnection  measurements,  such  as  percent  missed  due  dates  for  installation,  a  parity 
 standard  is  applied. 


 132  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  App.  B  (providing  interconnection  agreements  between  SWBT  and  competing 


 carriers);  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  74,  77,  80;  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  10.  Several 
 competitive  LECs  raised  complaints  regarding  receipt  from  SWBT  of  notices  of  termination  of  the  T2A.  See 
 ALTS  and  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  II  Comments  at  14-  16;  Allegiance  Texas  II  Comments  at  3;  Z-  Tel  Texas  II 
 Comments  at  5-  6;  Allegiance  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  2.  SWBT  states  that  by  the  terms  of  the  T2A  it  was 
 required  to  send  such  notices  six  months  prior  to  expiration  of  the  T2A  (which  would  expire  after  one  year  if 
 SWBTs  application  for  section  271  authority  were  not  granted).  Because  SWBTs  application  is  herein  granted, 
 the  T2A  will  remain  in  effect  for  an  additional  three  years.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  47-  48. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 30 
 system,  and  through  manual  orders.  133  SWBT  provides  performance  data  to  measure  the  quality 
 of  interconnection  service  provided  to  competing  carriers.  134 


 67.  Trunk  Blockage.  In  prior  section  271  applications,  we  relied  on  trunk  blockage 
 data  to  evaluate  a  BOCs  interconnection  quality.  135  SWBTs  performance  data  demonstrates  that 
 in  the  months  leading  up  to  its  Texas  II  application,  SWBT  provided  interconnection  that  is  equal-in- 
 quality  to  the  interconnection  it  provides  in  its  own  network.  Specifically,  SWBTs  statewide 
 performance  data  measuring  the  percentage  of  calls  blocked  on  outgoing  traffic  (trunk  blockage 
 from  SWBT  end  office  and  tandem  to  competitive  LEC  end  office)  demonstrates  that  in  the  three 
 months  immediately  preceding  its  Texas  II  section  271  application,  SWBT  was  in  compliance 
 with  the  relevant  benchmark  established  in  Texas  (i.  e.,  blockage  not  to  exceed  one  percent  on 
 these  trunks).  136 


 68.  We  find  that  allegations  of  some  competitive  LECs,  that  they  have  been  unable  to 
 obtain  the  number  of  interconnection  trunks  they  requested  in  a  timely  manner  appear  to  be  the 
 exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Indeed,  as  we  discuss  throughout  this  section,  we  find  that 
 SWBTs  performance  data  indicate  that  it  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  interconnection 
 trunking.  To  the  extent  there  may  have  been  some  problems  with  trunk  provisioning,  137  we  agree 
 with  the  Department  of  Justice  that  such  issues  have  been  adequately  resolved.  138 


 133  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  10. 
 134  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  548  and  Attach.  A,  Measurements  70-  78,  (Performance  Measurement 
 Business  Rules)  (Version  1.6).  SWBT  has  implemented  nine  Texas  Commission-  approved  performance  measures 
 relating  to  this  checklist  item,  including  measures  that  compare  trunk  blockage  between  SWBT  and  competitive 
 LECs  (PM  70),  measures  that  capture  missed  due  dates  for  trunk  installations  (PM  73),  and  measures  that  provide 
 data  on  average  installation  intervals  (PM  78).  Id.;  see  also  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Measurement  Data 
 No.  70-  78  at  271-  No.  70-  71-  78  (showing  performance  measurement  data  for  January  2000  through  March  2000). 


 135  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3981-  83,  paras.  69-  72;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13 


 FCC  Rcd  at  20649-  50,  para.  76;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20669-  74,  paras.  236-  245. 
 136  For  SWBT  end  office  to  competitive  LEC  end  office,  SWBTs  statewide  data  indicate  zero  (0.0%)  trunk 


 blockage  for  the  months  of  January  through  March.  For  SWBT  tandem  to  competitive  LEC  end  office,  SWBTs 
 data  indicate  blockage  well  below  the  benchmark,  0.  1  %  for  January  and  February,  0.  0%  blockage  for  March.  See 
 SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  No.  70-  01,  70-  02  at  271-  No.  70-  71  (showing  performance  measurement 
 data  for  January  2000  through  March  2000).  The  Texas  Commission  applied  blockage  criteria  of  one  percent  as  a 
 benchmark  to  ensure  that  the  competitive  LECs  network  traffic  does  not  experience  the  same  blockage  as  SWBTs 
 network  (citing  the  disproportionate  impact  of  blocked  trunks  on  new  entrants).  Texas  Commission  Texas  I 
 Comments  at  14;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.  at  paras.  543-  547. 


 137  The  Department  of  Justice  initially  raised  concerns  in  the  Texas  I  application,  which  were  also  raised  by  the 


 competitive  LECs  themselves,  that  some  competitive  LECs  had  been  unable  to  obtain  the  number  of 
 interconnection  trunks  they  needed  and  that  these  competitive  LECs  had  difficulty  ordering  trunks.  See 
 Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  44-  49;  see  also  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  March  20,  2000  ex 
 parte  at  1,  n.  2. 


 138  In  its  Evaluation  of  SWBTs  Texas  II  application,  the  Department  of  Justice  stated  that  the  efforts  of  SBC, 


 competitive  local  exchange  carriers  and  the  Texas  PUC  appear  to  have  led  to  improvements  in  SBCs 
 (continued.) 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 31 
 69.  Competitive  LECs  allege  that  they  have  encountered  problems  ordering  trunks 
 from  SWBT  which  has  resulted  in  blockage  on  competitive  LEC  networks,  in  some  cases  leading 
 to  customer  complaints  and  lost  or  forgone  sales.  139  TWTC,  which  provided  the  most  extensive 
 history  of  its  blockage  problems,  stated  that  its  most  severe  blockage  occurred  in  Houston  during 
 the  conversion  of  the  SWBT  and  TWTC  interconnection  facilities  from  one-  way  to  two-  way 
 trunks  during  the  second  half  of  1999.  140  TWTC  acknowledges  that  the  blocking  ended  in  mid-October, 
 1999.  141  Furthermore,  we  note  that  SWBT  implemented  improvements  approved  by  the 
 Texas  Commission  during  supplemental  proceedings  in  November  and  December  1999  to  respond 
 to  competitive  LEC  concerns.  As  stated  above,  SWBT  meets  the  state  benchmark  for  PM  70  for 
 January,  February,  March  and  April.  142  We  also  note  that,  as  of  October,  over  75%  of  the  trunks 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 interconnection  trunking  performance  and  to  a  better  understanding  of  trunk  provisioning  by  the  various  parties  to 
 the  process.  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  5.  The  Texas  Commission  reviewed  SWBTs  trunk 
 utilization,  forecasting,  ordering  and  provisioning  processes,  as  well  as  plans  to  relieve  blockage  through  proper 
 cooperative  planning  between  SWBT  and  competitive  LECs.  As  a  result  of  this  review,  SWBT  agreed  to 
 implement  improvements  relating  to  trunk  forecasts,  data  collection,  application  of  exclusions,  and  the  process  for 
 ordering  trunks.  SWBT  was  also  permitted  to  apply  certain  exclusions  in  calculating  the  performance 
 measurements  (e.  g.,  customer  not  ready  exclusion).  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  14;  SWBT  Deere 
 Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  11;  SWBT  Laurie  Leathers  Texas  I  Aff.  (filed  Dec.  14,  1999  in  Docket  16251);  SWBT 
 Deere  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  19;  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  56,  Attach.  K  Dysart  Aff.  (filed  Dec.  14 
 in  Docket  16251),  see  also  Texas  Commission  Dec.  16  Open  Meeting  Transcript  at  26-  27;  32. 


 139  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  7-  12,  TWTC  Nick  Summit  Texas  I  Aff.  as  Attach.  4  to  CLEC  Coalition 


 Texas  I  Comments;  TWTC  Kelsi  Reeves  Texas  I  Aff.  as  Attach.  5  to  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments;  ALTS 
 Texas  I  Comments  at  17-  23,  e.  spire  Texas  I  Comments  at  3,  George  Wong  Texas  I  Aff.  at  2-  4  as  Attach.  to  e.  spire 
 Texas  I  Comments;  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  12,  CapRock  Jere  Thompson  Texas  I  Aff.  as  Exhibit  B  to 
 CompTel  Texas  I  Comments;  NTS  Mitch  Elliott  Texas  I  Aff.  as  Exhibit  C  to  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments;  Sprint 
 Texas  I  Comments  at  62-  64. 


 140  TWTC  Reeves  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  17-  24;  TWTC  Summit  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  12-  14. 


 141  TWTC  Summit  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  11.  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  79;  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras. 
 549-  559.  See  also  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  22.  SWBT  modified  its  trunk  ordering  guidelines 
 in  December  1999.  SWBT  agreed  to  accept  orders  of  12  DS1s  per  competitive  LEC  per  day  (an  increase  from 
 eight  DS1s  per  day)  in  each  of  the  four  market  areas  in  Texas.  This  modification  was  approved  by  the  Texas 
 Commission  at  its  December  16,  1999  Open  Meeting.  SWBT  Deere  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  7-  9.  SWBTs  Deere 
 Attach.  A  to  Reply  Aff.  (confidential)  reflects  all  occasions  on  which  SWBT  has  provisioned  eight  or  more  DS1s 
 per  day,  per  competitive  LEC,  per  market  area  from  January  1  to  February  11,  2000.  It  shows  SWBT  has  provided 
 12  or  more  DS1s  per  day  on  at  least  18  different  occasions.  SWBT  has  also  agreed  to  accept  quarterly  forecasts 
 from  competitive  LECs  (instead  of  only  semi-  annual  forecasts  accepted  previously).  According  to  the  business  rule 
 for  PM  70  (Version  1.  6),  if  a  competitive  LEC  exceeds  25%  of  its  most  recent  forecast  (which  must  have  been 
 provided  within  the  last  six  months),  an  exclusion  applies.  SWBT  has  agreed  to  measure  the  25%  exclusion 
 against  forecasts  provided  by  competitive  LECs  on  a  quarterly  basis.  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  12; 
 SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  64;  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at  15-  16.  See  also 
 March  8,  2000  ex  parte  letter  from  SWBT  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 
 Commission. 


 142  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Measurement  Data  No.  70-  01,  70-  2  at  271-  No.  70-  71  (showing  performance 


 measurement  data  for  January  1999  through  December  1999).  e.  spire  makes  general  allegations  concerning 
 blockage  caused  by  SWBT  and  SWBTs  lack  of  assistance  to  e.  spire.  e.  spire  Wong  Texas  I  Aff.  paras.  8-  12. 
 (continued.) 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 32 
 provisioned  in  Texas  were  two-  way  trunks.  143  In  the  future,  if  competitive  LECs  allege  that 
 blocking  is  occurring  on  outgoing  calls  from  the  competitive  LEC  network  to  the  BOC  network, 
 and  that  such  blockage  is  not  being  captured  by  the  state-  approved  performance  measure,  then 
 competitive  LECs  should  provide  evidence,  such  as  reliable  performance  data,  along  with  a 
 showing  of  why  the  BOC  is  responsible  for  the  blockage.  Should  such  evidence  develop  in  the 
 future  in  Texas,  we  will  consider  whether  enforcement  action  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6)  is 
 warranted. 


 70.  Missed  Due  Dates.  We  find  that  other  aspects  of  SWBTs  performance  data 
 further  indicate  it  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  interconnection  trunking  in  Texas.  SWBTs 
 performance  data  concerning  the  percentage  of  missed  due  dates  for  provisioning  of 
 interconnection  trunks  show  that  in  the  months  preceding  its  Texas  II  application,  SWBT 
 provided  parity  or  better  performance  to  competitors.  144  Recently  implemented  modifications  in 
 reporting  give  us  added  assurance  that  SWBT  will  continue  to  provide  timely  installation  of 
 interconnection  trunks.  In  response  to  competitive  LEC  concerns  that  the  performance 
 measurement  does  not  capture  held  orders,  145  the  Texas  Commission  implemented  a  new 
 measure,  PM  73.1,  to  capture  the  percentage  of  held  interconnection  trunk  orders  greater  than  90 
 calendar  days.  146  SWBT  asserts  that  there  were  no  held  orders  greater  than  90  days  between 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 e.  spires  allegations,  however,  do  not  disprove  the  submitted  data  showing  that  SWBT  met  the  benchmark  on  the 
 trunk  blocking  performance  measure  (PM  70),  as  detailed  above. 


 143  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  11.  We  also  note  that  TWTC  acknowledged  that  the  conversion 


 from  one-  way  to  two-  way  trunks  in  Austin  was  a  huge  success  for  both  companies.  TWTC  Reeves  Texas  I  Aff. 
 at  para.  17.  This  is  significant  because  where  a  competitive  LEC  does  not  carry  a  sufficient  amount  of  traffic  to 
 justify  separate  one-  way  trunks,  an  incumbent  LEC  must  accommodate  two-  way  trunking  upon  request  wherever 
 technically  feasible.  Refusing  to  provide  two-  way  trunking  would  raise  costs  for  new  entrants  and  create  a  barrier 
 to  entry.  The  provisioning  of  two-  way  trunking  arrangements  is  among  the  obligations  that  the  Commission 
 concluded  in  the  Local  Competition  Order  demonstrated  an  incumbent  LEC  was  providing  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.  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15612-  613,  paras. 
 217-  220;  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  f). 


 144  SWBT's  percentage  of  missed  due  dates: 


 PM  73:  Missed  Due  Dates 
 Jan  Feb  Mar 
 CLEC  10.4%  4.4%  4.1% 
 SWBT  60.3%  27.6%  22.5% 


 See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Measurement  Data  PM  73  at  271-  No.  73-  76  (showing  performance 
 measurement  data  for  January  2000  through  March  2000).  SWBT  continues  to  meet  the  benchmark  in  April. 


 145  Held  orders  are  orders  that  SWBT  does  not  process  due  to  lack  of  interconnection  facilities.  A  lack  of 


 interconnection  facilities,  in  turn,  could  mean  that  SWBT  could  not  satisfy  its  interconnection  obligation. 
 146  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  15.  The  interim  measure  will  be  finalized  as  part  of  the  Texas 


 Commissions  six-  month  review  of  performance  measurements  which  began  in  April  2000.  See  Texas 
 Commission  Dec.  16,  1999  Open  Meeting  Transcript  at  29-  31.  CapRock  and  NTS  alleged  that  the  pre-  planning 
 process  that  occurs  before  SWBT  officially  counts  a  competitive  LECs  request  as  an  order  (e.  g.  scheduling  of 
 (continued.) 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 33 
 January  and  March.  147  We  find  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  the  benchmark.  Further,  commenters 
 have  not  raised  any  new  allegations  of  inadequate  or  overlong  trunk  provisioning.  We  note  that 
 the  Department  of  Justice  agrees  that  SWBTs  performance  is  satisfactory  with  respect  to  this 
 measurement.  148 


 71.  Average  Installation  Intervals.  SWBTs  performance  data  that  measure  the 
 average  time  for  installation  of  interconnection  trunks  demonstrate  that  SWBT  meets  the  state 
 benchmark  in  February,  March  and  April.  149  We  have  considered  the  concerns  of  the 
 Telecommunications  Resellers  Association  and  others  in  addition  to  the  Department  of  Justice, 
 and  find  that  the  extensive  review  by  the  Texas  Commission  of  SWBTs  operational  processes 
 and  empirical  performance  data  satisfactorily  addresses  their  concerns.  150  We  therefore  reject  the 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 initial  planning  meeting  and  preparation  by  SWBT  of  a  Service  Planning  Document  summarizing  the 
 requirements  specified  by  a  competitive  LEC),  further  delays  their  ability  to  obtain  interconnection  trunks  (and  is 
 not  tracked  by  performance  measurements).  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  11,  Exhibit  C,  NTS  Mitch  Elliot 
 Aff.,  Exhibit  B,  Caprock  Jere  Thompson  Aff.  SWBT  responds  that  this  supposed  delay  is  no  more  than  timely 
 contract  preparation.  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at  49.  The  Texas  Commission  stated  that  NTS  and 
 Caprock  had  never  brought  their  complaints  to  the  attention  of  the  Texas  Commission,  and  it  did  not  believe  that 
 based  on  the  evidence  developed  in  the  Section  271  proceeding  that  the  complaints  of  NTS  and  CapRock  indicate 
 systemic  problems.  Inasmuch  as  the  Texas  Commission  had  little  opportunity  to  investigate  those  complaints  and 
 develop  a  factual  record,  we  accord  them  little  weight.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at  13-  14. 


 147  See  SWBT  Texas  I  March  17  ex  parte  Attach.  3;  SWBT  Texas  I  February  18  ex  parte  at  5-  6;  SWBT  Dysart 


 Texas  I  Aff.  Attach.  K  at  11.  NTS  allegation  that  the  orders  it  submitted  in  December  in  Amarillo  were  held  for 
 lack  of  facilities  does  not  constitute  evidence  demonstrating  that  SWBT  fails  to  meet  the  checklist  item. 
 Specifically,  NTS  alleged  that  when  it  submitted  properly  forecasted  orders  on  December  23,  1999,  SWBT  claimed 
 it  did  not  have  enough  multiplexing  equipment  available  to  fulfill  NTSs  order  and  that  as  of  its  Texas  I  filing,  the 
 trunks  were  still  not  installed.  SWBT  responded  that  on  December  23,  1999,  NTS  ordered  a  single  DS-  3  facility  to 
 support  its  interconnection  trunks  in  Amarillo.  SWBT  stated  that  it  responded  to  NTS  the  same  day  explaining 
 that  SWBT  lacked  facilities  to  provision  the  DS-  3,  but  offered  to  fill  the  order  using  DS-  1s  to  provide  the  same 
 capacity.  SWBT  Texas  I  ex  parte  letter  of  March  22,  2000.  SWBT  stated  that  NTS  ordered  the  DS-  1s  on  January 
 4,  2000,  but  twice  delayed  provisioning  of  these  trunks  on  the  basis  that  NTS  was  not  ready  to  receive  them. 
 SWBT  stated  that  most  recently,  the  trunks  were  scheduled  for  delivery  between  March  14  and  March  16,  but  that 
 NTS  indicated  on  each  of  these  dates  that  it  was  not  ready  to  accept  the  trunks.  SWBT  Texas  I  ex  parte  letter  of 
 March  22,2000.  The  Texas  Commission  noted  on  Reply  that  it  will  work  with  SWBT,  NTS  [and  CapRock]  in 
 Docket  20400  to  ascertain  if  there  are  problems.  However,  based  on  the  evidence  developed  in  the  section  271 
 proceeding,  the  Texas  Commission  did  not  believe  that  the  complaints  of  NTS  [and  CapRock]  indicate  systemic 
 problems.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Reply.  We  agree. 


 148  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  5,  stating  that  PM  73.  1  reports  very  few  orders  held  for  lack  of 


 facilities  for  March  2000. 
 149  In  February,  March,  and  April,  SWBT  met  the  20  business  day  benchmark  with  an  average  installation 


 interval  of  16.  5,  17.  4,  and  17.  3  business  days  respectively  for  competitive  LECs.  The  Texas  Commission 
 established  a  benchmark  instead  of  a  parity  measure  because  SWBT  installs  more  trunks  for  competitive  LECs 
 than  for  its  retail  side.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  16. 


 150  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  47;  Telecommunications  Resellers  Association  Texas  I  at  9-  10, 


 13;  Sprint  Texas  I  at  62-  64;  Sprint  Texas  II  Comments  at  46;  CompTel  Texas  II  Comments  at  2.  We  also  note  that 
 the  performance  measures  will  be  reviewed  by  SWBT,  competitive  LECs  and  the  Texas  Commission  every  six 
 (continued.) 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 34 
 concerns  raised  in  the  record  regarding  SWBTs  average  installation  interval  performance  as  those 
 concerns  relate  largely  to  last  years  performance.  The  data  submitted  as  part  of  the  instant 
 application  indicate  SWBT  meets  the  state  benchmark. 


 72.  In  conclusion,  our  decision  that  SWBT  satisfies  the  requirements  of  this  checklist 
 item  is  based  on  the  following:  its  trunk  group  blockage  rates  for  competitors  pass  the  state 
 benchmark,  its  rate  of  missed  due  dates  for  trunk  installations  is  lower  for  service  to  competitors 
 than  for  service  to  itself,  and  its  average  time  to  install  interconnection  trunks  passes  the  state 
 benchmark. 


 (ii)  Collocation 
 73.  SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  its  collocation  offering  in  Texas  satisfies  the 
 requirements  of  sections  271  and  251  of  the  Act.  SWBT  provides  physical  and  virtual  collocation 
 through  a  state-  approved  tariff.  151  In  its  application,  SWBT  indicates  that  shared,  cageless,  and 
 adjacent  collocation  options  are  available  in  Texas,  and  that  it  has  taken  other  steps  to  implement 
 the  collocation  requirements  contained  in  the  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order.  152 
 SWBT  provides  terms  for  physical  collocation  in  its  physical  collocation  tariff,  as  well  as  in  a 
 physical  collocation  handbook  that  it  incorporates  into  the  tariff  by  reference.  153  SWBTs 
 collocation  performance  data  indicate  that  SWBT  processed  requests  for  collocation  within  time 
 frames  established  by  the  Texas  Commission.  SWBT  stated  that  it  has  provided  655  physical 
 collocation  arrangements  in  166  different  SWBT  central  offices  in  Texas.  Except  where  a 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 months,  beginning  in  April  2000,  to  determine  whether  they  are  properly  reflecting  the  behaviors  and  results 
 needed  for  a  sustainable  competitive  market.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  4.  We  disagree  with  the 
 allegation  of  Pontio  that  its  interconnection  dispute  with  SWBT  disqualifies  SWBT  from  receiving  section  271 
 authority.  Specifically,  Pontio  alleges  that  SWBT  will  not  provide  requested  interconnection  trunks  unless  Pontio 
 agrees  to  an  amended  interconnection  agreement  that  would  impose  per  minute  local  switching  charges.  See 
 Texas  II  Comments  of  @Link,  BlueStar,  DSLnet  et.  al.  at  23.  SWBT  states  that  the  trunks  at  issue  were 
 provisioned  on  May  11,  2000  and  the  terms  to  recover  the  appropriate  costs  for  the  use  of  those  facilities  are  subject 
 to  ongoing  negotiations  with  Pontio.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  50.  We  believe  Pontios  alleged  difficulties  are 
 best  resolved  through  the  section  252  negotiation  and  arbitration  process. 


 151  SWBTs  physical  and  virtual  collocation  tariffs  were  revised  in  connection  with  the  Texas  Commissions 


 collaborative  process  and  workshops  designed  to  address  competitive  LEC  concerns.  The  revised  physical  and 
 virtual  collocation  tariffs  became  effective  upon  state  approval  October  29,  1999.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I 
 Comments  at  16.  SWBTs  physical  collocation  tariff  contained  a  50  square  foot  minimum  space  requirement  for 
 shared  cage  collocation.  However,  our  rules  provide  that  an  ILEC  must  make  shared  collocation  space  available  in 
 single-  bay  increments  or  their  equivalent,  i.  e.,  a  competing  carrier  can  purchase  space  in  increments  small  enough 
 to  collocate  a  single  rack,  or  bay,  of  equipment.  47  CFR    51.323  (k)(  1).  We  note  that  SWBT  eliminated  the 
 minimum  space  requirement  and  notified  competitive  LECs  through  an  Accessible  Letter  of  February  29,  2000  that 
 it  had  removed  the  minimum  space  requirement.  See  SWBT  Accessible  Letter  of  February  29,  2000  Clarification 
 of  minimum  cage  size  for  Caged  and  Shared  Cage  collocation  Kansas,  Missouri,  Oklahoma,  Texas  ,  No. 
 CLEC00-  050. 


 152  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  73-  78;  see  also  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  16-  22. 


 153  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  74. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 35 
 competitive  LEC  places  a  large  number  of  collocation  orders  in  the  same  5-  business  day  period, 
 SWBT  responds  to  each  request  within  10  days.  154  SWBT  provides  three  measurements 
 (disaggregated  into  various  submeasures)  for  collocation:  Percentage  of  Missed  Collocation  Due 
 Dates  (PM  107),  Average  Delay  Days  for  SWBT  Missed  Due  Dates  (PM  108),  and  Percent  of 
 Requests  Processed  within  the  Tariffed  Timelines  (PM  109).  Where  data  points  are  available, 
 SWBTs  data  indicates  it  meets  the  measures  for  the  months  of  January,  February,  and  March.  155 


 74.  SWBT  makes  virtual  collocation  available  through  its  virtual  collocation  tariff, 
 with  notification  and  installation  intervals  for  all  tariffed  equipment  established  in  SWBTs 
 Interconnectors  Collocation  Services  Handbook  for  Virtual  Collocation.  156  In  addition,  SWBT 
 states  that  competitive  LECs  may  negotiate  custom-  tailored  interconnection  arrangements  on 
 request.  157  The  Texas  Commission  agrees  that  SWBTs  revised  physical  collocation  offerings 
 comply  with  the  Advanced  Services  Order.  158  Further,  SWBTs  collocation  offering  underwent 
 an  active  and  thorough  review  at  the  state  level.  The  Texas  Commission  addressed  the 
 provisioning  of  collocation  space  and  established  standard  provisioning  intervals  for  caged, 
 cageless,  and  virtual  collocation.  159 


 75.  We  disagree  with  ALTS  and  the  CLEC  Coalition  that  SWBTs  practice  of  walling 
 in  its  own  equipment  as  a  reasonable  security  measure  violates  our  collocation  rules.  160  Our 
 rules  as  they  existed  at  the  time  of  filing  did  not  explicitly  prohibit  this  practice.  161  Therefore,  we 


 154  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  75,  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  629,  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at 
 paras.  44-  45. 
 155  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Measurement  Data  PMs  107-  109  at  271-  No.  107a  109b  (showing 


 performance  measurement  data  for  January  2000  through  March  2000). 
 156  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  77.  SWBT  states  that  it  has  completed  40  virtual  collocation  arrangements  in 


 Texas. 
 157  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  78. 


 158  SWBTs  physical  and  virtual  collocation  tariffs  have  been  revised  in  conformance  with  the  Texas 
 Commission  recommendations,  and  address  the  myriad  competitive  LEC  concerns  discussed  at  length  in  the  Texas 
 Commissions  collaborative  process  and  workshops.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  16. 


 159  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  17-  18. 


 160  ALTS  and  the  CLEC  Coalition  objected  to  SWBTs  practice  of  walling  in  its  own  equipment  as  a  reasonable 
 security  measure  associated  with  cageless  collocation  and  then  charging  competitive  LECs  for  the  construction. 
 The  competitive  LECs  contended  this  practice  is  not  contemplated  by  the  Commissions  Advanced  Services  First 
 Report  and  Order.  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  24;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  12;  see  also  AT&  Ts 
 DeYoung  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  327  n.  240.  Pending  completion  of  the  Texas  Commissions  rate  proceedings,  the 
 interim  rate  for  security  for  cageless  collocation  is  zero,  subject  to  true-  up.  SWBT  argues  therefore  that  as  a 
 practical  matter  there  is  no  genuine  issue.  See  pricing  discussion  infra  at  section  V.  A.  2;  SWBTs  Auinbauh  Texas 
 I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  32;  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3987-  88,  para.  79. 


 161  See  Petition  for  Partial  Reconsideration  or  Clarification  filed  June  1,  1999,  Sprint  Corporation  requests  that  we 


 clarify  and  further  strengthen  the  collocation  rules  adopted  in  the  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 36 
 find  that  these  allegations  do  not  rise  to  the  level  of  non-  compliance  for  this  checklist  item.  162  In 
 addition,  we  believe  that  Metromedia  Fiber  Network  Services  (MFNS)  alleged  difficulties 
 negotiating  collocation  arrangements  with  SWBT  are  best  resolved  through  the  section  252 
 negotiation  and  arbitration  process  or  through  the  section  208  complaint  process.  163 


 (iii)  Technically  Feasible  Points  of  Interconnection 
 76.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  interconnection  at  all  technically  feasible  points, 
 and  therefore  demonstrates  compliance  with  the  checklist  item.  SWBT  asserts  that  it  makes  each 
 of  its  standard  methods  of  interconnection  available  at  the  line  side  or  trunk  side  of  the  local 
 switch,  the  trunk  connection  points  of  a  tandem  switch,  central  office  cross-  connect  points,  out-of- 
 band  signaling  transfer  points,  and  points  of  access  to  UNEs.  164  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 has  an  approved  state  interconnection  agreement  that  spells  out  readily  available  points  of 
 interconnection,  and  provides  a  process  for  requesting  interconnection  at  additional,  technically 
 feasible  points.  165 


 77.  We  disagree  with  AT&  T  that  SWBT  has  violated  its  obligation  to  permit 
 competing  carriers  to  select  interconnection  points.  166  The  existing  language  in  the 
 interconnection  agreement  between  SWBT  and  AT&  T  states  that  in  each  SWBT  exchange  area 
 in  which  AT&  T  offers  local  exchange  services,  the  parties  will  interconnect  their  network  facilities 


 162  On  March  17,  1999,  the  D.  C.  Circuit  vacated  and  remanded  certain  aspects  of  the  Advanced  Services  First 
 Report  and  Order,  including  the  relevant  sections  at  issue  here.  See  GTE  Service  Corp.  v.  FCC,  Nos.  99-  1176  et 
 al.  (D.  C.  Cir.  Mar.  17,  2000). 


 163  See  MFNS  Texas  I  Comments  and  Reply  Comments.  See  also  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  25-  26. 


 MFNS  filed  a  section  208  complaint  with  the  Commissions  Enforcement  Bureau  on  February  15,  2000  requesting 
 that  SWBT  be  directed  to  provide  its  Competitive  Alternate  Transport  Terminal  CATT  interconnection.  That 
 complaint  was  dismissed  without  prejudice  for  failure  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  complaint  requirements. 
 See  February  28,  2000  Letter  from  Radhika  V.  Karmarkar,  Enforcement  Bureau,  to  Karen  Nations  (MFNS), 
 Jonathan  E.  Canis  and  David  A.  Konuch  (Kelley  Drye  &  Warren)  and  Christine  Jines  (SBC). 


 164  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  14;  20-  21.  SWBT  will  provide  other  technically  feasible  alternatives  using 


 the  Special  Request  Procedure  set  forth  in  the  T2A.  Id.  at  14. 
 165  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  73-  78.  SWBTs  state  approved  T2A  requires  SWBT  to  provide  other 


 collocation  arrangements  that  have  been  demonstrated  to  be  technically  feasible  and  in  compliance  with  the 
 Advanced  Services  Order.  The  T2A  provides  a  rebuttable  presumption  of  technical  feasibility  when  a  collocation 
 arrangement  has  been  deployed  by  any  incumbent  LEC.  Id.  at  17. 


 166  Specifically,  AT&  T  objects  to  SWBTs  requirement  that  AT&  T  establish  direct  trunks  to  each  central  office  in 


 the  Dallas  exchange  area,  which  is  not  served  by  a  local  tandem,  instead  of  allowing  AT&  T  to  interconnect  at  the 
 access  tandem  serving  the  central  offices  in  the  Dallas  exchange  area.  AT&  T  alleged  that  SWBTs  requirement 
 led  to  a  three-  month  delay  in  AT&  Ts  final  testing  of  its  telephony-  over-  cable  service  in  the  Dallas  area.  See 
 AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  59-  60;  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  paras.  20-  26;  AT&  T  ex  parte  of  March  8, 
 2000;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  49;  but  see  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  24-  25;  SWBT  Texas  II 
 ex  parte  of  April  26;  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  50-  54.  See  also  AT&  T  Texas  II  ex  parte  letter  of  June 
 13,  2000. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 37 
 at  a  minimum  of  one  mutually  agreeable  point  of  interconnection.  167  This  portion  of  the 
 interconnection  agreement  between  SWBT  and  AT&  T,  however,  was  negotiated  and,  therefore, 
 does  not  have  to  comply  with  section  251.  168  Consequently,  AT&  Ts  experience  does  not 
 constitute  evidence  of  a  failure  by  SWBT  to  provide  interconnection  at  all  technically  feasible 
 points  for  purposes  of  section  271  review.  169 


 78.  Section  251,  and  our  implementing  rules,  require  an  incumbent  LEC  to  allow  a 
 competitive  LEC  to  interconnect  at  any  technically  feasible  point.  This  means  that  a  competitive 
 LEC  has  the  option  to  interconnect  at  only  one  technically  feasible  point  in  each  LATA.  170  The 
 incumbent  LEC  is  relieved  of  its  obligation  to  provide  interconnection  at  a  particular  point  in  its 
 network  only  if  it  proves  to  the  state  public  utility  commission  that  interconnection  at  that  point  is 
 technically  infeasible.  171  Thus,  new  entrants  may  select  the  most  efficient  points  at  which  to 
 exchange  traffic  with  incumbent  LECs,  thereby  lowering  the  competing  carriers  costs  of,  among 
 other  things,  transport  and  termination.  172  Indeed,  section  251(  c)(  2)  gives  competing  carriers 
 the  right  to  deliver  traffic  terminating  on  an  incumbent  LECs  network  at  any  technically  feasible 
 point  in  the  network,  rather  than  obligating  such  carriers  to  transport  traffic  to  less  convenient  or 
 efficient  interconnection  points.  173  We  note  that  in  SWBTs  interconnection  agreement  with 
 MCI  (WorldCom),  WorldCom  may  designate  a  single  interconnection  point  within  a  LATA.  174 


 167  See  SWBT  Deere  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.,  App.  A-  4  at  5-  7;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments,  DeYoung/  Fettig 
 Decl.,  at  5  n.  7. 
 168  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  53.  SWBT  notes  that  the  issues  raised  by  AT&  T  will  be  debated  before 


 the  Texas  Commission  in  a  pending  arbitration  between  SWBT  and  AT&  T.  SWBT  Deere  Texas  II  Reply  Aff. 
 App.  A-  4  at  7.  We  believe  that  AT&  Ts  issue  is  appropriately  resolved  through  the  Texas  Commissions 
 arbitration  process.  See  AT&  T  Communications  of  Texas,  L.  P.,  TCG  Dallas  and  Teleport  Communications,  Incs 
 Response  to  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Companys  Petition  for  Arbitration,  Tex.  PUC  Docket  22315  at  13-  17 
 (filed  April  17,  2000). 


 169  In  addition,  we  find  that  SWBT  satisfactorily  addresses  AT&  Ts  concern  that  SWBT  does  not  allow  virtual 


 collocation  if  space  for  physical  collocation  is  available.  AT&  Ts  DeYoung  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  332;  see  also 
 AT&  Ts  March  8,  2000  ex  parte  at  2-  3.  SWBT  confirms  that  sections  25  and  26  of  SWBTs  Virtual  Collocation 
 Tariff  make  virtual  collocation  available  to  competitive  LECs  regardless  of  the  availability  of  physical  collocation; 
 the  restriction  to  which  AT&  T  refers  involves  a  maintenance  and  repair  option  for  virtually  collocated  equipment, 
 and  such  language  does  not  deny  virtual  collocation  as  alleged  by  AT&  T.  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at  51; 
 Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  34-  35. 


 170  See  47  U.  S.  C    251(  c)(  2),(  3);  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.  51.305(  a)(  2);  see,  e.  g.,  Memorandum  of  the  Federal 


 Communications  Commission  as  Amicus  Curiae,  US  West  Communications,  Inc.,  vs.  AT&  T  Communications  of  the 
 Pacific  Northwest,  Inc.  et.  al,  No.  CV  97-  1575  JE. 


 171  47  C.  F.  R  Section  51.305(  e);  see  also  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15602, 


 15605-  06,  paras.  198,  203,  205. 
 172  See  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15588,  para.  172. 


 173  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15608,  para.  209. 
 174  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  ,  App.  5,  Tab  45,  MCI(  WorldCom)  Agreement  Attach.  4,    1.2.2.  Section 
 1.2.2  of  the  WorldCom  Agreement  states:  MCI(  WorldCom)  and  SWBT  agree  that  MCI(  WorldCom)  may 
 (continued.) 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 38 
 Thus,  SWBT  provides  WorldCom  interconnection  at  any  technically  feasible  point,  and  section 
 252(  i)  entitles  AT&  T,  or  any  requesting  carrier,  to  seek  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  those 
 contained  in  WorldComs  agreement,  a  matter  any  carrier  is  free  to  take  up  with  the  Texas 
 Commission.  175 


 2.  Pricing  of  Interconnection 
 a.  Background 
 79.  As  discussed  above,  checklist  item  1  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  interconnection 
 in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  sections  251(  c)(  2)  and  252(  d)(  1).  176  Section  251(  c)(  2) 
 requires  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  interconnection  at  any  technically  feasible  point  within  the 
 carriers  network    on  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and 
 nondiscriminatory.  177  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.  178 


 80.  Interconnection  trunking,  physical  and  virtual  collocation,  and  meet-  point 
 arrangements  are  among  the  technically  feasible  methods  of  interconnection.  179  Shared  cage  and 
 cageless  collocation  arrangements  must  be  part  of  an  incumbent  LECs  physical  collocation 
 offerings.  180  To  comply  with  its  collocation  obligations,  an  incumbent  LEC  must  make  collocation 
 arrangements  available  on  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 designate,  at  its  option,  a  minimum  of  one  point  of  interconnection  within  a  single  SWBT  exchange  where  SWBT 
 facilities  are  available,  or  multiple  points  of  interconnection  within  the  exchange,  for  the  exchange  of  all  traffic 
 within  that  exchange.  If  WorldCom  desires  a  single  point  for  interconnection  within  a  LATA,  SWBT  agrees  to 
 provide  dedicated  or  common  transport  to  any  other  exchange  within  a  LATA  requested  by  WorldCom,  or 
 WorldCom  may  self-  provision,  or  use  a  third  party's  facilities.  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  ,  App.  5,  Tab  45, 
 WorldCom  Agreement  Attach.  4,    1.  2.  2 


 175  See  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  i).  Section  252(  i)  makes  these  terms  and  conditions  available  to  all  requesting  carriers 


 despite  SWBTs  statement  that  it  requires  competitive  LECs  to  interconnect  in  every  local  exchange  area.  See 
 SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  50. 


 176  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  i). 


 177  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2). 
 178  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  1). 
 179  47  C.  F.  R.    51.321(  b);  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15779-  81,  paras.  549-  53. 
 In  a  physical  collocation  arrangement,  an  interconnecting  carrier  has  physical  access  to  space  in  the  LEC  central 
 office  to  connect  to  the  incumbent  LEC  network.  Id.  at  15784,  para.  559,  and  n.  1361.  In  a  virtual  collocation 
 arrangement,  interconnectors  designate  central  office  transmission  equipment  dedicated  to  their  use,  but  have  no 
 right  to  enter  the  central  office  and  do  not  pay  for  incumbent  LEC  floor  space.  Id.  In  a  meet-  point  arrangement, 
 the  parties  negotiate  a  point  at  which  one  carrier's  responsibility  for  service  ends  and  the  other  carriers  begins. 
 See  id.  at  15778,  n.  1332. 


 180  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4783-  85,  paras.  40-  42. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 39 
 nondiscriminatory.  181  The  Commissions  pricing  rules  require,  among  other  things,  that 
 incumbent  LECs  provide  collocation  based  on  the  total  element,  long-  run,  incremental  cost 
 (TELRIC).  182 


 81.  Although  the  U.  S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Eighth  Circuit  stayed  the 
 Commissions  pricing  rules  in  1996,  183  the  Supreme  Court  restored  the  Commissions  pricing 
 authority  on  January  25,  1999.  184  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.  185  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.  186  The  Court 
 also  held  that  the  pricing  provisions  implemented  under  the  Commissions  rulemaking  authority 
 do  not  inhibit  the  establishment  of  rates  by  the  states.  187  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.  188 


 b.  Discussion 
 82.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  SWBT  offers  interconnection  in 
 Texas  to  other  telecommunications  carriers  at  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory  rates,  in 
 compliance  with  checklist  item  1.  189  SWBT  states  that  it  provides  interconnection  at  TELRIC-based 
 rates  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory.  190  SWBT  provides  terms  for  physical 


 181  See  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6);  47  C.  F.  R.    51.305(  a)(  5),  51.321(  a)-(  b);  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC 
 Rcd  at  3979,  para  66. 
 182  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. 
 183  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  753,  800,  804,  805-  06  (1997). 


 184  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999). 
 185  Id.  at  380. 
 186  Id.  at  382. 
 187  Id.  at  384. 
 188  Id. 
 189  We  note  that  other  unbundled  network  elements  are  required  pursuant  to  the  checklist,  but  we  discuss  them  in 
 the  context  of  other  checklist  items.  Additionally,  we  discuss  UNE  pricing,  including  both  recurring  and  non-recurring 
 charges,  in  checklist  item  2;  rates  for  access  to  poles,  ducts,  and  conduits  in  checklist  item  3;  the  pricing 
 of  directory  assistance  and  operator  services  in  checklist  item  7;  reciprocal  compensation  rates  in  checklist  item  13; 
 and  resale  rates  in  checklist  item  14. 


 190  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  72,  80;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff  at  para.  148. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 40 
 collocation  in  its  physical  collocation  tariff,  as  well  as  in  a  physical  collocation  handbook  that  it 
 incorporates  into  the  tariff  by  reference.  191  SWBT  makes  virtual  collocation  available  through  its 
 virtual  collocation  tariff.  192  SWBT  says  it  will  also  negotiate  custom-  tailored  interconnection 
 arrangements  on  request.  193  According  to  SWBT,  TELRIC-  based  charges  apply  to  custom  work 
 even  if  no  rate  has  been  established  previously.  194  SWBT  states  that  it  pro-  rates  its  site 
 preparation  charges  and  allocates  them  based  on  the  percentage  of  the  total  space  each 
 competitive  LEC  uses.  195  SWBT  also  says  that  it  pro-  rates  its  collocation  charges  so  that  the  first 
 competitive  LEC  to  enter  the  premises  is  not  responsible  for  all  the  site  preparation  costs.  196 


 83.  The  Texas  Commission  states  in  its  evaluation  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  the 
 requirements  of  checklist  item  1.  197  According  to  the  Texas  Commission,  SWBT  provides 
 interconnection  trunking  at  just,  reasonable,  and  nondiscriminatory  terms  and  conditions.  198  The 
 state  commission  says  that  SWBT  makes  interconnection  available  through  the  Texas 
 Commission-  approved  271  agreement,  and  that  the  Texas-  approved  physical  and  virtual 
 collocation  tariffs  comply  with  sections  251  and  271  of  the  Act.  199 


 84.  We  stress  that  we  place  great  weight  on  the  Texas  Commissions  active  review  of 
 SWBTs  pricing  elements  in  its  271  application.  The  Texas  Commission  has  encouraged  active 
 and  open  participation  by  all  carriers  in  setting  rates  through  numerous  proceedings,  reviewed 
 costs  studies  and  conflicting  testimonies,  arbitrated  pricing  issues  and  incorporated  its  findings 
 into  interconnection  agreements,  and  has  demonstrated  its  commitment  to  applying  the  pricing 
 standards  of  sections  251  and  252  of  the  Act  as  implemented  by  our  rules.  200 


 85.  As  the  Texas  Commission  explains,  [  t]  he  collocation  tariffs  contain  interim  rates, 


 191  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  74,  80. 
 192  Id.  at  77. 
 193  Id.  at  78. 
 194  Id.  at  80;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  149. 
 195  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  80;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  59-  60,  63. 
 196  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  80;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  59-  60,  63. 
 197  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  10. 
 198  Id. 
 199  Id.  at  10,  16,  21. 
 200  See  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  80;  Texas  II  Commission  Comments  at  55-  58;  Letter  from  Donna 
 Nelson,  Director-  Telecommunications,  Legal  Division,  Texas  Public  Utility  Commission  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas, 
 CC  Docket  No.  00-  65,  Attach.  5,  Interim  Award  at  17  (filed  June  19,  2000)  (Texas  Commission  June  19  Ex  Parte). 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 41 
 subject  to  true-  up,  for  all  aspects  and  methods  of  available  collocation.  201  AT&  T  argues  that  the 
 interim  nature  of  these  rates  proves  fatal  to  SWBTs  application  in  light  of  our  discussion  of 
 interim  rates  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order.  202  We  disagree.  In  that  order,  we  stated  that: 


 a  BOCs  application  for  in-  region  interLATA  authority  should  not 
 be  rejected  solely  because  permanent  rates  may  not  yet  have  been 
 established  for  each  and  every  element  or  nonrecurring  cost  of 
 provisioning  an  element.  We  believe  that  this  question  should  be 
 addressed  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  If  the  uncertainty  caused  by  the 
 use  of  interim  rates  can  be  minimized,  then  it  may  be  appropriate,  at 
 least  for  the  time  being,  to  approve  an  application  based  on  the 
 interim  rates  contained  in  the  relevant  tariff.  203 


 86.  We  concluded  that  the  interim  nature  of  Bell  Atlantics  xDSL  rates  posed  no 
 obstacle  to  the  approval  of  its  application.  We  reasoned  that  the  xDSL  rate  dispute  was  relatively 
 new,  that  the  New  York  Commission  has  a  track  record  of  setting  other  prices  at  TELRIC  rates, 
 and  that  the  interim  rates  would  be  subject  to  a  refund  or  true-  up  once  final  rates  were  set.  204 
 Although  we  noted  that  competitive  [  u]  ncertainty  will  be  minimized  if  the  interim  rates  are  for  a 
 few  isolated  ancillary  items,  we  did  not  say  that  the  disputed  items  must  be  ancillary  in  character 
 to  ensure  compliance  with  the  checklist.  205 


 87.  This  case  again  presents  the  question  of  the  significance  of  interim  rates  for 
 purposes  of  adjudicating  a  section  271  application.  We  again  conclude  that  the  section  271 
 process  could  not  function  as  Congress  intended  if  we  adopted  a  general  policy  of  denying  any 
 section  271  application  accompanied  by  unresolved  pricing  and  other  intercarrier  disputes.  Our 
 experience  has  demonstrated  that,  at  any  given  point  in  time  at  which  a  section  271  application 
 might  be  filed,  the  rapidly  evolving  telecommunications  market  will  have  produced  a  variety  of 
 unresolved,  fact-  specific  disputes  concerning  the  BOCs  obligations  under  sections  251  and  252. 
 BOCs  and  their  competitors  can  be  expected  to  take  opposite  positions  in  those  disputes,  and  the 
 adjudicated  resolution  ultimately  will  often  fall  somewhere  in  between  the  positions  of  the 
 opposing  parties.  If  uncertainty  about  the  proper  outcome  of  such  disputes  were  sufficient  to 
 undermine  a  section  271  application,  such  applications  could  rarely  be  granted.  Congress  did  not 
 intend  such  an  outcome. 


 88.  The  1996  Act  authorizes  the  state  commissions  to  resolve  specific  carrier-  to-carrier 
 disputes  arising  under  the  local  competition  provisions,  and  it  authorizes  the  federal  district 


 201  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  21. 
 202  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  41;  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  paras.  317-  18,  328. 
 203  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4090,  para.  258. 
 204  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4091,  para.  259. 
 205  Compare  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4090-  91,  para.  258  with  id.  at  4091,  para.  259. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 42 
 courts  to  ensure  that  the  results  of  the  state  arbitration  process  are  consistent  with  federal  law.  206 
 Although  we  have  an  independent  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  our  pricing  jurisdiction  and 
 has  thereby  directed  the  state  commissions  (and  the  federal  courts  on  review)  to  follow  our 
 pricing  rules  in  their  disposition  of  those  disputes.  For  those  reasons,  the  mere  presence  of 
 interim  rates  will  not  generally  threaten  a  section  271  application  so  long  as  an  interim  solution  to 
 a  particular  rate  dispute  is  reasonable  under  the  circumstances,  the  state  commission  has 
 demonstrated  its  commitment  to  our  pricing  rules,  and  provision  is  made  for  refunds  or  true-  ups 
 once  permanent  rates  are  set.  207  As  discussed  below,  the  interim  rates  in  dispute  here  meet  that 
 standard. 


 89.  AT&  T  argues  that  the  interim  nature  of  SWBTs  collocation  rates  demands  that 
 we  deny  the  section  271  application.  208  We  disagree.  As  we  explained  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New 
 York  Order,  we  examine  interim  rates  under  section  271  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  209  We  conclude 
 that  the  state  has  made  reasonable  efforts  to  set  interim  collocation  rates  in  accordance  with  the 
 Act  and  the  FCCs  rules.  The  Texas  Commission  set  the  interim  rates  pursuant  to  TELRIC 
 standards  so  that  competitive  LECs  could  obtain  collocation  while  the  state  incorporated  the 
 Commissions  findings  in  the  March  31,  1999,  Advanced  Services  Order.  210  AT&  T  argues  that 
 the  interim  caged  collocation  rates  are  not  TELRIC-  based,  and  stem  instead  from  outdated  tariffs 
 that  include  costs  for  things  such  as  asbestos  removal  and  separate  entryways  that  the  FCC  has 
 since  deemed  improper.  211  AT&  T  admits,  however,  that  the  Texas  Commission  reduced  one  of 
 the  elements  of  the  caged  collocation  rates  by  30  percent  to  accommodate  that  fact.  212  AT&  T 
 argues  that  the  reduction  is  insufficient  to  conform  the  caged  collocation  rates  to  TELRIC 
 standards,  213  but  we  view  it  as  a  reasonable  attempt  by  the  state  commission  to  set  an  interim 


 206  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  c),  (e)(  6);  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999). 


 207  See  para.  84,  supra  (discussion  of  Texas  Commissions  commitment  to  apply  pricing  standards  of  sections  251 
 and  252  of  the  Act). 
 208  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  paras.  320,  328. 


 209  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4090-  91,  para.  258. 
 210  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  6,  40,  149;  SWBT  Texas  I  Shelley  Aff.  at  paras.  44-  46;  SWBT  Texas  I 
 Reply  at  50;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  12,  27-  28.  See  Advanced  Services  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd 
 at  4771-  94,  paras.  19-  60. 


 211  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  41-  42;  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  paras.  320-  21,  328  &  nn.  230,  233. 


 212  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para.  321. 
 213  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para.  322.  According  to  AT&  T,  a  competitive  LEC  acquiring  a  100-  square-foot 
 caged  space  would  pay  $4,166  in  interim  non-  recurring  charges  and  $64  per  month  in  interim  recurring 
 charges,  compared  to  no  non-  recurring  charges  and  a  maximum  of  $42.01  per  month  in  recurring  charges  under 
 the  AT&  T/  MCI  cost  model.  Id.  AT&  T  says  that  SWBTs  own  rate  comparison  indicates  that  the  interim  rates, 
 prior  to  the  30  percent  reduction,  are  approximately  twice  those  produced  by  the  AT&  T/  MCI  model,  representing  a 
 difference  of  about  $14,000  in  non-  recurring  charges  for  a  100  square-  foot  cage.  Id.  at  323  &  nn.  235-  236. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 43 
 TELRIC-  based  rate  pending  its  final  determination.  Moreover,  the  Texas  Commission  based  the 
 majority  of  the  interim  rates,  at  least  with  regard  to  physical  collocation,  from  a  TELRIC  model 
 developed  by  AT&  T  and  MCI,  albeit  with  some  modifications.  214 


 90.  The  Texas  Commission  has  set  up  a  schedule  to  set  permanent  rates,  and  has 
 indicated  to  the  parties  that  the  interim  rates  are  subject  to  a  refund  or  true-  up,  an  approach 
 apparently  urged  by  AT&  T.  215  AT&  T  acknowledges  that  the  Texas  Commission  has  directed  use 
 of  the  AT&  T/  MCI  model  in  setting  permanent  physical  and  virtual  collocation  rates.  216  Further 
 cost  studies  were  due  April  12,  2000,  and  a  hearing  was  scheduled  for  June  15-  16,  2000.  217 
 Based  on  the  record,  we  believe  that  the  Texas  Commission  has  taken  a  reasonable  approach.  We 
 conclude  that  the  uncertainty  surrounding  the  interim  rates  has  been  minimized,  and  we  have 


 confidence  that  the  Texas  Commission  will  set  permanent  rates  that  are  in  compliance  with  the 
 Act  and  our  rules.  Consequently,  we  find  that  SWBT  has  met  its  obligations  under  this  checklist 
 item.  218 


 B.  Checklist  Item  2    Unbundled  Network  Elements 
 91.  Our  analysis  under  checklist  item  2  addresses  whether  SWBT  satisfies  its 
 obligation  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  unbundled  network  elements  pursuant  to 
 section  251(  c),  at  prices  that  meet  the  requirements  of  section  252(  d).  As  discussed  above,  the 
 Commission  has  identified  a  number  of  UNEs,  including  operations  support  systems  (OSS),  that 
 incumbent  LECs  must  make  available  under  section  251(  c)(  3)  as  of  the  filing  date  of  this 
 application.  219  In  this  section,  we  address  whether  SWBT  provides  access  to  OSS  and  to 
 combinations  of  UNEs  in  accordance  with  section  251(  c)(  3)  and  our  rules.  220  We  recognize,  as 
 we  have  in  prior  section  271  orders,  that  the  duty  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS 
 functions  is  embodied  in  other  terms  of  the  competitive  checklist  as  well.  221  Aside  from  OSS,  the 
 other  UNEs  that  SWBT  must  make  available  under  section  251(  c)(  3)  are  also  listed  as  separate 
 items  on  the  competitive  checklist,  and  are  addressed  below  in  separate  sections  for  each  checklist 


 214  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para  320  &  n.  231. 
 215  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  at  50;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  27-  29. 
 216  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para.  325. 
 217  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  21. 
 218  We  also  observe  that  in  any  context  in  which  prices  are  not  set  in  accordance  with  our  rules  and  the  Act,  we 
 retain  the  ability  to  take  a  variety  of  enforcement  actions  and  will  not  hesitate  to  do  so.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6). 
 219  See  section  III.  B.  1,  supra;  UNE  Remand  Order  at  para.  15. 


 220  47  U.  S.  C.    51.315(  b). 
 221  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  84. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 44 
 item.  222 
 1.  Operations  Support  Systems 
 a.  Background 
 92.  Incumbent  LECs  use  a  variety  of  systems,  databases,  and  personnel  (collectively 
 referred  to  as  OSS)  to  provide  service  to  their  customers.  223  The  Commission  consistently  has 
 found  that  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  development  of  meaningful 
 local  competition.  224  For  example,  new  entrants  must  have  access  to  the  functions  performed  by 
 the  incumbents  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.  225  The  Commission  has  determined  that  without  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the 
 BOCs  OSS,  a  competing  carrier  will  be  severely  disadvantaged,  if  not  precluded  altogether, 
 from  fairly  competing  in  the  local  exchange  market.  226 


 93.  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).  227  The  Commission  has  determined  that  access  to  OSS  functions  falls 
 squarely  within  an  incumbent  LECs  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.  228  The  Commission  must  therefore  examine  a 
 BOCs  OSS  performance  to  evaluate  compliance  with  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii)  and  (xiv).  229  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.  230  Consistent  with 


 222  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)  (for  example,  unbundled  loops,  transport  and  switching  are  listed  separately  as 
 checklist  items  iv,  v  and  vi). 
 223  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3989-  90,  para.  83;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13 


 FCC  Rcd  at  585. 
 224  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  83;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20653;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  547-  48,  585. 
 225  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  83. 


 226  Id. 
 227  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 
 228  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3990,  para.  84. 
 229  Id. 
 230  Id.  As  part  of  a  BOCs  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, 
 (continued.) 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 45 
 prior  orders,  we  examine  SWBT's  OSS  performance  directly  under  checklist  items  2  and  14,  as 
 well  as  other  checklist  terms.  231 


 94.  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.  232  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.  233  The 
 BOC  must  provide  access  that  permits  competing  carriers  to  perform  these  functions  in 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  the  BOC.  234  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.  235 


 95.  For  OSS  functions  that  have  no  retail  analogue,  the  BOC  must  offer  access 
 sufficient  to  allow  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  236  In  assessing 
 whether  the  quality  of  access  affords  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete, 
 we  will  examine,  in  the  first  instance,  whether  specific  performance  standards  exist  for  those 
 functions.  237  In  particular,  we  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.  238  If  such 
 performance  standards  exist,  we  will  evaluate  whether  the  BOCs  performance  is  sufficient  to 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 information,  and  personnel  that  support  that  element  or  service.  An  examination  of  a  BOCs  OSS  performance  is 
 therefore  integral  to  our  determination  of  whether  a  BOC  is  offering  all  of  the  items  contained  in  the  competitive 
 checklist.  Id. 


 231  Id.  at  3990-  91,  para.  84. 


 232  Id.  at  3991,  para.  85. 
 233  Id. 
 234  Id.  For  example,  we  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. 


 235  See  id. 


 236  Id.  at  para.  3991,  para.  86. 
 237  Id. 
 238  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. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 46 
 allow  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  239 
 96.  We  analyze  whether  SWBT  has  met  the  nondiscrimination  standard  for  each  OSS 
 function  using  the  two-  step  approach  outlined  in  prior  orders.  First,  we  determine  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.  240  We  next 


 239  See  id.  at  3991-  92,  para.  86. 
 240  Id.  at  3992,  para.  87;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20616;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana 
 Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20654;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  592-  93.  In  making  this 
 determination,  we  consider  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  carriers  own  operations  support 
 systems  to  the  BOC;  any  electronic  or  manual  processing  link  between  that  interface  and  the  BOCs  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; 
 see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20654  n.  241. 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 47 
 assess  whether  the  OSS  functions  that  the  BOC  has  deployed  are  operationally  ready,  as  a 
 practical  matter.  241 


 97.  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.  242  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  BOCs  systems 
 and  any  relevant  interfaces.  243  In  addition,  a  BOC  must  disclose  to  competing  carriers  any  internal 
 business  rules  244  and  other  formatting  information  necessary  to  ensure  that  a  carriers  requests  and 
 orders  are  processed  efficiently.  245  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.  246  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.  247 


 98.  Under  the  second  inquiry,  we  examine  performance  measurements  and  other 
 evidence  of  commercial  readiness  to  ascertain  whether  the  BOCs  OSS  is  handling  current 
 demand  and  will  be  able  to  handle  reasonably  foreseeable  future  volumes.  248  The  most  probative 
 evidence  that  OSS  functions  are  operationally  ready  is  actual  commercial  usage.  249  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  BOCs  OSS.  250  Although  we  do  not  require  OSS  testing,  a  persuasive 
 test  will  provide  us  with  an  objective  means  by  which  to  evaluate  a  BOCs  OSS  readiness  where 
 there  is  little  to  no  evidence  of  commercial  usage,  or  may  otherwise  strengthen  an  application 
 where  the  BOCs  evidence  of  actual  commercial  usage  is  weak  or  is  otherwise  challenged  by 


 241  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3992,  para.  88. 
 242  Id. 
 243  Id. 
 244  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. 


 245  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3992,  para.  88. 


 246  Id. 
 247  See  id. 
 248  Id.  at  3993,  para.  89. 
 249  Id. 
 250  Id. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 48 
 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.  251  If  the  review  is  limited  in  scope  or  depth  or  is  not  independent  and  blind,  we  will 
 give  it  minimal  weight. 


 b.  Discussion 
 99.  For  the  reasons  discussed  more  fully  below,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  has 
 demonstrated  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  The  Commission  consistently 
 has  found  that  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  development  of 
 meaningful  local  competition,  as  well  as  providing  access  to  other  checklist  items.  252  For  example, 
 new  entrants  must  have  access  to  the  functions  performed  by  the  incumbents  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.  The  evidence 
 presented  in  this  record  shows  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  pre-ordering, 
 ordering,  maintenance  and  repair,  and  billing  functions.  We  base  these  findings 
 primarily  on  evidence  in  the  record  of  SWBTs  actual  commercial  performance,  including 
 SWBTs  performance  measurements  developed  under  the  auspices  of  the  Texas  Commission.  In 
 addition,  we  find  that  the  Telcordia  third-  party  test  provides  some  additional  evidence  of  the 
 functionality  and  capability  of  SWBTs  OSS.  We  also  find  that  SWBT  has  instituted  a  change 
 management  process  that  will  help  to  ensure  that  changes  to  SWBTs  OSS  interfaces  do  not 
 impede  a  carriers  ability  to  access  critical  OSS  functions. 


 100.  Although  the  Department  of  Justice  identified  several  areas  of  concern  regarding 
 the  performance  and  readiness  of  SWBTs  OSS  in  the  Texas  1  proceeding,  253  it  recommends 
 approval  of  SWBTs  second  application  and  states  that  it  is  encourag[  ed]  by  recent 
 developments  with  respect  to  OSS.  The  Department  of  Justice  nonetheless  expresses  lingering 
 concerns  about  several  allegations  raised  by  competitive  LECs.  254  We  address  each  of  these 
 concerns  below.  Based  on  evidence  submitted  in  this  second  proceeding,  including  evidence 
 demonstrating  that  SWBTs  performance  has  improved  in  several  critical  areas,  we  find  that  the 
 areas  of  concern  identified  by  the  Department  of  Justice  do  not  merit  denial  of  SWBTs 


 251  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  incumbents  OSS 
 access). 


 252  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3989-  3990,  para.  83. 


 253  See  Department  of  Justice  Texas  1  Evaluation  at  36  to  52. 
 254  See  Department  of  Justice  June  13  ex  parte  submission  at  17-  19.  Specifically,  the  Department  of  Justice 
 expressed  concern  about:  (i)  the  apparent  difficulty  CLECs  have  had  integrating  SBCs  pre-  order  interfaces  with 
 SBCs  ordering  interface  (see  section  V.  B.  1.  e,  infra);  (ii)  allegations  regarding  SBCs  inability  to  provide 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  updating  the  LIDB  database  in  a  timely  and  accurate  manner  (see  section  V.  B.  1.  f.  i.  f, 
 infra);  and  (iii)  disturbing  allegations  raised  by  two  competing  LECs  regarding  specific  recent  SWBT  conduct  in 
 Texas  (see  section  V.  B.  2.  b.  i,  infra). 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 49 
 application,  and  conclude  that  SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access 
 to  its  OSS. 


 c.  Independent  Third  Party  Testing 
 101.  The  Texas  Commission  retained  Telcordia  (formerly  Bellcore)  as  an  independent 
 third  party  to  oversee  a  carrier-  to-  carrier  test  of  the  operational  readiness  of  SWBTs  OSS  and  to 
 evaluate  the  efficacy  of  the  documentation  and  other  processes  SWBT  makes  available  to 
 competing  carriers  in  Texas.  255  With  the  help  of  the  Technical  Advisory  Group  (TAG),  a  group 
 composed  of  the  Texas  Commission,  several  competitive  LECs,  and  SWBT,  Telcordia  developed 
 a  Master  Test  Plan  that  outlined  the  general  structure  of  the  testing,  and  framed  the  specific 
 requirements  necessary  for  testing  certain  SWBT  systems.  256  The  test  consisted  of  a 
 functionality  test  designed  to  evaluate  and  validate  the  ability  of  SWBTs  OSS  systems  to 
 process  different  types  of  orders,  and  a  capacity  test  designed  to  evaluate  the  ability  of  SWBTs 
 systems  to  handle  reasonably  foreseeable  volumes  of  orders.  257  The  actual  tests  of  SWBTs  OSS 
 were  conducted  using  electronic  interfaces  certain  carriers  had  already  developed  for 
 interconnecting  with  SWBTs  systems.  258  Telcordias  role  was  to  validate  the  test  design,  monitor 
 the  test  execution,  validate  the  test  results,  and  report  the  results  of  the  testing.  259  We  applaud  the 
 Texas  Commission  for  its  significant  role  in  developing  a  third-  party  test  in  Texas,  for  its 
 oversight  of  Telcordias  review  of  SWBTs  OSS  readiness,  and  for  its  continuing  role  in  ensuring 
 that  SWBT  provides  access  to  its  OSS  in  a  non-  discriminatory  manner.  260  We  continue  to 
 encourage  strong  state  participation  in  ensuring  that  the  BOCs  OSS  can  support  competitive 
 entry  into  the  local  markets. 


 102.  We  view  independent  third  party  testing  as  a  useful  tool  in  determining  whether  a 
 BOCs  deployment  of  OSS  is  nondiscriminatory.  While  there  may  be  several  ways  to  design  and 
 conduct  a  meaningful  third  party  test,  we  have  recognized  that  the  persuasiveness  of  such  a  test  is 
 dependent  on  the  conditions  and  scope  of  the  review,  and  we  thus  encourage  BOCs  to  pursue 
 comprehensive  OSS  testing.  The  findings  of  a  third  party  tester  may  be  necessary  to  assess 
 whether  a  BOC  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS,  particularly  if  other  evidence, 


 255  Texas  Commission  Texas  1  Comments  at  5-  6,  28-  32;  SWBT  Texas  1  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  251;  Telcordia  Final 
 Report  at  1.1.1. 
 256  Texas  Commission  Texas  1  Comments  at  5  n.  7;  Telcordia  Final  Report  at    1.  1.  1. 


 257  Texas  Commission  Texas  1  Comments  at  5. 
 258  SWBT  Texas  1  Application  at  28;  Texas  Commission  Texas  1  Comments  at  5;  SWBT  Texas  1  Ham  Aff.  at 
 para.  256-  258.  Seven  competitive  LECs  were  test  participants  in  the  test.  Only  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  actively 
 participated  in  testing  their  EDI  interface.  See  Telcordia  Final  Report  at    1.1.1.1-  1.1.1.2;  Transcript  of  OSS 
 Testing  Workshop,  SBC  Application  App.  D,  Vol.  3,  Tab  50. 


 259  Telcordia  Final  Report  at  3.  2.  4. 


 260  As  we  stated  in  the  New  York  order,  rigorous  state  proceedings  can  contribute  to  the  success  of  a  section  271 
 application.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3958,  para.  8. 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 50 
 such  as  data  reflecting  actual  commercial  usage,  is  not  presented  by  the  applicant.  As  we  have 
 stated  previously,  however,  we  consider  actual  commercial  usage  to  be  the  most  probative 
 evidence  that  a  BOC  is  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  261  We  thus  first  examine 
 actual  commercial  usage  in  making  our  determination  in  this  matter. 


 103.  We  find  that  the  third  party  test  conducted  by  Telcordia  provides  evidence  of  the 
 functionality  and  capacity  of  SWBTs  OSS  in  several  important  areas.  262  At  the  same  time, 
 however,  we  agree  with  several  commenters  and  the  Department  of  Justice  that  the  Telcordia  test 
 was  limited  in  scope  and  depth.  263  This  is  not  to  say,  as  some  commenters  contend,  that  SWBTs 
 application  is  inadequate.  Rather,  this  finding  simply  means  that,  in  those  substantive  areas  not 
 covered  by  the  Telcordia  test,  we  will  rely  instead  on  other  evidence,  such  as  actual  commercial 
 usage,  to  assess  whether  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  Throughout  the 
 following  analysis,  we  describe  various  aspects  of  the  Telcordia  test,  and  identify  the  specific 
 portions  of  the  test  upon  which  we  rely.  We  also  explain  where  we  are  unable  to  rely  on 
 Telcordias  findings,  such  as  when  we  find  that  a  particular  issue  was  not  covered  by  the  test. 


 104.  Several  commenters  also  challenge  the  blindness  of  the  test  process  and 
 Telcordias  independence,  and  argue  that  Telcordias  findings  thus  should  be  given  little  weight.  264 
 We  note,  however,  that  the  Texas  Commission  played  an  active  role  throughout  the  testing 
 process  and  acted  as  test  manager.  265  The  Texas  Commission  also  describes  specific  efforts  that 


 261  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3974,  para.  53;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20655,  para.  86;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20618,  para.  138. 
 262  See,  e.  g.,  sections  V.  B.  1.e  and  V.  B.  1.f,  infra.  See  also  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  4 


 (suggesting  that  Telcordias  test  has  significant  limitations,  but  also  provid[  es]  some  evidence  of  the 
 functionality  and  capacity  of  SBCs  [OSS]). 


 263  See  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  4-  7;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  74-  75,  79-  80;  WorldCom 


 Texas  I  McMillon  &  Sivori  Decl.  at  110;  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  9.  17.  In  sum,  the  Department  of 
 Justice  and  commenters  suggested  that  Telcordia:  (i)  tested  an  inadequate  number  of  transaction  scenarios, 
 excluding,  for  example,  the  provisioning  of  xDSL  capable  loops;  (ii)  did  not  test  SWBTs  manual  processes  or 
 back-  end  systems;  (iii)  did  not  adequately  test  SWBTs  change  management  processes  or  competitive  LEC  support 
 organizations  such  as  the  Help  Desk  and  Customer  Service  Center;  and  (iv)  did  not  evaluate  the  accuracy  of  the 
 raw  data  used  by  SWBT  to  calculate  its  performance  measurements.  Id.  Several  parties  also  argued  that  the  third 
 party  test  in  Texas  was  less  comprehensive  than  the  test  executed  by  KPMG  in  New  York,  with  respect  to  the  Bell 
 Atlantic  section  271  process.  In  Bell  Atlantics  New  York  application,  we  treated  the  conclusions  in  the  KPMG 
 Final  Report  as  persuasive  evidence  of  Bell  Atlantics  OSS  readiness  based,  in  part,  on  the  scope  and  depth  of 
 KPMGs  review.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  at  paras.  96-  100. 


 264  See,  e.  g.,  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  40;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  5  (arguing  that  SWBT 


 had  advanced  notice  of  test  scenarios  and  competitive  LECs  test  participants  and  used  special  codes  that  earmarked 
 their  test  orders);  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  9  and  73-  74  (asserting  that  SWBT  provided  much  of  the  content  of 
 the  process  review  report);  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  Connolly  Decl.  at  paras.  39-  49;  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at 
 9  (stating  that  Telcordia  shared  its  findings  with  SWBT  before  reporting  them  to  the  Texas  Commission  and  the 
 competing  carriers). 


 265  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  28-  32.  The  Texas  Commission  explains  that  its  role  in  the  OSS 


 readiness  test  included:  overseeing  the  development  of  the  functionality  and  capacity  tests,  overseeing  the  test 
 (continued.) 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 51 
 were  taken  to  maintain  testing  blindness.  266  Based  on  our  review  of  the  evidence  in  the  record 
 describing  the  test  process,  and  on  the  assurances  provided  by  the  Texas  Commission,  we  find 
 that  the  results  of  Telcordias  test,  in  certain  areas,  provide  meaningful  evidence  that  is  relevant  to 
 our  analysis  of  SWBTs  OSS. 


 d.  Change  Management  Process 
 105.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  the  documentation  and 
 support  necessary  to  provide  competing  carriers  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  SWBT 
 makes  this  demonstration  by  showing  that  it  has  an  adequate  change  management  process  in  place 
 in  Texas.  The  record  also  reflects  that  SWBT  has  adhered  to  its  change  management  process  over 
 time.  As  a  result,  we  find  that  SWBT  provides  access  to  its  OSS  in  a  manner  that  allows  an 
 efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 (i)  Background 
 106.  Competing  carriers  need  information  about,  and  specifications  for,  an  incumbents 
 systems  and  interfaces  to  develop  and  modify  their  systems  and  procedures  to  access  the 
 incumbents  OSS  functions.  267  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.  268  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.  269  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.  270 


 107.  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  BOCs  OSS  system.  271  Such  changes  may  include  updates  to  existing  functions  (Continued  from  previous  page) 


 process,  assisting  in  the  defining  of  the  test  scope,  ensuring  a  collaborative  process,  providing  final  approval  of 
 baselined  documents  with  input  from  the  TAG  and  Telcordia,  approving  data  retention  policy  for  participants 
 [and]  acting  as  the  test  manager.  Id.  at  29-  30. 


 266  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  30,  38  (describing  efforts  to  maintain  testing  blindness). 


 267  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  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. 


 268  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd.  at  3999,  para.  102. 


 269  Id.  at  3999-  4000,  para.  102 
 270  Id.  at  4000,  para.  102. 
 271  Id.  at  4000,  para.  103. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 52 
 that  impact  competing  carrier  interface(  s)  upon  a  BOCs  release  of  new  interface  software; 
 technology  changes  that  require  competing  carriers  to  meet  new  technical  requirements  upon  a 
 BOCs  software  release  date;  additional  functionality  changes  that  may  be  used  at  the  competing 
 carriers  option,  on  or  after  a  BOCs  release  date  for  new  interface  software;  and  changes  that 
 may  be  mandated  by  regulatory  authorities.  272  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.  273  Change  management  problems  can  impair  a  competing 
 carriers  ability  to  obtain  nondiscriminatory  access  to  UNEs,  and  hence  a  BOCs  compliance  with 
 section  271(  2)(  B)(  ii).  274 


 (a)  Discussion 
 108.  In  evaluating  whether  a  BOCs  change  management  plan  affords  an  efficient 
 competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete,  we  first  assess  whether  the  plan  is  adequate.  In 
 making  this  determination,  we  assess  whether  the  evidence  demonstrates:  (1)  that  information 
 relating  to  the  change  management  process  is  clearly  organized  and  readily  accessible  to 
 competing  carriers;  275  (2)  that  competing  carriers  had  substantial  input  in  the  design  and  continued 
 operation  of  the  change  management  process;  276  (3)  that  the  change  management  plan  defines  a 
 procedure  for  the  timely  resolution  of  change  management  disputes;  277  (4)  the  availability  of  a 
 stable  testing  environment  that  mirrors  production;  278  and  (5)  the  efficacy  of  the  documentation 
 the  BOC  makes  available  for  the  purpose  of  building  an  electronic  gateway.  279  After  determining 
 whether  the  BOCs  change  management  plan  is  adequate,  we  evaluate  whether  the  BOC  has 
 demonstrated  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  this  plan.  280 


 109.  We  disagree  with  commenters  that  argue  that  SWBTs  failure  to  implement  a 
 change  management  plan  that  is  identical  to  the  one  adopted  by  Bell  Atlantic  in  New  York  is  a 


 272  Id. 
 273  Id.  at  4000,  para.  103. 
 274  Id. 
 275  Id.  at  4002,  para.  107. 
 276  Id.  at  4000,  para.  104. 
 277  Id.  at  4002,  para.  108. 
 278  Id.  at  4002-  03,  paras.  109-  10. 
 279  Id.  at  4003-  04,  para.  110.  In  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  used  these  factors  in  determining  whether 
 Bell  Atlantic  had  an  adequate  change  management  process  in  place.  See  id.  at  4004,  para.  111.  We  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. 


 280  Id.  at  3999,  para.  101,  4004-  05,  para.  112. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 53 
 basis  for  concluding  that  SWBTs  change  management  plan  is  inadequate.  281  Indeed,  because  an 
 effective  change  management  plan  is  based  on  collaboration  between  a  BOC  and  the  carriers 
 operating  in  its  territory,  we  do  not  expect  such  plans  to  be  identical  in  every  state.  The  fact  that 
 SWBTs  and  Bell  Atlantics  change  management  plans  are  different,  yet  equally  allow  the  smooth 
 and  effective  transition  from  one  EDI  release  to  another,  is  persuasive  evidence  that  more  than 
 one  type  of  change  management  plan  is  adequate  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating  compliance 
 with  the  requirements  of  section  271.  282 


 (i)  Adequacy  of  Change  Management  Plan 
 110.  SWBTs  current  change  management  process  became  effective  in  September  1999.  283  We  find  that  this  process,  which  is  the  result  of  collaborative  efforts  between  SWBT  and 
 competing  carriers,  provides  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  284  As 
 an  initial  matter,  we  note  that  SWBTs  change  management  documentation  is  clearly  organized 
 and  readily  accessible  to  competing  carriers.  The  basic  change  management  process  is 
 memorialized  in  a  single  document  entitled  SWBT  Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carrier  (CLEC) 
 Interface  Change  Management  Process  (Change  Agreement).  285  This  document  sets  forth  the 
 process  and  procedures  that  govern  the  introduction,  modification,  and  retirement  of  OSS 
 interfaces.  286  The  change  management  plan  is  designed  to  accommodate  five  different  types  of 
 changes:  emergency  changes;  regulatory  changes;  changes  in  industry  standards;  changes  initiated 


 281  As  explained  more  fully  in  part  V.  B.  1.  d(  i)(  a)(  i)  infra,  some  commenters  criticize  SWBTs  change 
 management  plan  because,  in  contrast  to  Bell  Atlantics  change  management  plan,  it  has  not  been  used  in 
 connection  with  a  major  release,  was  not  subjected  to  rigorous  third  party  testing,  and  fails  to  include  performance 
 measurements  to  capture  whether  SWBT  is  complying  with  the  change  management  notification  intervals. 


 282  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd.  at  4003,  para.  111  (recognizing  that  various  change 


 management  plans  may  be  adequate  to  meet  the  needs  of  competing  carriers). 
 283  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  307,  314. 


 284  We  note  that,  as  far  back  as  March  1998,  SWBT  expressed  an  interest  in  working  jointly  with  competing 
 carriers  to  establish  an  effective  change  control  process  for  EDI.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application,  App.  C,  Tab  169, 
 Affidavit  of  Liz  Ham  on  Behalf  of  SWBT  at  para.  64  (filed  Mar.  2,  1998  in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  16251). 
 Indeed,  at  that  time,  SWBT  developed  a  change  control  process  plan  and  provided  it  to  AT&  T  for  its  review  in 
 input.  According  to  SWBT,  the  purpose  of  this  initial  plan  was  to  serve  as  a  starting  point  to  establish  a  change 
 control  process  between  the  two  companies.  Id.  Beginning  in  October  1998,  at  the  direction  of  the  Texas 
 Commission,  SWBT  committed  to:  (1)  hold  change  management  meetings  on  a  monthly  basis;  (2)  provide 
 competing  carriers  with  the  ability  to  establish  the  agenda  for  the  meetings;  (3)  submit  the  minutes  of  the  meetings 
 to  competing  carriers  and  allow  competing  carriers  five  business  days  to  comment;  (4)  file  minutes  of  such 
 meetings  with  the  Texas  Commission;  and  (5)  file  a  competing  carriers  comments  along  with  such  minutes  if  such 
 competing  carriers  requested  changes  were  not  incorporated  by  SWBT  into  the  meeting  minutes.  Texas 
 Commission  Comments  at  47;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Application,  App.  C,  Vol.  75,  Tab  1233,  Texas  Commission 
 Final  Staff  Report  on  Collaborative  Process  at  168  (filed  Nov.  18,  1998  in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  16251). 


 285  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.,  App.  A-  4,  Vol.  6,  Attach.  NN,  SWBT  Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carrier  (CLEC) 


 Interface  Change  Management  Process  (dated  Sept.  23,  1999)  (Change  Agreement). 
 286  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  308. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 54 
 by  SWBT;  and  changes  requested  by  competing  carriers.  The  dates  and  timelines  associated  with 
 each  type  of  change  are  clearly  reflected  in  the  change  management  documentation.  287  The  basic 
 change  management  agreement,  and  any  modifications  thereto,  are  made  available  to  competing 
 carriers  through  SWBTs  website.  288 


 111.  We  further  note  that  SWBTs  change  management  process  provides  for  substantial 
 input  from  competing  carriers.  For  example,  the  document  provides  for  regularly  scheduled 
 change  management  meetings  between  SWBT  and  competing  carriers.  289  The  Agreement  further 
 requires  SWBT  to  provide  competing  carriers  with  a  12-  Month  Development  Plan,  which 
 reflects  SWBTs  plans  for  future  OSS  modifications.  Moreover,  the  plan  provides  for  feedback 
 from  competing  carriers  on  proposed  changes,  and  indicates  that  change  releases  will  be  based  on 
 consensus  among  the  parties.  290  We  further  note  that  the  Change  Agreement  includes  a  schedule 
 for  the  distribution  of  draft  specifications  or  business  rules,  receipt  of  competing  carrier  comments 
 on  the  documentation,  and  distribution  of  final  documentation  that  is  based  on  the  consensus  of 
 the  parties.  291 


 112.  We  also  find  that  SWBTs  change  management  process  includes  many  elements 
 that  provide  assurances  that  changes  to  existing  OSS  interfaces  will  not  disrupt  competing 
 carriers  use  of  SWBTs  OSS.  Specifically,  the  plan  includes  a  process  whereby  competing 
 carriers  can  decide  whether  or  not  to  implement  a  new  release  (i.  e.,  go/  no  go  vote),  and  a 


 287  See  Change  Agreement    3.3.1-  3.3.16  (setting  forth  timeline  associated  with  changes  to  application-  to-application 
 interfaces);  id.    3.5.1  (defining  timeline  for  changes  to  graphical-  user  interfaces). 
 288  Pursuant  to  the  Change  Agreement,  SWBT  must  maintain  information  relating  to  the  change  management 


 process  on  a  webpage  that  is  made  available  to  competing  carriers  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  competing  carrier 
 webpage).  The  Change  Agreement  provides  that  the  competing  carrier  webpage  will  contain,  at  a  minimum,  the 
 following:  (1)  current  version  of  the  Change  Agreement;  (2)  LSR-  EDI  Joint  Release  Test  Plan  Template;  (3)  log  of 
 competing  carrier  change  requests;  (4)  references  and/  or  links  to  requirements  for  upcoming  releases;  and  (5) 
 SWBTs  exceptions  to  the  EDI  LSOG  Mechanization  Specifications.  Change  Agreement    8.  0.  ALTS  and  the 
 CLEC  Coalition  argue  that  modifications  to  the  competing  carrier  website  are  necessary.  ALTS/  CLEC  Coalition 
 Texas  II  Comments  at  17.  We  are  confident  that  issues  such  as  these  will  be  adequately  resolved  through  the 
 normal  change  management  process. 


 289  Currently,  these  meetings  are  held  on  a  monthly  basis.  This  interval,  however,  may  change  in  the  future. 


 SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  330.  The  record  indicates  that  competing  carriers  have  an  active  role  in  the 
 development  of  the  agenda  for  the  change  management  meetings.  As  a  result  of  Telcordias  findings,  SWBT 
 includes  an  Action  Item  Register  in  the  minutes  to  the  change  management  meetings.  According  to  SWBT,  this 
 log  facilitates  the  tracking  of  change  management  issues  and  notifies  all  participants  of  the  status  of  outstanding 
 issues.  Id.  at  para.  334. 


 290  For  example,  SWBTs  Change  Agreement  defines  the  procedure  by  which  a  competing  carrier  can  submit  an 


 interface  change  request  to  SWBT.  SWBT  explains  that,  in  deciding  whether  to  include  a  competing  carriers 
 change  request  in  its  requirements,  it  will  consider  such  factors  as  feasibility,  cost,  and  cost  reduction,  and  user 
 benefits.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  318. 


 291  See  infra  note  338  and  accompanying  text.  We  further  note  that  the  Change  Agreement  specifies  that  the 


 change  management  plan  is  dynamic  in  nature,  and  will  be  managed  through  regularly  scheduled  meetings  based 
 on  group  consensus.  Change  Agreement    1.0. 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 55 
 process  for  identifying  and  resolving  issues  related  to  the  change  management  process  in  a  timely 
 manner.  292  Unresolved  change  management  disputes  could  impede  a  carriers  ability  to  access  the 
 BOCs  OSS,  which,  in  turn,  hampers  that  carriers  ability  to  serve  its  customers.  293  It,  therefore, 
 is  critically  important  that  change  management  disputes  are  handled  expeditiously.  We  would  be 
 hesitant  to  find  that  a  BOC  has  an  adequate  change  management  process  in  place  if  the  change 
 management  plan  does  not  define  a  mechanism  for  change  management  disputes  to  be  handled  in 
 a  timely  manner.  Finally,  we  note  that  the  change  management  plan  includes  a  requirement  that 
 SWBT  support  the  current  and  most  recent  versions  of  software  for  its  EDI  Ordering  and 
 EDI/  CORBA  pre-  ordering  interfaces  (i.  e.,  versioning).  294  Although  versioning  has  not  yet  been 
 implemented  in  Texas,  the  record  indicates  that  versioning  will  be  implemented  in  connection  with 
 the  next  EDI  release,  which  is  expected  to  occur  in  August  2000.  295 


 113.  Some  commenters  argue  that  SWBT  cannot  rely  on  the  change  management  plan 
 described  above  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  section  271  because  it  has  not  been  used  in 
 connection  with  a  major  EDI  release,  296  and  has  not  been  fully  implemented.  297  These 
 commenters  argue  that  section  271  compliance  must  be  based  on  the  two  different  change 
 management  plans  SWBT  actually  has  used  over  the  past  year.  As  noted  above,  the  current  plan 
 became  effective  in  September  1999.  Any  EDI  releases  that  were  implemented  prior  to  this  time 
 were  governed  by  a  process  that  initially  became  effective  in  June  1998.  298  According  to  some 
 carriers,  SWBTs  former  change  management  plan  was  inadequate  because  it  failed  to  include 
 several  elements  that  competing  carriers  regard  as  critical  to  their  ability  to  modify  and  test 
 changes  on  its  side  of  the  interface.  299  WorldCom  further  maintains  that  SWBT  should  be 


 292  Change  Agreement    7.0-  7.5  (defining  outstanding  issue  resolution  process). 
 293  Birch  Tidwell/  Kettler  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  160. 
 294  Change  Agreement    3.  4.  These  rules  provide  that  the  most  recent  prior  release  will  be  maintained  in  service 
 after  a  new  release,  allowing  competitive  LECs  to  transition  to  the  newest  release  at  their  own  pace  (or 
 alternatively,  wait  to  transition  to  the  subsequent  release).  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  34;  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I 
 Aff.  at  paras.  352-  354.  SWBT  adopted  this  versioning  policy  in  response  to  competitive  LEC  requests  during 
 change  management  meetings.  Id.  SWBT  will  make  available  one  version  of  a  GUI  at  any  given  time.  Id.    3.5. 


 295  See  SWBT  Accessible  Letter  No.  CLECSS00-  084  (dated  June  5,  2000),  Attach.  1  to  AT&  T  June  14,  2000 


 OSS  Ex  Parte  Letter. 
 296  A  release  is  considered  major  if  a  change  in  the  Local  Service  Ordering  Guidelines  (LSOG)  version  occurs, 


 or  substantial  new  functionality  is  introduced.  See  WorldCom  McMillon/  Sivori  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  221. 
 297  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  point  out,  for  example,  that  contrary  to  the  documented  change  management  plan, 


 SWBT  has  not  implemented  versioning.  AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Texas  I  Decl.  at  paras.  37-  44;  WorldCom 
 McMillon/  Sivori  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  224. 


 298  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  307  (noting  that  its  former  change  management  plan  was  made  available  to 


 competing  carriers  from  June  1998  to  August  1999). 
 299  See  AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  56  &  n.  26;  WorldCom  McMillon/  Sivori  Texas  I  Decl.  at 


 para.  218. 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 56 
 required  to  implement  performance  measurements  to  ensure  that  SWBT  will  comply  with  the 
 Change  Agreement  in  the  future.  300 


 114.  We  reject  each  of  the  foregoing  claims.  First,  contrary  to  these  carriers 
 assertions,  the  record  indicates  that  SWBT  has  followed  the  procedures  outlined  in  its  current 
 change  management  plan  since  September  1999.  In  fact,  this  process  was  successfully  used  in 
 connection  with  the  EDI  releases  that  were  implemented  on  October  23,  1999,  January  15,  2000 
 releases.  301  Although  the  evidence  indicates  that  these  releases  were  not  substantial,  we  note  that 
 the  timelines,  processes,  and  procedures  set  forth  in  the  Change  Agreement  must  be  followed 
 regardless  of  the  scope  of  the  release.  We  thus  find  that  SWBTs  successful  use  of  the  current 
 change  management  plan  in  connection  with  any  EDI  release  is  instructive  in  determining  whether 
 the  change  management  plan  in  place  in  Texas  affords  competing  carriers  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  We  recognize  that  there  may  be  circumstances  in  which  it  is  necessary  to 
 assess  a  BOCs  ability  to  implement  at  least  one  significant  software  release.  302  Indeed,  given  the 
 nature  and  scope  of  the  change  management  issues  that  could  arise  in  connection  with  major 
 software  releases,  we  find  that  such  a  demonstration  may  be  critical  to  another  section  271 
 applicants  demonstration  that  the  change  management  plan  it  has  in  place  is  adequate.  The 
 evidence  presented  in  this  proceeding,  including  that  SWBTs  change  management  plan  was  used 
 successfully  for  at  least  two  EDI  releases,  and  Telcordias  findings  that  SWBTs  change 
 management  process  is  effective,  provides  a  sufficient  basis  upon  which  to  determine  whether  the 
 methods  and  procedures  SWBT  employs  to  communicate  with  competing  carriers  regarding  OSS 
 system  performance  and  changes  is  adequate. 


 115.  We  recognize,  as  some  commenters  point  out  that,  contrary  to  the  documented 
 change  management  plan,  SWBT  has  not  yet  implemented  versioning.  As  we  previously  have 
 recognized,  versioning  is  one  of  the  most  effective  means  of  ensuring  that  system  changes  and 
 enhancements  do  not  adversely  affect  a  carriers  ability  to  access  the  BOCs  OSS.  303  Given  its 
 importance,  we  find  that  versioning  is  integral  to  a  section  271  applicants  demonstration  that  the 
 change  management  plan  it  has  in  place  affords  competing  carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to 
 compete.  We  do  not  find,  however,  that  the  lack  of  versioning  has  deprived  carriers  of  a 
 meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  in  Texas,  or  otherwise  demonstrates  that  the  SWBTs  change 


 300  WorldCom  McMillon/  Sivori  Decl.  at  para.  219,  223. 
 301  We  further  note  that  the  current  change  management  process  was  used  in  connection  with  the  May  27,  2000 
 release.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.  at  para.  55  (noting  that  the  current  agreed-  upon  change  management  plan  was 
 used  for  all  releases  implemented  in  2000);  see  also  Telcordia  Dec.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  2,  6-  8  9 
 (concluding  that  SWBT  generally  followed  the  current  change  management  process  for  the  October  23,  1999 
 release).  According  to  SWBT,  except  for  the  dates  and  timeframes  that  had  already  passed  when  it  became 
 effective,  the  current  change  management  plan  was  effective  for  the  October  23,  1999  release.  Specifically,  SWBT 
 states  that  joint  testing  was  carried  out  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  current  change  management  plan,  and  the 
 go/  no-  go  vote  policy  was  in  effect  for  the  October  23,  1999  release.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  314. 


 302  Letter  from  Lawrence  E.  Strickling,  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  to  Nancy  E.  Lubamersky,  Executive 


 Director,  Regulatory  Planning,  U  S  WEST,  at  2-  3  (Sept.  27,  1999)  (U  S  WEST  Sept.  27,  Letter). 
 303  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  4002-  03,  para.  110;  U  S  WEST  Sept.  27  Letter  at  2. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 57 
 management  process  is  inadequate.  We  reach  this  conclusion  on  the  basis  of  evidence 
 demonstrating  that  SWBT  has  employed  a  number  of  other  mechanisms  to  ensure  the  timely  and 
 effective  transition  from  one  EDI  release  to  another.  Should  future  evidence  demonstrate  that  the 
 resources  SWBT  makes  available  to  assist  carriers  in  EDI  implementation  and  release  testing 
 become  less  effective  before  versioning  is  implemented,  this  may  serve  as  a  basis  for  concluding 
 that  its  change  management  plan  is  inadequate,  thus  leading  to  a  conclusion  that  the  requirements 
 of  section  271  are  not  satisfied. 


 116.  As  noted  above,  SWBT  has  in  place  a  number  of  mechanisms  to  ensure  that 
 releases  are  implemented  in  a  timely  and  effective  manner.  Indeed,  as  we  explain  more  fully 
 below,  SWBT  notifies  competing  carriers  of  all  system  changes  and  enhancements  well  in  advance 
 of  the  target  implementation  date.  304  In  addition,  SWBT  provides  numerous  other  information 
 and  human  resources  to  competing  carriers  to  ensure  successful  EDI  implementation.  305  We 
 further  note  that  the  go/  no-  go  vote  procedure  that  has  been  in  effect  in  Texas  since  July  1999.  306 
 We  find  that  this  procedure,  which  permits  any  carrier  that  will  be  adversely  affected  by  the 
 implementation  of  a  release  to  request  that  it  be  delayed,  minimizes  any  adverse  consequences 
 associated  with  the  lack  of  versioning.  307  Given  the  effectiveness  of  these  tools  in  ensuring  the 
 orderly  implementation  of  EDI  releases  in  the  past,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  contention  that  the  lack  of 
 versioning  in  Texas  exposes  competing  carriers  and  their  customers  to  an  unreasonable  risk.  308 
 Should  the  facts  reveal  at  a  later  time  that  carriers  are  forced  to  transition  to  a  new  release 
 prematurely,  thereby  impeding  their  ability  to  access  SWBT  OSS,  enforcement  action  may  be 
 appropriate.  Indeed,  we  find  that  scrutiny  of  SWBTs  change  management  procedures  is 
 particularly  important  until  versioning  is  fully  implemented.  309 


 304  See  infra  part  V.  B.  1.  d(  i)(  a)(  iii). 
 305  In  its  Documentation  Analysis  report,  Telcordia  noted  that  competing  carriers  cited  SWBTs  human  resources 
 as  the  most  significant  resources  for  EDI  implementation,  and  that  competing  carriers  were  particularly  impressed 
 by  the  assignment  of  numerous,  knowledgeable  SWBT  subject  matter  experts  with  wide-  ranging  areas  of  expertise 
 during  the  implementation  process.  Other  resources  cited  by  competing  carriers  as  being  helpful  for  EDI 
 implementation  included  a  daily  conference  call  routine,  SWBTs  Mapping  Matrix  and  LSOR,  and  the 
 competing  carrier  website.  Id.  at  11. 


 306  SWBT  Texas  I  Application,  App.  G,  Vol.  9,  Tab  631  (Modification  to  the  Southwestern  Bell  EDI/  LSR  Change 


 Control  Process-  Arkansas,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Oklahoma,  Texas,  Accessible  Letter  CLEC  99-  097  (July  21,  1999)). 
 307  While  we  continue  to  believe  that  the  existence  of  a  go/  no-  go  vote  policy  minimizes  the  need  for  versioning, 


 we  agree  with  AT&  T  that  such  a  policy  does  not  obviate  the  need  for  versioning  altogether  because,  as  AT&  T 
 explains,  new  releases  impact  different  CLECs  differently.  AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  38.  For 
 example,  as  AT&  T  points  out,  [  a]  defect  in  a  release  that  will  cripple  one  CLECs  ability  to  convert  and  support 
 customers  may  have  little  impact  on  another  CLEC,  thus  creating  the  possibility  that  a  go/  no  go  vote  will  not 
 delay  the  release.  Id. 


 308  AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  43. 


 309  We  note  that  the  issue  of  the  availability  of  versioning  was  specifically  raised  before  the  Texas  Commission. 
 The  Texas  Commission  ordered  SWBT  to  implement  versioning  by  January  15,  2000,  see  Texas  Commission 
 Order  No.  5-  Re:  EDI  Version  Control  (filed  July  23,  1998,  in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  19000,  Attach.  2  to 
 (continued.) 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 58 
 117.  Second,  while  we  agree  with  competing  carriers  that  the  change  management  plan 
 that  was  in  place  prior  to  September  1999  was  deficient  in  a  number  of  respects,  310  this  plan  is  not 
 relevant  to  our  determination  of  whether  SWBT  presently  satisfies  the  requirements  of  section 
 271.  Indeed,  in  determining  section  271  compliance,  we  review  the  adequacy  of  the  change 
 management  plan  that  is  in  place  at  the  time  the  section  271  application  is  filed.  We  further 
 review  whether  the  BOC  has  demonstrated  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  this  plan.  As  noted 
 above,  SWBT  has  adhered  to  an  adequate  change  management  plan  in  connection  with  the  past 
 three  EDI  releases.  We  do  not  expect  any  change  management  process  to  remain  static.  Rather, 
 a  key  component  of  an  effective  change  management  process  is  the  existence  of  a  forum  in  which 
 both  competing  carriers  and  the  BOC  can  work  collaboratively  to  improve  the  method  by  which 
 changes  to  the  BOCs  OSS  are  implemented.  This  certainly  is  the  case  in  Texas  where,  as  a  result 
 of  concerns  raised  by  competing  carriers  and  to  accommodate  process  improvements 
 recommended  by  Telcordia,  SWBTs  change  management  process  has  evolved  over  time.  We 
 believe  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  evaluate  SWBTs  section  271  compliance  based  on  a  change 
 management  process  that  it  no  longer  follows. 


 118.  Finally,  we  disagree  that  the  existence  of  performance  measurements  is  the  only 
 basis  upon  which  to  ensure  that  a  BOC  will  comply  with  the  requirements  of  section  271, 
 including  the  requirement  that  it  adhere  to  its  documented  change  management  plan.  Indeed,  we 
 note  that,  the  Texas  Commission  has  been  extensively  involved  in  the  development  of  the  Texas 
 change  management  plan,  and  continues  to  handle  disputes  related  to  the  change  management 
 process  effectively  and  expeditiously.  311  Moreover,  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6),  the 
 Commission  retains  the  authority  to  enforce  the  requirements  of  section  271,  even  after  such 
 authority  has  been  granted.  Given  the  extensive  oversight  of  the  Texas  Commission,  and  this 
 Commissions  continuing  enforcement  authority  under  section  271(  d)(  6),  we  have  no  reason  to 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 AT&  T  Dalton/  De  Young  Decl.).  Due  to  subsequent  discussions  with  the  Texas  Commission,  however,  SWBT 
 currently  will  not  implement  versioning  until  August  2000.  See  Letter  from  Mark  A.  Haddad,  Counsel  for  AT&  T, 
 to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC  (dated  June  14,  2000  (AT&  T  June  14,  2000  OSS  Ex  Parte  Letter), 
 Attach.  1,  SWBT  Accessible  Letter,  CLECSS00-  84  (dated  June  5,  2000)  (requesting  input  from  competing  carriers 
 on  its  proposal  to  implement  the  versioning  release  in  August  2000).  We  reiterate  that,  until  versioning  is  fully 
 implemented  in  Texas,  the  efficacy  of  SWBTs  change  management  will  be  carefully  scrutinized. 


 310  For  example,  the  evidence  demonstrates  that  this  change  management  process  was  developed  with  minimal 


 input  from  competing  carriers  and  failed  to  include  certain  key  safeguards  that  competing  carriers  believe  are 
 essential  to  their  ability  to  modify  and  test  changes  on  their  side  of  the  interface.  In  particular,  the  former  change 
 management  plan  did  not  require  SWBT  to  complete  internal  testing  of  the  release  prior  to  the  commencement  of 
 the  competing  carrier  testing  period,  did  not  permit  competing  carriers  to  request  that  the  implementation  of  the 
 release  be  delayed  if  problems  were  encountered  during  testing  (i.  e.,  go/  no  go  vote),  failed  to  include 
 documentation  with  respect  to  the  entrance,  exit,  and  success  criteria  associated  with  testing,  did  not  require 
 SWBT  to  extend  the  testing  period  to  fix  errors  found  during  testing,  and  did  not  provide  for  versioning.  See 
 AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para.  56  n.  26  &  Attach.  6. 


 311  The  Texas  Commission  has  been  actively  involved  in  handling  various  change  management  issues  through 


 Project  Numbers  16251  (proceeding  addressing  SWBT  compliance  with  271),  19000  (proceeding  addressing  the 
 implementation  of  the  AT&  T/  SWBT  and  WorldCom/  SWBT  interconnection  agreements)  and  20400  (proceeding 
 established  to  handle  change  management  issues). 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 59 
 believe  that  SWBT  will  disregard  its  obligation  to  maintain  in  Texas  a  change  management  plan 
 that  affords  competing  carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  Evidence  that  SWBT  fails 
 to  adhere  to  the  agreed-  upon  change  management  process,  thereby  depriving  competing  carriers 
 of  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete,  may  result  in  an  enforcement  action  under  section 
 271(  d)(  6). 


 (ii)  Documentation  Adequacy 
 119.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  makes  available  sufficiently  detailed  interface  design 
 specifications  to  enable  competing  carriers  to  modify  or  design  their  systems  in  a  manner  that  will 
 enable  them  to  communicate  with  the  SWBTs  systems  and  any  relevant  interfaces.  312  We, 
 therefore,  conclude  that  the  EDI  implementation  and  design  specifications  that  SWBT  makes 
 available  afford  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  Competing  carriers 
 raise  various  arguments  with  respect  to  the  adequacy  of  SWBTs  EDI  interface  development 
 documentation.  313  We  believe  that  many  of  the  issues  cited  by  commenters  (such  as  SWBTs 
 failure  to  provide  a  comprehensive,  customized  set  of  SWBT-  specific  EDI  documentation)  are 
 important,  and  under  a  different  set  of  circumstances,  could  seriously  undermine  a  section  271 
 applicants  assertion  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS. 


 120.  Under  the  facts  of  this  proceeding,  however,  we  find  that  SWBTs  documentation 
 is  adequate  for  the  purpose  of  building  an  EDI  gateway,  and  therefore  affords  an  efficient 
 competing  carrier  of  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  314  As  an  initial  matter,  we  agree  with 
 SWBT  and  the  Texas  Commission  that  the  adequacy  of  SWBTs  documentation  is  demonstrated 
 by  the  fact  that  several  competing  carriers  have  constructed  and  are  using  EDI  interfaces  in  a 


 312  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd.  at  20616-  17,  para.  137. 
 313  Some  commenters  point  out  that  SWBT  does  not  provide  a  set  of  SWBT-  specific  EDI  interface  documentation. 
 Instead,  SWBT  relies  on  industry  standard  documents  such  as  the  Telecommunications  Industry  Forum  (TCIF) 
 EDI  Guidelines  to  notify  competing  carriers  of  the  requirements  necessary  to  build  to  its  OSS.  SWBT  notifies 
 competing  carriers  of  the  differences  between  its  EDI  interface  requirements  and  industry  standards  through 
 documents  entitled  Accessible  Letters.  Several  carriers  argue  that  Accessible  Letters  are  an  ineffective  method  of 
 communicating  to  competing  carriers  the  requirements  necessary  to  build  to  SWBTs  systems.  For  example,  these 
 commenters  claim  that  these  Accessible  Letters  do  not  offer  a  comprehensive  view  of  all  of  the  differences  between 
 industry  standards  and  SWBT-  specific  EDI  interface  requirements.  See  AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Texas  I  Decl.  at 
 para.  83  (arguing  that  Accessible  Letters  do  not  provide  a  comprehensive  view  of  all  differences  between  industry 
 standards  interface  guidelines  and  those  consistent  with  SWBTs  EDI  interface);  see  also  AT&  T 
 Chambers/  DeYoung  Texas  II  Decl.  at  paras.  39-  42  (describing  deficiencies  with  respect  to  SWBTs  EDI 
 documentation).  Other  commenters  contend  that  that  these  letters  often  fail  to  include  critical  change  management 
 information,  are  not  easily  accessible,  and  often  are  not  made  available  to  competing  carriers  in  a  timely  fashion. 
 See  Birch  Tidwell/  Kettler  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  163-  66. 


 314  Several  commenters  suggest  ways  in  which  SWBT  could  improve  the  quality  of  its  EDI  documentation.  See 


 AT&  T  Chambers/  DeYoung  Texas  II  Decl.  at  para.  42.  We  are  confident  that  any  issues  concerning  the  adequacy 
 of  SWBTs  EDI  documentation  will  be  resolved  expeditiously  and  effectively  by  SWBT  through  the  normal  change 
 management  process. 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 60 
 commercial  environment.  315  As  SWBT  explains,  sixteen  carriers  are  in  production  using  SWBTs 
 EDI  interface  gateway,  and  additional  carriers  are  in  the  process  of  testing  EDI  requirements.  316 
 The  fact  that  many  of  these  carriers  are  placing  high  volumes  of  orders  via  EDI  with  relatively  few 
 rejects  significantly  undermines  the  assertion  that  these  carriers  EDI  implementation  efforts  have 
 been  unsuccessful.  Indeed,  these  carriers  actual  commercial  experiences  indicate  that  SWBTs 
 EDI  documentation  is  sufficient. 


 121.  We  further  note  that  SWBT  makes  available  to  competing  carriers  a  vast  number 
 of  resources  for  the  purpose  of  EDI  implementation.  317  For  example,  each  competing  carrier 
 operating  in  Texas  is  assigned  an  SWBT  Account  Manager,  who  is  responsible  for  managing  and 
 assisting  with  all  activities  pertaining  to  the  carriers  working  relationship  with  SWBT  for  local 
 service.  318  In  addition,  through  its  Information  Services  (IS)  Call  Center  and  OSS  CLEC  Support 
 Team,  SWBT  is  able  to  offer  personalized  assistance  to  carriers  that  experience  OSS-  related 
 problems.  319  Other  resources  provided  by  SWBT  include  interactional,  OSS-  related  websites.  320 
 Although  not  decisional  in  this  case,  we  note  that  SWBT  recently  engaged  the  services  of  General 
 Electric  Global  Exchange  Services  (GXS)  to  provide  to  competing  carriers  several  hours  of  OSS-related 
 technical  assistance  at  no  charge  to  the  competing  carrier.  321 


 122.  Telcordias  findings  provide  additional  support  for  our  conclusion  that  the 


 315  As  the  Texas  Commission  explains,  in  carrier-  to-  carrier  testing,  the  ability  of  a  competing  carrier  to  build  an 
 EDI  interface  capable  of  pass  orders  to  the  BOC  is  one  indicator  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  BOCs  documentation. 
 Texas  Commission  Comments  at  46.  In  this  regard,  the  Texas  Commission  notes  that,  any  deficiencies  in 
 documentation  appear  through  the  identification  of  errors.  Id. 


 316  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  16,  131. 


 317  SWBT  Brainard  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  6. 
 318  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  19. 
 319  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  20-  21.  The  IS  Call  Center  answers  questions  regarding  access  to  SWBTs 
 systems  and  applications,  and  assists  in  the  resolution  of  information  technology  problems  experienced  by 
 competing  carriers.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  20.  SWBTs  OSS  CLEC  Support  team  is  available  to 
 discuss  with  competing  carriers  such  issues  as  hardware  and  software  requirements,  training  needs,  and 
 implementation  strategies.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  30. 


 320  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  36.  The  competing  carrier  website  address  is  <https://  clec.  sbc.  com>.  Id. 


 Examples  of  OSS-  relates  sites  that  can  be  accessed  by  competing  carriers  include:  (1)  Customer  Education 
 Website,  which  presents  an  overview  of  OSS  classes  available  for  competing  carriers;  (2)  IS  Call  Center  Website, 
 which  assists  carriers  in  the  resolution  of  problems  that  may  arise  while  accessing  SWBTs  OSS;  (3)  Performance 
 Measurements  Website,  from  which  carriers  may  view  performance  reports;  and  (4)  FOC/  SOC  Online  Application, 
 which  provides  carriers  currently  receiving  FOCs  and  SOCs  manually  an  alternative  means  for  accessing  these 
 notices. 


 321  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.  at  para.  15;  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  30.  According  to  SWBT,  GXS 


 will  assess  each  individual  competing  carriers  situation,  make  recommendations  relating  to  inter  interface 
 architecture  and  strategy,  offer  high  level  requirements,  and  issue  a  report  detailing  the  above  information  to  the 
 competing  carrier.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.  at  para.  15. 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 61 
 documentation  and  resources  provided  by  SWBT  enable  competing  carriers  to  implement 
 successfully  EDI.  As  part  of  the  Texas  Commissions  third-  party  test,  Telcordia  performed  an 
 assessment  of  the  usefulness  of  the  documentation  and  related  materials  SWBT  makes  available  to 
 competing  carriers  for  the  purpose  of  implementing  EDI.  322  In  its  Documentation  Analysis 
 Report,  Telcordia  concluded  that  the  resources  made  available  by  SWBT  for  the  purpose  of  EDI 
 implementation  are  clear  and  comprehensive,  and  conform  to  applicable  OBF  pre-  order  and 
 ordering  guidelines.  323  Telcordia  further  found  that  the  resources  SWBT  provides  to  competing 
 carriers  are  easy  to  use  and  readily  available  to  competing  carriers.  324  According  to  Telcordia, 
 these  findings  were  confirmed  by  the  competing  carriers  it  interviewed  in  connection  with  its 
 documentation  review.  325  Indeed,  in  its  Documentation  Report,  Telcordia  noted  that  competing 
 carriers  consistently  commented  upon  the  responsiveness  of  SWBT  employees  to  their  concerns 
 and  issues  raised  during  EDI  implementation.  326 


 123.  Moreover,  many  of  the  issues  related  to  EDI  implementation,  including  the 
 adequacy  of  SWBTs  EDI  documentation,  are  discussed  fully  and  openly  during  regularly 
 scheduled  meetings  between  SWBT  and  competing  carriers.  The  record  indicates  that,  when  a 
 competing  carrier  expresses  a  concern  about  SWBTs  EDI  documentation,  SWBT  responds  to 
 their  concerns  in  an  effective  and  timely  manner.  327  Given  these  findings,  we  are  convinced  that 
 any  problems  associated  with  SWBTs  EDI  documentation  are  minimal,  and  can  be  easily 
 overcome. 


 322  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff..,  App.  A-  4,  Attach.  T,  Telcordia  Technologies,  Southwestern  Bell  EDI/  LSR 
 Documentation  Analysis  (filed  Dec.  13,  1999  in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  20000)  (Telcordia  Documentation 
 Report).  Telcordias  analysis  consisted  of  three  parts.  First,  Telcordia  compared  documentation  made  available 
 by  SWBT  to  general  industry  resources  (e.  g.,  OBF  Guidelines  with  respect  to  pre-  order  and  order  procedures, 
 Telecommunications  Industry  Forum  (TCIF)  EDI  Guidelines  with  respect  to  EDI  mapping).  Id.  at  ES-  1.  Second, 
 Telcordia  utilized  documentation  and  resources  provided  by  SWBT  to  create  LSRs  and  their  associated  EDI 
 records.  Telcordia  then  utilized  SWBTs  How  Am  I  Doing  service  to  assess  and  analyze  the  accuracy  of  the  data 
 created.  Id.  at  3.  Finally,  Telcordia  interviewed  four  competing  carriers  to  validate  its  own  findings  and  identify 
 any  strengths  and  weaknesses  perceived  by  those  carriers.  Id.  at  ES-  1.  The  competing  carriers  that  were 
 interviewed  by  Telcordia  were  selected  by  the  Texas  Commission.  Id.  at  1. 


 323  Telcordia  Documentation  Report  at  8. 


 324  Telcordia  Documentation  Report  at  ES-  1,  1. 
 325  Telcordia  Documentation  Report  at  1. 
 326  Telcorida  Documentation  Report  at  11(  outlining  some  of  the  strengths  noted  by  competing  carriers). 
 Although  some  of  the  competing  carriers  identified  areas  in  which  the  EDI  implementation  process  could  be 
 improved,  Telcordia  concluded  no  competing  carrier  had  identified  a  persistent  problem.  Telcordia 
 Documentation  Report  at  12.  Indeed,  Telcordia  noted  that  all  of  the  carriers  errors  were  corrected  after  an  initial 
 communication  to  SWBT.  Id. 


 327  In  its  Documentation  Report,  for  example,  Telcordia  noted  that  CLEC  representatives  consistently 


 commented  on  the  responsiveness  of  SWBT  employees  to  their  concerns  and  issues  raised  during  EDI 
 implementation.  Telcordia  Documentation  Report  at  11.  In  fact,  Telcordia  stated  that  its  analysis  revealed  that 
 all  of  the  competing  carriers  errors  were  corrected  after  initial  email  or  voice  conversation  with  SWBT 
 representative.  Telcordia  Documentation  Report  at  12. 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 62 
 124.  We  further  note  that,  other  than  AT&  T,  no  carrier  claims  that  its  EDI 
 implementation  efforts  were  unreasonably  complicated,  or  accompanied  by  unreasonable  expense 
 and  delay.  With  respect  to  AT&  T,  we  are  persuaded  by  SWBTs  claim  that  many  of  the  problems 
 associated  with  AT&  Ts  development  efforts  are  unique  to  AT&  T.  Indeed,  although  AT&  T 
 claims  that  it  took  several  years  for  it  to  construct  an  EDI  gateway,  other  competing  carriers  were 
 able  to  establish  connectivity  with  SWBTs  EDI  ordering  gateway  within  a  few  months  after 
 receiving  the  EDI  implementation  documentation.  In  fact,  SWBT  explains  that  Allegiance 
 Telecom  implemented  electronic  bonding  within  90  days  of  commencing  the  EDI  implementation 
 process.  328  Moreover,  there  is  some  evidence  in  the  record  that  suggests  that  AT&  T  itself  is  at 
 least  partially  responsible  for  some  of  the  problems  it  experienced  during  the  early  stages  of  its 
 EDI  implementation.  329 


 125.  Finally,  SWBT  has  convincingly  explained  that  many  of  the  problems  associated 
 with  the  EDI  documentation  utilized  by  AT&  T  have  been  resolved,  330  and  therefore  should  not 
 similarly  limit  another  carriers  gateway  development  efforts.  Indeed,  we  note  that,  through 
 functionality  testing,  Telcordia  indirectly  tested  the  OSS  documentation  SWBT  supplies  to 
 competing  carriers.  331  When  testing  activities  revealed  the  need  for  improvements  to  the 
 documentation,  Telcordia  verified  SWBTs  implementation  of  those  changes.  332  Telcordias 
 functionality  review,  therefore,  provides  additional  indirect  evidence  that  most  of  the  problems 
 related  to  SWBTs  EDI  documentation  have  been  resolved.  We  further  note  that,  on  April  11, 
 2000,  SWBT  initiated  a  documentation  meeting  with  competing  carriers.  333  As  a  result  of  the 
 concerns  expressed  by  competing  carriers  during  this  meeting,  SWBT  implemented  various 


 328  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  111  &  Attach.  U  (announcing  that  SWBT  and  Allegiance  Telecom  were 
 able  to  establish  electronic  bonding  between  their  two  companies  within  90  days). 
 329  See  SWBT  Ham  Mar.  2,  1998  Aff.  in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  16251  at  para.  62  (noting  that  AT&  T 


 has  experienced  considerable  system  and  training  problems  within  its  own  operations  which  have  impaired  its 
 ability  to  send  correct  service  orders.);  id.  at  para.  63  (noting  that  AT&  T  has  demonstrated  an  inability  to  correct 
 known  order  entry  problems  which  have  unduly  extended  the  [service  readiness  testing]  time-  frames);  see  also 
 SWBT  Application,  App.  C,  Tab.  613,  SWBT  Ham  Apr.  17,  1998  Aff.  in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  16251  at 
 paras.  40-  42  (arguing  that  one  reason  that  AT&  Ts  EDI  implementation  plans  were  delayed  is  that  AT&  T  initially 
 planned  to  develop  a  national  interface,  but  then  abandoned  those  plans  to  develop  a  regional  system). 


 330  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  9-  16  &  Attach.  A. 


 331  SWBT  Ham  Aff.,  Attach.  A,  Telcordia  Technologies,  SWBT  OSS  Readiness  Report  at  24  (filed  Oct.  7,  1999 
 in  Texas  Commission  Project  No.  20000).  As  Telcordia  explained: 


 This  test  provides  an  indirect  test  of  the  documentation  and  may  not  catch  all  the  ambiguous  situations. 
 However,  the  documentation  will  be  much  improved  since  several  CLECs  used  it  to  implement  their 
 interfaces.  Thus,  the  implementation  improvements  provide  for  enhancements  for  the  CLEC  community. 


 332  Telcordia  Final  Report  at  24;  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  284-  87  (noting  that  every  instance  of 


 inadequate  or  unclear  documentation  reported  by  Telcordia  during  the  course  of  the  third-  party  test  has  been 
 addressed  by  SWBT);  see  also  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  Attach.  KK  (listing  each  documentation  change  made  by 
 SWBT  during  the  course  the  Telcordia  test). 


 333  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.  at  para.  9. 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 63 
 improvements  to  assist  carriers  in  accessing  and  utilizing  its  system  documentation.  334  Under  our 
 procedural  framework,  the  process  improvements  that  resulted  from  this  meeting  are  not  relevant 
 to  our  determination  of  whether  SWBT  satisfies  the  requirements  of  section  271.  We  do  note, 
 however,  that  we  are  supportive  of  these  and  other  steps  taken  by  SWBT  to  facilitate  entry  into 
 its  local  markets  by  competing  carriers. 


 (iii)  Notification  Adequacy  and  Timeliness 
 126.  It  is  critical  that  a  BOC  provide  timely,  complete,  and  accurate  notice  of 
 alterations  to  its  systems  and  processes.  Indeed,  without  timely  notification  and  documentation, 
 competing  carriers  are  unable  to  modify  their  existing  systems  and  procedures  or  develop  new 
 systems  to  maintain  access  to  a  BOCs  OSS,  which,  in  turn,  impedes  a  carriers  ability  to  serve  its 
 customers.  335  Previously,  in  reviewing  a  BOCs  change  management  process,  we  examined 
 whether  the  BOC  established  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  the  relevant  notification  and 
 documentation  intervals  in  its  Change  Agreement.  336  In  making  this  determination,  we  relied,  in 
 part,  on  the  performance  measurements  associated  with  the  BOCs  compliance  with  the  dates  and 
 timelines  set  forth  in  its  Change  Agreement.  In  this  application,  however,  there  are  no 
 performance  measurements  associated  with  SWBTs  compliance  with  its  documented  change 
 management  process.  We  thus  limit  our  analysis  of  SWBTs  compliance  with  the  change 
 management  process  to  competing  carriers  actual  commercial  experiences.  As  noted  above,  we 
 do  not  rely  on  the  processes  and  procedures  set  forth  in  SWBTs  former  change  management  plan 
 in  evaluating  SWBTs  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  section  271  because  we  find  that  this 
 plan  is  inadequate.  We  further  note,  however,  that  the  notification  intervals  set  forth  in  the  former 
 and  current  change  management  plans  are  essentially  the  same.  337  Thus,  in  evaluating  whether 
 SWBT  provides  change  management  notification  and  documentation  in  a  reasonable  and  timely 
 manner,  we  assess  whether  SWBT  has  demonstrated  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  the  intervals 
 associated  with  both  the  current  and  former  change  management  plans. 


 127.  Based  on  the  evidence  presented  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  has 
 demonstrated  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  its  documented  change  management  processes  and 
 procedures.  As  a  preliminary  matter,  we  find  that  the  change  management  notification  and 
 documentation  intervals  set  forth  in  SWBTs  change  management  plan  are  reasonable  because 
 they  provide  competing  carriers  with  sufficient  time  to  prepare  for  changes  to  SWBTs  interfaces 
 and  systems.  338  Given  our  finding,  as  explained  more  fully  below,  that  SWBT  has  demonstrated  a 


 334  Id.  at  paras.  9-  10;  see  also  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.,  Attach.  A  (providing  a  summary  of  the  items 
 discussed  at  the  documentation  meeting  and  SWBTs  responses  to  these  items). 
 335  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  4005,  para.  113. 


 336  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  4005,  para.  114. 
 337  Compare  SWBT  Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carrier  (CLEC)  Interface  Change  Management  Process  (dated 
 Sept.  1,  1999)  with  SWBT  Change  Agreement  (dated  Sept.  23,  1999). 
 338  SWBTs  Change  Agreement  sets  forth  a  timeline  for  changes  to  existing  interfaces  and  the  introduction  of 


 new  interfaces.  See  Change  Agreement    3.3.1-  3.3.16  (timeline  for  changes  to  existing  application-  to-  application 
 (continued.) 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 64 
 pattern  of  compliance  with  these  reasonable  intervals,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  provides 
 competing  carriers  with  change  management  notification  and  documentation  in  a  manner 
 sufficiently  timely  to  allow  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 128.  Our  conclusion  that  SWBT  generally  has  adhered  to  the  reasonable  timeframes  set 
 forth  in  its  change  management  plan  is  based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record  and  Telcordias 
 findings.  As  part  of  the  Texas  Commissions  third-  party  test,  Telcordia  assessed  whether  SWBT 
 adhered  to  the  notification  intervals  set  forth  in  the  change  management  plan  in  connection  with 
 the  August  and  October  1999  EDI  releases.  339  With  respect  to  these  releases,  Telcordia  found 
 that  SWBT  generally  followed  the  documented  change  management  process.  340  More  specifically, 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 interfaces);  id.    3.5.1-  3.5.10  (timeline  for  changes  to  graphical-  user  interfaces);  id.    4.2.1-  4.2.18  (timeline  for 
 the  introduction  of  new  application-  to-  application  interfaces);  id.    4.3.1-  4.3.12  (timeline  for  the  introduction  of 
 new  graphical-  user  interfaces).  Changes  are  divided  into  two  different  categories:  Category  One,  which  refers 
 to  changes  to  application-  to-  application  interfaces;  and  Category  Two,  which  refers  to  changes  to  graphical-  user 
 or  proprietary  interfaces.  The  Change  Agreement  specifies  the  timelines  associated  with  each  type  of  change.  In 
 general,  SWBT  shares  its  plans  for  changes  to  its  interfaces  at  change  management  meetings  approximately  9  to  12 
 months  prior  to  the  target  implementation  date.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  310;  Change  Agreement    3.3.2. 
 SWBT  also  provides  a  high-  level  view  of  upcoming  Category  One  changes  in  a  Release  Announcement,  which 
 is  delivered  to  competing  carriers  via  an  Accessible  Letter  approximately  180  days  prior  to  the  implementation  of 
 the  change.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  310;  Change  Agreement    3.3.3.  SWBT  must  distribute  the  initial 
 requirements  associated  with  Category  One  changes  within  152  to  172  days  prior  to  the  scheduled  implementation, 
 and  21  days  prior  to  the  implementation  of  a  Category  Two  change.  Change  Agreement    3.  3.  8,  3.  3.  9.  Final 
 release  requirements  must  be  issued  approximately  110  to  130  prior  to  the  implementation  of  Category  One 
 changes,  and  14  days  prior  to  the  implementation  of  a  Category  Two  change.  Release  testing,  which  is  conducted 
 in  connection  with  Category  One  changes,  typically  occurs  at  least  30  days  prior  to  the  implementation  of  the 
 release.  Change  Agreement    3.  3.  14.,  4.  2.  16.  SWBT  explains  that  the  process  for  Category  Two  changes  is 
 different  from  the  process  followed  for  Category  One  changes  because  the  latter  requires  programming  by  both 
 SWBT  and  competing  carriers  and  the  former  does  not.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  317. 


 339  Telcordia  issued  two  reports  relative  to  SWBTs  adherence  to  its  change  management  plan.  SWBT  Ham 


 Texas  I  Aff.,  App.  A-  4,  Vol.  6,  Attach.  LL,  Telcordia  Technologies,  SWBT  Change  Control  Process  Validation 
 Report  (dated  Sept.  1999)  (Telcordia  Sept.  1999  Change  Management  Report);  id.,  Attach.  MM,  Telcordia 
 Technologies,  SWBT  Change  Control  Process  Validation  Report  (dated  Dec.  1999)  (Telcordia  Dec.  1999  Change 
 Management  Report).  The  first  report,  which  was  issued  in  September  1999,  assessed  whether  SWBT  followed  its 
 documented  change  management  process  in  connection  with  the  August  1999  release.  See  Telcordia  Sept.  1999 
 Change  Management  Report  at  6.  The  second  report,  which  was  issued  in  December  1999,  assessed  whether 
 SWBT  followed  its  documented  change  management  process  in  connection  with  the  October  1999  release,  and 
 whether  SWBT  had  implemented  the  corrective  measures  Telcordia  recommended  in  its  September  1999  change 
 management  report.  Telcordia  Dec.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  ES-  1,  2. 


 340  Telcordia  September  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  5;  Telcordia  December  1999  Change  Management 


 Report  at  ES-  1.  Specifically,  in  its  September  1999  Change  Management  Report,  Telcordia  noted  that  the  initial 
 requirements  associated  with  the  August  14,  1999  release  were  available  on  February  19,  1999,  which  was  178 
 days  before  the  actual  release.  Telcordia  Sept.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  11.  The  final  requirements 
 were  issued  to  competing  carriers  on  March  31,  1999,  which  was  136  days  prior  to  the  actual  release  date.  Id. 
 Telcordia  noted  that  minor  changes  to  the  final  requirements  were  proposed  by  SWBT  via  Accessible  Letter  on 
 June  17,  1999,  which  was  approximately  60  days  prior  to  the  implementation  of  the  release.  Telcordia  stated, 
 however,  that,  given  the  scope  of  this  release,  it  appeared  that  competing  carriers  had  adequate  time  to  review, 
 comment  and  prepare  testing  for  the  changes.  Telcordia  Sept.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  12.  In  its 
 Dec.  1999  Change  Management  Report,  Telcordia  again  found  that  SWBT  generally  adhered  to  the  timelines  set 
 (continued.) 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 65 
 Telcordia  found  that  SWBT  distributed  change  management  notification  and  documentation  in  a 
 manner  consistent  with  the  intervals  set  forth  in  the  Change  Agreement,  341  and  that  other  activities 
 outlined  in  the  Change  Agreement  were  carried  out  by  SWBT  in  a  reasonable  and  timely  manner.  342 


 129.  We  disagree  with  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  that  SWBTs  failure  to  follow  strictly  the 
 intervals  set  forth  in  the  Change  Agreement  has  deprived  competing  carriers  of  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  343  As  an  initial  matter,  we  note  that,  whenever  SWBT  has  introduced 
 changes  outside  the  intervals  set  forth  in  the  change  management  plan,  it  has  followed  the 
 exceptions  process,  which  is  specifically  defined  and  provided  for  in  the  agreed-  upon  change 
 management  plan.  344  Pursuant  to  the  exceptions  process,  each  change  SWBT  has  sought  to 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 forth  in  its  formal  change  management  plan.  See  Telcordia  Dec.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  ES-  1.  In 
 particular,  Telcordia  found  that  SWBT  issued  an  Accessible  Letter  on  March  5,  1999,  announcing  its  plans 
 implement  a  release  in  October  1999.  Id.  at  6.  The  initial  requirements  associated  with  the  October  23,  1999 
 release  were  made  available  to  competing  carriers  on  April  26,  1999,  approximately  166  days  prior  to  the  date  of 
 implementation.  Id.  Final  requirements  relative  to  the  October  23,  1999  release  were  issued  by  SWBT  on  June  23, 
 1999,  which  was  122  days  prior  to  the  implementation  date.  Id.  The  testing  environment  relative  to  this  release 
 was  made  available  by  SWBT  from  September  20,  1999  through  October  18,  1999.  Id.  at  7. 


 341  Telcordia  Sept.  1999  CMP  Report  at  11-  12. 


 342  In  its  reports  relative  to  the  August  1999  and  October  1999  releases,  Telcordia  noted  that  SWBT  deviated  from 
 certain  aspects  of  the  formal  change  management  plan.  For  example,  in  its  September  1999  Change  Management 
 Report,  Telcordia  noted:  (1)  SWBTs  failure  to  comply  with  the  timeframes  set  forth  in  the  Change  Agreement 
 with  respect  to  competing  carriers  responses  to  change  management  notices;  (2)  SWBTs  failure  to  provide  a  test 
 plan  in  connection  with  the  Final  Requirements  associated  with  the  August  1999  release;  (3)  a  lack  of  evidence 
 demonstrating  that  competing  carriers  had  input  into  the  development  of  test  cases  and  a  testing  schedule;  (4)  a 
 lack  of  documentation  with  respect  to  the  entrance  and  exit  criteria  associated  with  release  testing;  and  (5)  a  lack  of 
 documentation  concerning  SWBTs  identification  and  resolution  of  issues  encountered  during  testing.  Telcordia 
 Sept.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  5,  A-  28,  A-  29.  In  its  December  1999  Change  Management  Report, 
 Telcordia  noted  that,  contrary  to  the  documented  change  management  plan,  SWBT  did  not  support  versioning. 
 Telcordia  Dec.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  6  n.  2.  Telcordia  noted,  however,  that  such  deviations  did 
 undermine  the  achievement  of  the  general  objectives  set  forth  in  the  documented  change  management  plan. 
 Telcordia  Sept.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  5;  Telcordia  Dec.  1999  Change  Management  Report  at  ES-  1. 


 343  AT&  T  maintains  that  SWBT  has  failed  to  demonstrate  a  pattern  of  compliance  with  its  documented  change 


 management  procedures,  and  has  introduced  numerous  changes  outside  the  change  management  process.  See 
 AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Texas  I  Decl.  at  paras.  54-  73  (providing  examples  of  SWBTs  failure  to  follow 
 documented  change  management  plan);  id.  at  paras.  45-  53  (outlining  instances  in  which  SWBT  implemented 
 coding  changes  outside  of  the  documented  change  management  process).  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  further  maintain 
 that  SWBT  improperly  introduces  a  substantial  number  of  changes  pursuant  to  the  exceptions  process  outlined  in 
 the  Change  Agreement  in  order  to  evade  the  standard  120-  day  notification  interval  set  forth  in  the  change 
 management  plan.  See  AT&  T  Chambers/  DeYoung  Texas  II  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  47;  WorldCom  Texas  I 
 McMillon/  Sivori  Decl.  at  para.  221. 


 344  The  Change  Agreement,  under  the  heading  Exceptions,  provides  that: 


 [A]  ny  agreement  to  deviate  from  the  normal  [change  management  plan]  shall  be  agreed  to  unanimously  by 
 qualified  CLECs  and  SWBT.  If  SWBT  wishes  to  propose  that  a  specified  change,  introduction  of  a  new 
 interface  or  retirement  of  an  interface  be  handled  on  an  exception  basis,  it  will  issue  a  Release  (or  Retirement) 
 (continued.) 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 66 
 introduce  under  an  expedited  timeframe  was  discussed  fully  and  openly  at  change  management 
 and  other  meetings  held  between  SWBT  and  competing  carriers.  In  addition,  competing  carriers 
 were  notified  of  the  proposed  changes  via  Accessible  Letter.  345  Thus,  competing  carriers  were 
 provided  with  timely  notice  of  each  exceptions  change,  and  were  given  reasonable  opportunity  to 
 comment  and  object.  346  The  record  indicates  that,  when  competing  carriers  express  concerns 
 about  particular  changes,  SWBT  has  shown  a  willingness  to  accommodate  their  concerns.  347 


 130.  Moreover,  any  carrier  that  would  be  affected  by  the  change  could  have  delayed  the 
 implementation  of  the  release  by  invoking  the  go/  no-  go  vote  policy.  Given  that  no  carrier 
 objected  to  SWBTs  implementation  of  the  exceptions  changes,  we  give  little  weight  to  the 
 assertion  that  SWBTs  implementation  of  such  changes  impeded  competing  carriers  ability  to 
 compete.  Finally,  we  note  that,  in  many  instances,  the  changes  implemented  by  SWBT  pursuant 
 to  the  exceptions  process  were  for  the  purpose  of  accommodating  system  changes  or 
 enhancements  specifically  requested  by  competing  carriers,  or  mandated  by  regulatory  authorities.  348  Accordingly,  we  find  that,  despite  its  use  of  the  exceptions  process,  SWBT  is 


 implementing  its  change  management  plan  in  a  way  that  provides  adequate  and  timely  notice  to 
 competing  carriers.  The  evidence  further  demonstrates  that  SWBT  sufficiently  accommodates 
 competing  carriers  change  management  concerns.  At  the  same  time,  we  expect  SWBTs  use  of 
 the  exceptions  process  should  decrease  as  the  changes  requested  by  competing  carriers  and 
 mandated  by  regulatory  authorities  are  successfully  implemented. 


 131.  We  caution  BOCs  against  the  use  of  any  process  that  would  effectively  nullify  the 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Requirements  Exception  Accessible  Letter,  which  indicated  that  it  seeks  an  exception  following  the  conclusion 
 of  a  reply  and  comment  cycle. 


 Change  Agreement    6.2. 
 345  Since  December  20,  1999,  SWBT  has  issued  thirteen  Exception  Accessible  Letters.  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II 


 Aff.  at  para.  57.  WorldCom  admits  that  SWBT  is  permitted  to  make  these  change  pursuant  to  the  exceptions 
 process,  but  states  that  it  is  concerned  that  SWBT  will  make  the  exception  into  the  rule.  WorldCom 
 McMillon/  Sivori  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  221. 


 346  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  311.  For  example,  SWBT  discussed  these  changes  at  change  management 


 meetings,  and/  or  issued  Accessible  Letters  seeking  comment  on  such  proposed  changes.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff. 
 at  para.  316.  No  competing  carrier  objected  to  the  implementation  of  the  changes  either  in  the  change 
 management  meetings  or  in  response  to  the  associated  Accessible  Letter.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  314. 


 347  For  example,  the  record  indicates  that  a  particular  edit  was  removed  from  the  May  27,  2000  release  due  to 


 competing  carriers  objections.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.  at  para.  58. 
 348  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.  at  paras.  55,  57.  Specifically,  SWBT  states  that: 


 [C]  ompliance  with  the  numerous  regulatory  mandates  issued  at  the  end  of  1999  and  in  January  2000  (e.  g., 
 LIDB  programming,  ling  sharing,  and  UNE  Remand)  have  involved  massive  and  complex  programming 
 efforts  on  SWBTs  part.  In  order  to  meet  the  timing  requirements  of  these  orders,  SWBT  has  had  no  choice 
 but  to  schedule  its  releases  according  to  the  exception  process  spelled  out  in  the  CMP. 


 Id.  at  para.  55. 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 67 
 standard  procedures  outlined  in  the  formal  change  management  documentation.  Indeed,  as 
 several  commenters  point  out,  part  of  the  problem  with  deviating  from  the  standard  timelines  set 
 forth  in  the  Change  Agreement  is  that  it  requires  competing  carriers  to  make  substantial  changes 
 to  their  systems  within  a  significantly  abbreviated  timeframe,  which  could  increase  the  risk  of 
 error.  349  There  is  no  evidence  in  this  proceeding,  however,  that  SWBTs  use  of  the  exceptions 
 process  has  adversely  affected  competing  carriers  ability  to  access  SWBTs  OSS  after  new 
 releases  were  implemented.  Indeed,  in  view  of  the  number  of  competing  carrier-  requested  and 
 regulatory-  mandated  changes  SWBT  has  had  to  implement  over  the  past  year,  we  find  that 
 SWBTs  use  of  the  exceptions  process  was  limited  to  instances  in  which  it  was  both  necessary  and 
 unavoidable.  We  further  find  that  SWBTs  exceptions  process  is  reasonable  given  that  that 
 competing  carriers  are  afforded  an  adequate  opportunity  to  comment  upon  and  object  to  each 
 exceptions  change. 


 (iv)  Testing  Environment 
 132.  As  part  of  a  sufficient  change  management  process,  a  BOC  must  provide 
 competing  carriers  with  access  to  a  stable  testing  environment  to  certify  that  their  OSS  will  be 
 capable  of  interacting  smoothly  and  effectively  with  the  BOCs  OSS.  350  In  addition,  prior  to 
 issuing  a  new  software  release  or  upgrade,  the  BOC  must  provide  a  testing  environment  that 
 mirrors  the  production  environment  in  order  for  competing  carriers  to  test  the  new  release.  351  If 
 competing  carriers  are  not  given  the  opportunity  to  test  new  releases  in  a  stable  environment  prior 
 to  implementation,  they  may  be  unable  to  process  orders  accurately  and  provision  new  customer 
 services  without  delays.  352  Moreover,  the  failure  to  provide  a  testing  environment  that  mirrors 
 production  can  result  in  competing  carriers  transactions  succeeding  in  the  testing  environment 
 but  failing  in  production.  353 


 133.  SWBTs  current  test  environment  was  made  available  to  competing  carriers  on 
 November  1,  1999.  354  SWBT  represents  that  that  its  current  testing  environment  is  sufficiently 
 stable  because  it  dedicated  solely  to  testing  by  competing  carriers.  355  More  specifically,  SWBT 


 349  WorldCom  McMillon/  Sivori  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  221. 
 350  A  stable  testing  environment  means  that  no  changes  by  the  BOC  are  permitted  after  the  testing  period 
 commences.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  4002-  03,  para.  109  &  n.  301. 
 351  Id.  at  para.  109. 


 352  Id. 
 353  Id. 
 354  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  338.  SWBT  explains  that  competing  carriers  were  notified  of  the  new  test 
 environment  via  Accessible  Letter  CLECSS99-  150.  See  id.  Attach.  SS. 
 355  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  170.  Specifically,  in  contrast  to  the  test  environment  that  existed  prior 


 to  November  1999  where  the  testing  environment  was  shared  between  SWBT  developers  and  testers  and  competing 
 carriers,  the  current  testing  environment  is  physically  separate  from  the  production  environment  and  is  made 
 available  for  the  exclusive  use  of  competing  carriers  for  the  purposes  of  testing. 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 68 
 explains  that,  in  contrast  to  the  testing  environment  that  existed  prior  to  November  1999,  where 
 the  testing  environment  was  shared  between  SWBT  developers  and  testers  and  competing 
 carriers,  the  current  testing  environment  is  physically  separate  from  the  production  environment 
 and  is  made  available  for  the  exclusive  use  of  competing  carriers.  356  SWBT  asserts  that  the 
 stability  of  its  testing  environment  is  further  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  internal  testing  of  the 
 release  is  completed  before  it  is  made  available  to  competing  carriers.  357  According  to  SWBT,  its 
 testing  environment  adequately  mirrors  the  production  environment  because  the  functionality  of 
 the  test  environment  is  the  same  as  the  production  environment  and  returns  data  in  the  identical 
 fields  and  format.  358  In  further  support  of  its  assertion  that  its  testing  environment  is  adequate, 
 SWBT  points  out  that  its  test  plan  defines  a  process  whereby  SWBT  and  competing  carriers 
 jointly  develop  testing  scenarios  and  timeframes. 


 134.  We  conclude  that  SWBTs  test  environment  affords  competing  carriers  an 
 adequate  opportunity  to  test  SWBT  OSS  changes  prior  to  implementation.  We,  therefore,  find 
 that  the  testing  environment  SWBT  makes  available  provides  competing  carriers  with  a 
 meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  Specifically,  we  find  that  the  record  demonstrates  that 
 SWBTs  testing  environment  is  stable,  adequately  mirrors  the  production  environment,  affords 
 competing  carriers  an  opportunity  to  develop  test  decks  of  representative  pre-  ordering  and 
 ordering  transactions,  and  offers  the  extended  testing  periods  that  competing  carriers  need  for 
 EDI  implementation  and  new  release  testing.  We  base  this  conclusion  on  the  experience  of  the 
 competing  carriers  that  used  the  current  testing  environment  to  implement  EDI  and  to  test  the 
 January  15,  2000  release.  The  record  indicates  that  three  carriers  that  used  the  new  test 
 environment  for  EDI  implementation  achieved  production  status,  359  and  that  two  carriers  used  the 
 new  testing  environment  without  substantial  difficulty  to  test  the  requirements  associated  with  the 
 January  15,  2000  release.  360  Thus,  we  find  that  the  recent  evidence  from  commercial  usage 
 suggests  that  SWBTs  testing  environment  works  in  the  manner  represented  in  its  application. 


 135.  In  concluding  that  SWBTs  testing  environment  is  adequate,  we  recognize  that 
 SWBTs  testing  environment  was  not  tested  by  a  third  party.  Although  such  a  test  would  have 
 provided  us  with  useful  evidence  concerning  the  adequacy  of  the  testing  environment  SWBT 
 makes  available  to  competing  carriers,  we  reject  AT&  Ts  assertion  that  the  absence  of  third  party 
 test  is  basis  for  concluding  that  SWBTs  section  271  application  is  deficient.  Indeed,  we  find  that 
 the  commercial  evidence,  as  described  above,  is  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  evaluating  the 


 356  Id. 
 357  Id. 
 358  Id.  at  para.  168. 
 359  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  171. 
 360  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  131.  As  discussed  more  fully  in  paragraphs  139-  140,  infra, 
 although  some  problems  arose  in  connection  with  the  January  15,  2000  release,  the  record  demonstrates  that  these 
 problems  were  isolated,  were  resolved  by  SWBT  in  a  timely  fashion,  and  did  not  significantly  impede  any  carriers 
 ability  to  test  adequately  the  release  prior  to  its  implementation. 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 69 
 adequacy  of  the  testing  environment  SWBT  makes  available  to  competing  carriers. 
 136.  AT&  T  is  the  only  commenter  that  raises  several  specific  concerns  with  respect  to 
 the  adequacy  of  SWBTs  EDI  testing  environment.  One  of  its  primary  arguments  is  that  SWBTs 
 EDI  testing  environment  is  deficient  because  it  does  not  mirror  the  production  environment.  In 
 support  of  this  assertion,  AT&  T  maintains  that,  in  SWBTs  EDI  testing  environment,  test  orders 
 do  not  flow-  through  as  they  would  during  production,  but  instead  are  manually  monitored  by 
 SWBT  as  they  progress  through  the  testing  process.  361  AT&  T  claims  that  this  approach  is 
 problematic  because  it  denies  competing  carriers  an  opportunity  to  assess  how  the  release  will 
 affect  new  or  existing  flow-  through  capability,  and  deprives  competing  carriers  of  an  opportunity 
 to  assess  how  the  relevant  systems  will  actually  respond  in  a  production  environment.  362  AT&  T 
 further  states  that,  because  SWBTs  test  environment  does  not  take  orders  through  the  posting 
 cycle  in  billing,  but  only  through  service  order  creation,  it  fails  to  predict  adequately  problems  that 
 could  occur  in  production.  In  support  of  this  claim,  AT&  T  points  to  evidence  suggesting  that 
 certain  problems  are  discovered  only  after  competing  carriers  have  moved  into  production.  363 


 137.  We  agree  with  AT&  T  that  a  BOCs  failure  to  provide  a  testing  environment  that 
 adequately  mirrors  production  may  deny  competing  carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 
 Such  a  failure  is  of  particular  concern  in  this  case  in  view  of  the  fact  that  SWBT  has  not  yet 
 implemented  versioning.  As  AT&  T  explains,  an  inadequate  test  environment  coupled  with  the 
 lack  of  versioning  is  particularly  problematic  because  it  forces  competing  carriers  to  use  a  new 
 EDI  release  in  the  production  environment  without  any  assurance  that  they  can  submit  orders 
 successfully,  and  without  the  ability  to  continue  using  the  previous  release.  364 


 138.  The  record  demonstrates  that  there  are  two  notable  differences  between  SWBTs 
 testing  and  production  environments.  First,  SWBTs  test  environment  does  not  test  flow  through 
 or  response  times,  but  only  evaluates  application  functionality.  365  Second,  the  record  indicates 
 that  SWBTs  test  environment  does  not  evaluate  the  ability  of  an  order  to  post  to  billing.  366  With 


 361  AT&  T  Chambers/  DeYoung  Texas  II  Decl.  at  para.  43. 
 362  AT&  T  Dalton/  DeYoung  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  77. 
 363  AT&  T  Chambers/  DeYoung  Texas  II  Decl.  at  para.  44;  see  also  Letter  from  John  A.  Redmon  &  David  F. 
 Werthheimer,  Counsel,  AT&  T,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC 
 Docket  No.  00-  4,  at  9-  10  (filed  Mar.  8,  2000)  (AT&  T  Mar.  8  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 364  Letter  from  Mark  E.  Haddad,  Counsel,  AT&  T,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 


 Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65,  at  2-  3  (filed  June  14,  2000)  (AT&  T  June  14  OSS  Ex  Parte  Letter). 
 365  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para  127.  More  specifically,  SWBT  acknowledges  that  it  manually 


 monitors  orders  as  they  enter  and  exit  the  testing  environment,  and  that  its  testing  environment  does  not  emulate 
 production  response  times.  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  168. 


 366  See  AT&  T  Mar.  8  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Attach.  D,  Final  Minutes  for  February  8,  2000  Change  Management 


 Meeting  Process  Meeting  Arkansas,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Oklahoma,  Texas,  at  5-  6  (Final  Minutes  for  Feb.  8,  2000 
 Change  Management  Process  Meeting).  During  this  meeting,  SWBT  acknowledged  that  competing  carrier  joint 
 (continued.) 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 70 
 respect  to  the  first  issue,  AT&  T  appears  to  argue  that,  for  purposes  of  demonstrating  compliance 
 with  the  requirements  of  section  271,  a  BOC  must  provide  a  testing  environment  that  is  identical 
 to  its  production  environment.  The  record  indicates,  however,  that  competing  carriers  are  able  to 
 test  adequately  OSS  changes  prior  to  their  implementation  as  long  as  the  testing  and  production 
 environments  perform  the  same  key  functions.  In  this  regard,  we  note  that,  although  SWBTs 
 testing  and  production  environments  are  not  identical,  the  vast  majority  of  carriers  are  able  to 
 achieve  production  status  and  test  new  releases  without  substantial  difficulty.  Thus,  despite  any 
 differences  between  the  testing  and  production  environments,  the  totality  of  the  evidence  indicates 
 that  SWBTs  testing  environment  is  adequate.  We  further  agree  with  SWBT  that  this  approach 
 to  managing  its  testing  environment  does  not  harm,  but  ultimately  benefits  competing  carriers 
 because  it  allows  SWBT  to  quickly  identify  and  resolve  errors  found  during  testing.  367 


 139.  As  noted  above,  we  find  that  another  notable  difference  between  SWBTs  testing 
 and  production  environments  is  that  the  testing  environment  does  not  evaluate  the  ability  of  an 
 order  to  post  to  billing.  The  record  further  indicates,  however,  that  this  practice  has  not 
 significantly  impeded  any  carriers  ability  to  submit  orders,  or  otherwise  access  SWBTs  OSS 
 after  the  new  release  has  been  implemented.  The  record  indicates  that  there  were  some  problems 
 associated  with  the  January  15,  2000  release.  368  Specifically,  the  record  indicates  that  after  the 
 January  15  release  was  implemented,  orders  that  were  pending  at  the  time  the  release  was 
 implemented  failed  to  post.  369  In  addition,  LVAS,  a  downstream  system,  did  not  properly 
 populate  product  tables.  370  AT&  T  argues  that  these  problems  could  have  been  discovered  if 
 SWBT  conducted  end-  to-  end  testing  (i.  e.,  testing  from  order  creation  to  posting  to  billing). 


 140.  SWBT  explains,  however,  that  these  problems  were  not  due  to  its  failure  to 
 conduct  end-  to-  end  testing  environment,  but  instead  occurred  because  the  production  system  did 
 not  update  certain  tables  in  a  timely  manner.  371  The  record  indicates  that  corrective  measures 
 were  implemented  within  four  days  of  the  release  being  implemented.  372  On  the  basis  of  these 
 findings,  we  conclude  that  the  problems  that  occurred  in  connection  with  the  January  15,  2000 
 release  do  not  represent  a  systemic  failure  in  SWBTs  ability  to  provide  access  to  its  OSS. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 testing  goes  through  service  order  creation,  but  not  through  to  billing  and  provisioning.  Final  Minutes  for  Feb.  8, 
 2000  Change  Management  Process  Meeting  at  6. 


 367  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  165-  69. 


 368  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  130.  For  example,  in  the  first  change  management  meeting 
 subsequent  to  the  implementation  of  the  January  15,  2000  release,  Birch  noted  that  it  lost  a  weeks  worth  of 
 revenue  due  to  problems  with  the  release.  Final  Minutes  for  Feb.  8,  2000  Change  Management  Process  Meeting  at 
 6. 


 369  Final  Minutes  for  Feb.  8,  2000  Change  Management  Process  Meeting  at  6. 


 370  Id. 
 371  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  130. 
 372  See  Final  Minutes  for  Feb.  8,  2000  Change  Management  Process  Meeting  at  6. 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 71 
 Rather,  we  find  that  SWBT  has  convincingly  demonstrated  that  the  problems  associated  with  the 
 January  15,  2000  release  were  isolated,  did  not  significantly  impede  any  carriers  ability  to  serve 
 its  customers,  and  should  not  recur  in  connection  with  future  releases. 


 141.  We  are  further  encouraged  by  the  fact  that  SWBT  has  expressed  a  willingness  to 
 run  a  test  through  to  the  billing  cycle.  373  Although  not  decisional  to  our  analysis,  we  note  that 
 end-  to-  end  testing  should  provide  further  assurance  that  SWBTs  testing  environment  affords 
 competing  carriers  an  adequate  opportunity  to  assess  whether  the  new  release  will  function  as 
 intended.  We  emphasize  that  the  adequacy  of  a  BOCs  testing  environment  is  a  critically 
 important  area  for  demonstrating  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  section  271.  Thus,  if  the 
 evidence  demonstrates  that  SWBTs  testing  environment  is  inadequate  for  the  purpose  of  EDI 
 implementation  and  release  testing,  thereby  depriving  competing  carriers  of  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete,  enforcement  action  under  section  271(  d)(  6)  may  be  appropriate. 


 142.  In  arguing  that  SWBTs  test  environment  is  deficient,  AT&  T  further  claims  that 
 SWBT  fails  to  provide  a  standard  validation  test  deck,  and  that,  as  a  result,  competing  carriers 
 must  compile  new  test  accounts  each  time  a  new  release  is  implemented.  374  We  find,  however, 
 that  the  evidence  in  the  record  simply  does  not  support  this  claim.  To  the  contrary,  the  evidence 
 indicates  that  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  develop  test 
 transactions  that  will  enable  them  to  determine  whether  the  new  release  produces  expected 
 results.  SWBT  points  out,  for  example,  that  the  test  plan  permits  competing  carriers  to  develop 
 their  own  test  scenarios  based  upon  their  own  business  requirements.  375  SWBT  further  states  that, 
 upon  request,  it  will  provide  a  competing  carrier  with  test  scripts  that  are  specific  to  the  new 
 functionalities  it  wishes  to  implement.  376  Although  SWBT  requests  that  competing  carriers 
 provide  information  on  their  test  scenarios  before  new  release  testing  begins,  this  appears  to  be  a 
 reasonable  method  of  managing  test  transactions  because  it  affords  SWBT  an  opportunity  to 
 access  whether  the  appropriate  types  of  accounts  are  available  before  testing  begins.  377  SWBT 
 further  explains  that  this  practice  is  beneficial  because  it  helps  to  minimize  the  delay  that  may  be 
 caused  when  a  carrier  submits  a  test  order  that  does  not  have  the  required  characteristics.  378 
 Given  these  findings,  which  indicate  that  these  practices  ultimately  benefit  competing  carriers,  we 
 reject  AT&  Ts  contention  that  the  test  deck  SWBT  offers  for  the  purpose  of  testing  is  deficient. 


 373  In  response  to  concerns  raised  by  competing  carriers  with  respect  to  the  testing  environment,  SWBT  stated 
 that  it  would  check  into  the  possibility  of  running  a  test  through  to  the  billing  cycle.  Id. 
 374  AT&  T  Chambers/  DeYoung  Texas  II  Decl.  at  para.  45. 


 375  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  132  &  Attach.  RR  (Pacific  Bell,  Nevada  Bell,  Southwestern  Bell  and 
 Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carrier  (CLEC)  Joint  Release  Test  Plan  Template  for  Local  Service  Request  (LSR) 
 Electronic  Date  Interchange  (EDI),  Version  3.  0,    2.  2  (SWBT/  CLEC  Joint  Release  Test  Plan)). 


 376  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  132. 


 377  Id. 
 378  Id. 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 72 
 143.  Other  than  AT&  T,  the  only  comments  in  the  record  concerning  the  adequacy  of 
 SWBTs  test  environment  were  raised  by  the  Department  of  Justice.  In  its  evaluation  of  the 
 Texas  I  Application,  the  Department  of  Justice  noted  that  competing  carriers  had  complained 
 about  the  lack  of  a  stable  testing  environment.  379  Although  the  Department  of  Justice  opined  that 
 SWBTs  performance  may  have  been  flawed  in  this  area,  it  stated  that  it  lacked  sufficient  evidence 
 to  determine  the  extent  to  which  this,  and  other  issues,  may  impede  competition  in  the  future.  380 
 It,  therefore,  recommended  that  the  Commission  reserve  judgment  on  this  issue.  381  Unlike  the 
 circumstances  that  existed  with  respect  to  the  Texas  I  Application,  we  find  that  there  is  sufficient 
 evidence  in  the  instant  record  to  determine  whether  SWBTs  testing  environment  is  sufficiently 
 stable.  Indeed,  as  noted  above,  SWBT  implemented  a  new  testing  environment  in  November 
 1999,  which,  according  to  SWBT,  is  much  more  stable  than  the  testing  environment  it  used  prior 
 to  this  time.  382 


 (v)  Training,  Technical  Assistance,  and  Help 
 Desk  Support 


 144.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  the  technical  assistance  and 
 help  desk  support  necessary  to  give  competing  carriers  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS. 
 SWBT  has  created  a  Local  Service  Center  (LSC)  that  provides  competing  LECs  with  a  single 
 point  of  contact  for  issues  regarding  ordering,  billing,  and  collections  related  to  interconnection 
 facilities,  resold  services  and  UNEs.  383  The  LSC  assigns  a  work  group  to  each  competitive  LEC 
 customer  to  provide  competing  LECs  with  access  to  service  representatives  and  managers  to 
 handle  service  requests  and  any  associated  issues  for  pre-  order,  order  and  billing.  384  Service 
 representatives  in  these  groups  undergo  several  months  of  training.  385 


 145.  In  addition,  SWBTs  Local  Operations  Center  (LOC)  supports  the  provisioning  of 
 UNEs,  interconnection  with  SWBTs  local  network,  and  resold  services  as  well  as  any 
 maintenance  and  repair  functions  requested  by  competing  carriers.  386  Within  the  LOC  there  is  a 


 379  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  49-  50. 


 380  Id.  at  51-  52. 
 381  Id.  at  52-  53. 
 382  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  170. 
 383  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  25;  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  19;  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras  5,  12. 
 SWBT  states  that  the  LSC  executes  complex  transactions  that  are  performed  manually  for  both  SWBT  retail 
 customers  and  competing  carriers,  as  well  as  other  transactions  for  competing  carriers  that  prefer  to  use  manual 
 processes.  SWBT  Application  at  25;  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  5,  34,  38. 


 384  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  18. 


 385  SWBT  Application  at  25;  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  6,  25.  The  LSC  has  a  staff  of  approximately 
 600  employees.  Id. 
 386  SWBT  Application  at  26;  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras  7,  15.  The  LOC  has  148  employees  and  is 


 available  to  competing  carriers  24  hours  a  day,  7  days  a  week.  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  15-  17. 
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 73 
 Customer  Action  Support  Team,  (CAST)  that  provides  competing  LECs  with  additional  technical 
 support  and  assists  in  the  resolution  of  operational  issues  pertaining  to  pre-  ordering,  ordering, 
 provisioning,  maintenance  and  OSS.  387  SWBT  states  that  it  tracks  incoming  trouble  volumes  on 
 an  hourly  basis  that  allow  it  to  ensure  that  the  LOC  is  always  adequately  staffed.  388  In  addition, 
 the  evidence  demonstrates  that  SWBT  trains  its  carrier-  customers  on  the  LSC/  s  procedures,  and 
 engages  in  ongoing  consultation  with  competing  carriers  regarding  operational  practices  and 
 service  issues.  389  SWBT  has  also  established  an  Information  Services  (IS)  Call  Center  that  serves 
 as  the  Help  Desk,  answering  questions  regarding  access  to  SWBT  systems  and  applications  and 
 helping  to  resolve  information  technology  problems.  390  SWBT  also  SWBT  provides  extensive 
 training  for  competitive  LEC  employees,  391  and  provides  on-  line  assistant  through  its  Internet  site.  392 


 146.  In  view  of  the  foregoing  evidence,  which  demonstrates  that  SWBT  provides 
 efficient  competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete  by  enabling  them  to  understand  how  to 
 implement  and  use  all  of  the  OSS  functions  available  to  them,  we  reject  claims  that  SWBTs 
 training,  technical  assistance  and  helpdesk  support  is  inadequate.  393  We  agree  with  commenters 
 that  a  third-  party  test  that  includes  an  evaluation  of  BOC  support  organizations  and  personnel 
 would  provide  us  with  additional  assurance  that  these  resources  are  available  and  commercially 
 ready  to  support  competing  carriers  seeking  access  to  the  BOCs  network.  In  this  proceeding, 
 however,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  evaluate  SWBTs  support  organizations  without  the  need 
 for  a  third  party  test.  Moreover,  there  is  no  evidence  of  poor  performance  by  SWBTs  support 
 personnel.  Nor  does  the  record  indicate  that  SWBT  support  organizations  provide  discr  iminatory 
 treatment  to  competing  carriers.  For  these  reasons,  we  disagree  with  those  commenters  who 
 claim  that  the  lack  of  a  third  party  evaluation  of  SWBTs  technical  assistance  and  help  functions 
 indicate  that  SWBTs  section  271  application  is  deficient. 


 387  Competing  carriers  can  contact  the  CAST  through  a  hotline  that  is  operational  24  hours  a  day,  7  days  a 
 week.  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  10. 
 388  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para  107. 


 389  SWBT  Application  at  25;  SWBT  Conway  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  6,  114-  117. 
 390  SWBT  Application  at  24;  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  20-  28.  The  IS  call  center  is  open  24  hours  per 
 day,  7  days  per  week.  Id. 
 391  SWBT  offers  classes  on  using  its  electronic  OSS  interfaces  as  well  as  a  free  workshop  that  covers  both  manual 


 and  electronic  ordering  processes.  SWBT  Ham.  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  370-  74;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at 
 paras.  154-  170. 


 392  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  24-  25;  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  18;  see  also  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I 


 Aff.  at  paras.  171-  173. 
 393  Several  parties  assert  that  SWBTs  LSC  is  inadequately  staffed  and  that  the  personnel  is  inadequately  trained. 


 CLEC  Coalition  Comments  at  35-  36.  Some  commenters  further  argue  that  the  Telcordia  test  did  not  adequately 
 address  support  organizations  such  as  the  Help  Desk,  and  Information  Services  Call  Center.  CLEC  Coalition 
 Comments  at  5;  But  see  Texas  Commission  Evaluation  at  46-  47  (describing  training  and  documentation.) 
73
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 74 
 e.  Pre-  Ordering 
 147.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  pre-  ordering  functions.  Specifically,  we  find  that 
 SWBT  demonstrates  that:  (i)  competing  carriers  successfully  have  built  and  are  using  application-to- 
 application  interfaces  to  perform  pre-  ordering  functions;  (ii)  competing  carriers  are  able  to 
 integrate  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  interfaces;  (iii)  its  pre-  ordering  systems  provide  reasonably 
 prompt  response  times;  (iv)  these  interfaces  are  consistently  available  in  a  manner  that  affords 
 competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete;  and  (v)  SWBT  offers  nondiscriminatory  access 
 to  OSS  pre-  ordering  functions  associated  with  determining  whether  a  loop  is  capable  of 
 supporting  xDSL  advanced  technologies.  394 


 (i)  Discussion 
 148.  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.  395  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.  396  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,  SWBT  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.  397  For  those  pre-  ordering  functions  that  lack  a  retail  analogue,  SWBT  must 
 provide  access  that  affords  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  398  In 
 prior  orders,  we  have  emphasized  that  providing  pre-  ordering  functionality  through  an 
 application-  to-  application  interface  is  essential  in  enabling  carriers  to  conduct  real-  time 


 394  As  explained  below,  this  does  not  include  an  evaluation  of  new  loop  qualification  obligations  under  rule  319 
 that  became  effective  in  May,  2000.  See  section  III.  D,  infra. 
 395  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. 


 396  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4014,  para.  129. 


 397  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). 
 398  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4014,  para.  129. 
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 75 
 processing  and  to  integrate  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions  in  the  same  manner  as  the  BOC.  399 
 149.  Pre-  Ordering  Functionality.  We  find  that  SWBT  offers  requesting  carriers  access 
 to  an  application-  to-  application  interface,  DataGate,  for  the  pre-  ordering  functions  that  SWBT 
 provides  to  itself.  The  DataGate  interface  is  based  on  SWBTs  proprietary  pre-  ordering 
 functionality,  and  allows  competing  carriers  to  acquire  pre-  ordering  information  using  their  own 
 software  programs  or  applications.  SWBT  states  that  it  provides  competing  carriers  with  access 
 to  all  of  the  necessary  technical  specifications  and  documentation  for  its  DataGate  interface.  400 
 The  DataGate  interface  allows  competing  carriers  to  perform  a  wide  range  of  pre-  ordering 
 functions  for  both  resale  services  and  UNEs.  Specifically,  carriers  are  able  to  use  DataGate  to: 
 (1)  retrieve  CSRs;  (2)  validate  addresses;  (3)  select  and  reserve  telephone  numbers;  (4)  determine 
 services  and  features  available  to  a  customer;  (5)  obtain  due  date  availability;  (6)  access  loop 
 qualification  information;  (7)  view  a  customers  directory  listing;  (8)  determine  dispatch 
 requirements;  (9)  retrieve  local  primary  intraLATA  carrier  (LPIC)  and  primary  interexchange 
 carrier  (PIC)  list;  (10)  access  the  Common  Language  Location  Identifier  (CLLI)  for  the  serving 
 central  office;  and  (11)  verify  channel  facility  assignment.  401 


 150.  SWBT  also  offers  access  to  pre-  ordering  functions  through  EDI  and  CORBA 
 interfaces,  which  are  based  on  industry  standards.  402  The  availability  of  these  interfaces  is 
 beneficial  to  competing  carriers  in  Texas  and  we  encourage  SWBT  to  continue  to  develop  them 
 and  promote  their  use.  These  interfaces  do  not  form  the  basis  of  our  decision  that  SWBT  meets 
 the  nondiscrimination  requirements  for  OSS  pre-  ordering  functions,  however,  because  SWBTs 
 evidentiary  showing  in  this  proceeding  is  insufficient  to  allow  such  a  determination.  Although 
 SWBT  offers  evidence  on  the  functionality  available  through  EDI  and  CORBA,  403  there  is 
 insufficient  evidence  to  find  that,  in  Texas,  these  interfaces:  (i)  can  be  used  in  a  commercial 


 399  See  id.  at  4014,  para.  130;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20661-  67,  para.  105. 
 400  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  82;  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  53. 
 401  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  52  and  54.  These  11  functions  go  beyond  the  seven  pre-  ordering 
 functions  previously  identified  by  the  Commission.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4015,  para. 
 132  (discussing  the  first  seven  functions  listed  above). 


 402  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  82;  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  68  (explaining  that,  in  addition  to 


 allowing  direct  access  to  DataGate,  it  is  front-  ending  DataGate,  thereby  providing  an  interface  that  can  be  used 
 by  competing  carriers  that  conforms  to  existing  national  standards  for  EDI  and  CORBA).  According  to  SBC,  this 
 allows  competing  carriers  to  build  their  interfaces  to  national  standards,  while  preserving  the  background 
 application  functionality,  data  content,  and  performance  standards  that  SWBT  has  established  for  DataGate.  Id. 


 403  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  69-  70;  but  see  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  16 


 (explaining  that,  unlike  DataGate,  EDI  and  CORBA  do  not  return  certain  pre-  ordering  information    CLLI  codes 
 and  NC/  NCI  information    that  is  necessary  for  completing  a  UNE-  P  order). 
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 76 
 setting;  (ii)  are  stable  and  reliable;  and  (iii)  provide  nondiscriminatory  response  times.  404 
 151.  With  respect  to  actual  commercial  usage,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  competing 
 carriers  successfully  have  built  their  systems  to  connect  with  SWBTs  DataGate  interface.  SWBT 
 states  that  at  least  five  carriers  are  in  production  in  Texas  using  DataGate  for  pre-  ordering.  405  A 
 review  of  performance  data  submitted  by  SWBT  confirms  that  carriers  currently  are  using 
 DataGate  to  perform  six  of  the  pre-  ordering  transactions  listed  above.  406  While  Telcordia  did  not 
 test  the  functionality  of  SWBTs  pre-  ordering  interfaces,  407  we  note  that  the  evidence  of  actual 
 commercial  usage  supports  SWBTs  claim  that  these  functions  are  made  available  to  competing 
 LECs.  Moreover,  we  reject  commenters  claims  that  SWBTs  pre-  ordering  interfaces  are 
 functionally  deficient.  First,  AT&  T  complains  that  a  particular  pre-  ordering  function    SWBTs 
 telephone  number  assignment  system    has  the  potential  to  discriminate  against  competing  LECs.  408  AT&  T  does  not  claim,  however,  and  the  record  does  not  suggest,  that  such 


 discrimination  actually  takes  place,  and  thus  we  do  not  conclude  competing  LECs  are  denied 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  this  pre-  ordering  function.  Should  we  receive  evidence  of  such 
 discrimination  in  the  future,  we  shall  take  appropriate  enforcement  action  under  section  271(  d)(  6). 
 We  address  commenters  claims  relating  to  integration  and  loop  qualification  information  in  the 
 following  subsections. 


 152.  Integration.  SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  its  application-  to-  application  interfaces 
 allow  competing  carriers  to  integrate  successfully  pre-  ordering  information  obtained  from  the 
 DataGate  interface  into  the  ordering  process  and  the  carriers  back  office  systems.  409  The 


 404  SWBTs  performance  metrics  measure  the  timeliness  and  availability  only  of  the  DataGate  and  VeriGate  pre-ordering 
 interfaces.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.  at  paras.  95-  114. 
 405  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  66  and  70. 


 406  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  1  (  Average  Response  Time  for  OSS  Pre-  Order 
 Interfaces)  at  271-  1a.  Specifically,  the  data  reflect  a  significant  volume  of  the  following  types  of  pre-  order 
 transactions:  retrieve  CSRs;  validate  addresses;  select  and  reserve  telephone  numbers;  determine  services  and 
 features  available  to  a  customer;  obtain  due  date  availability;  and  retrieve  local  primary  intraLATA  carrier  (LPIC) 
 and  primary  interexchange  carrier  (PIC)  list.  The  ability  to  access  loop  qualification  information  at  the  pre-ordering 
 stage  is  discussed  separately,  below. 


 407  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  268  (recognizing  that,  rather  than  test  the  application-  to-  application 


 DataGate  pre-  ordering  interface  as  part  of  its  UNE-  P  functionality  test,  Telcordia  only  looked  at  the  VeriGate 
 GUI).  We  note,  however,  that  Telcordia  did  assess  the  ability  of  the  DataGate  system  to  handle  a  high  volume  of 
 transactions  as  part  of  its  capacity  test.  See  id.  at  para.  290. 


 408  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  104-  105  (suggesting  that  SWBT  has  the  ability  to  label 


 some  numbers  as  available  for  ILEC  and  available  for  non-  ILEC  and  thus  would  have  the  ability,  if  it  chose,  to 
 favor  its  own  operations). 


 409  SWBT  also  asserts  that  three  carriers,  using  software  developed  by  third  party  vendors,  have  successfully 


 integrated  two  other  pre-  ordering  interfaces,  EDI  and  CORBA,  with  EDI  for  ordering.  See  SWBT  Texas  II 
 Comments  at  38;  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  27-  29,  and  Att.  F  and  G.  There  is  no  corroborating  evidence 
 in  the  record  (such  as  commercial  usage  or  statements  from  these  carriers)  that  these  integration  efforts  have  been 
 successful.  Moreover,  as  noted  above,  SWBT  does  not  demonstrate  that  its  EDI  and  CORBA  interfaces  satisfy  all 
 (continued.) 
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 77 
 Commission  has  explained  previously  that  a  BOC  with  integrated  pre-  ordering  and  ordering 
 functions  for  its  retail  operations  must  provide  competing  carriers  with  access  to  the  same 
 capability.  Indeed,  we  have  noted  that  the  inability  to  integrate  may  place  competitors  at  a 
 disadvantage  and  significantly  impact  a  carriers  ability  to  serve  its  customers  in  a  timely  and 
 efficient  manner.  410  Thus,  in  order  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  checklist  item  2,  the  BOC 
 must  enable  competing  carriers  to  transfer  pre-  ordering  information  (such  as  a  customers  address 
 or  existing  features)  electronically  into  the  carriers  own  back  office  systems  and  back  into  the 
 BOCs  ordering  interface.  We  do  not  simply  inquire  whether  it  is  possible  to  transfer  information 
 from  pre-  ordering  to  ordering  interfaces    we  assess  whether  the  BOC  enables  successful 
 integration.  411  We  clarify  that  a  BOC  has  enabled  successful  integration  if  competing  carriers 
 may,  or  have  been  able  to,  automatically  populate  information  supplied  by  the  BOCs  pre-ordering 
 systems  onto  an  order  form  (the  local  service  request  or  LSR)  that  will  not  be 
 rejected  by  the  BOCs  OSS  systems. 


 153.  As  an  initial  matter,  we  note  that  our  analysis  of  integration  is  complicated  in  this 
 instance  by  the  fact  that  SWBT  has  chosen  not  to  provide  parsed  address  information  at  the 
 preordering  stage,  but  instead  returns  this  information  to  competing  LECs  in  an  undifferentiated 
 (or  concatenated)  string  of  alphanumeric  characters.  412  In  order  to  transfer  seamlessly  the 
 unparsed  address  information  onto  an  order,  competing  LECs  must  first  write  a  program  which 
 parses  the  undifferentiated  string  of  numbers  and  words  into  the  specific  fields  required  on  the 
 order  form.  Because  successful  parsing  is  thus  a  necessary  component  of  successful  integration, 
 we  must  determine  whether  SWBT  enables  carriers  to  implement  a  parsing  program  that  allows 
 the  seamless  transfer  of  information  from  pre-  ordering  to  the  ordering  stage.  413  Of  course,  a  BOC 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 necessary  aspects  of  our  pre-  ordering  analysis.  We  do  not  need  to  rely  on  SWBTs  assertions  regarding  EDI  and 
 CORBA,  however,  because  we  find  that  SWBTs  DataGate  interface  may  be  integrated. 


 410  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4019,  para.  137  ([  w]  ithout  an  integrated  system,  a 


 competing  carrier  would  be  forced  to  re-  enter  pre-  ordering  information  manually  into  an  ordering  interface,  which 
 leads  to  additional  costs  and  delays,  as  well  as  a  greater  risk  of  error.). 


 411  See  id.  at  para.  138  (discussing  Bell  Atlantics  evidence  that  carriers  were  able  to  successfully  integrate  in  a 


 commercial  setting);  see  also  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  14  (conceding 
 that  CLECs  can  build  some  form  of  integrated  pre-  order  and  order  interface,  but  indicating  that  parsing  and 
 integration  difficulties  lead  to  a  high  reject  rate  which  negates  the  benefits  of  integration). 


 412  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  21;  see  also  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  14. 


 Specifically,  SWBT  explains  that,  in  response  to  a  competing  LECs  request  for  a  customers  information  via  the 
 DataGate  pre-  ordering  interface,  it  returns  address  information  (including  street  number,  apartment  number,  street 
 name,  thoroughfare  type  and  community  name)  as  a  string  of  numbers  and  words.  Each  of  these  pieces  of 
 information  must  be  populated  in  separate  fields  on  the  LSR,  in  accordance  with  the  incumbent  LECs  pre-ordering 
 and  ordering  business  rules.  Other  information,  including  the  customer  name,  telephone  number  and  zip 
 code  are  returned  in  a  parsed  format    that  is,  each  separate  piece  of  information  is  identified  by  a  particular 
 code  that  can  be  matched  to  a  field  on  the  LSR. 


 413  Contrary  to  AT&  Ts  interpretation  of  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  see  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung 


 Decl.  at  para.  95,  we  have  not  previously  stated  that  a  BOC  must  perform  parsing  on  its  side  of  the  interface. 
 Rather,  we  consider  whether  integration  has  been  shown  to  be  possible  (or  has  actually  been  achieved). 
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 78 
 that  provides  address  information  in  a  parsed  format  would  not  need  to  make  this  complicated 
 showing.  414 


 154.  We  conclude,  based  on  the  totality  of  evidence  in  the  record,  that  SWBTs 
 DataGate  pre-  ordering  interface  can  be  successfully  integrated  with  SWBTs  EDI  ordering 
 functions.  In  reaching  this  conclusion,  we  rely  primarily  on  evidence,  submitted  both  by 
 competing  LECs  active  in  Texas  and  by  SWBT,  that  carriers  have  been  able  to  successfully 
 integrate  certain  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions  in  a  commercial  setting.  Specifically,  while 
 several  carriers  in  this  proceeding  claim  to  have  encountered  substantial  difficulties  in  achieving 
 full,  successful  integration,  the  record  contains  statements  from  at  least  two  carriers  indicating 
 that  they  have  been  able  to  integrate  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions.  We  also  rely  on  the 
 results  of  a  customized  third  party  review  conducted  in  April  2000,  in  which  Telcordia  found  that 
 documentation  and  other  information  provided  by  SWBT  enabled  it  to  mechanically  integrate 
 address  information  received  in  a  pre-  ordering  inquiry  into  the  ordering  process.  Finally,  we 
 recognize  that  SWBT  has  hired  GE  Global  eXchange  Services  to  provide  additional  technical 
 assistance  relating  to  integration,  free  of  charge,  to  any  competing  LEC  that  requests  this 
 additional  help.  415 


 155.  In  terms  of  commercial  usage,  SWBT  submits  that  at  least  two  competing  LECs, 
 Sage  Telecom  and  Navigator  Telecommunications,  have  successfully  integrated  pre-  ordering 
 functions.  416  Both  of  these  competing  LECs  have  confirmed  on  the  record  in  this  proceeding  that, 
 by  interfacing  with  SWBTs  DataGate  system,  they  are  able  to  transfer  information  received 
 electronically  from  SWBT  directly  into  their  internal  systems  and  into  the  ordering  process. 
 Specifically,  Sage  reports  that,  using  documentation  and  technical  support  from  SWBT,  it  has 
 designed  its  systems  to  electronically  transfer  information  contained  in  the  CSR,  including  address 
 information,  directly  onto  an  order.  417  Similarly,  Navigator  reports  that  it  has  developed  systems 
 to  electronically  transfer  information  from  the  CSR  to  the  ordering  process,  including  service  and 
 feature  codes,  but  not  address  information.  418  Because  service  address  information  is  not  required 
 for  orders  that  migrate  customers  from  SWBT  retail  to  resale  service,  this  level  of  integration 
 apparently  allows  Navigator  to  complete  orders  for  resale  service  with  minimal  human 
 intervention.  419  AT&  T  apparently  also  has  developed  a  program  that  parses  address  information 


 414  Indeed,  we  note  that  the  level  of  detailed  analysis  required  in  this  instance  was  not  necessary  in  the  Bell 
 Atlantic  New  York  Order  because  Bell  Atlantic  returned  address  information  in  a  parsed  format.  See  Bell  Atlantic 
 New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4020,  para.  138. 


 415  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  15. 


 416  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham.  Aff.  at  para.  3;  Sage  March  29  Ex  Parte  Letter;  Navigator  March  30  Ex  Parte 
 Letter.  The  Texas  Commission  observed  that  other  competing  LECs  may  have  undertaken  steps  to  integrate  these 
 functions,  but  have  not  come  forward.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  6. 


 417  See  Sage  March  29  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1.  Sage  has  been  submitting  orders  via  EDI  for  at  least  ten  months. 


 418  See  Navigator  March  30  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1;  Navigator  June  14  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1. 
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 79 
 drawn  from  DataGate,  and  integrates  pre-  ordering  information  directly  into  its  ordering  process.  420  Unlike  Sage  and  Navigator,  however,  AT&  T  does  not  characterize  its  integration 
 efforts  as  a  success. 
 156.  An  analysis  of  these  carriers  order  rejections  indicates  that  they  have  achieved 
 substantial  success  in  their  parsing  and  integration  efforts.  We  note  that  a  high  reject  rate  may 
 indicate  that  a  carrier  has  not  successfully  integrated  its  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions, 
 particularly  where  rejects  are  attributable  to  integration  or  parsing  difficulties.  421  In  this  instance, 
 however,  we  note  that  Sage  and  AT&  T  have  been  able  to  achieve  low  reject  rates    50  percent 
 lower  than  any  other  carrier  using  EDI  for  ordering  in  Texas.  422  Most  significantly,  data 
 submitted  by  SWBT  indicates  that,  for  the  past  three  months,  a  relatively  low  percentage  of 
 orders  submitted  by  both  Sage  and  AT&  T  are  rejected  for  address-  related  reasons.  423  These  data 
 indicate  that  both  Sages  and  AT&  Ts  parsing  and  integration  efforts  have  enabled  them  to  submit 
 orders  that  generally  survive  address  edits. 


 157.  We  disagree  with  AT&  T  that  the  problems  it  has  encountered  in  a  commercial 
 setting  indicate  that  SWBTs  systems  cannot  be  integrated.  AT&  T  explains  that,  due  to 
 deficiencies  in  the  documentation  SWBT  makes  available  to  assist  carriers  in  integrating  their 
 systems,  it  has  had  to  devote  substantial  resources  to  correcting  parsing  problems  on  its  orders.  424 
 Specifically,  AT&  T  states  that  it  must  take  the  unnecessary  step  of  carefully  pre-  screening  orders 
 before  they  are  transmitted  to  SWBT,  and  that  it  must  spend  an  inordinate  amount  of  time  and 
 resources  processing  and  resolving  address-  related  rejects.  425  Nevertheless,  we  reject  AT&  Ts 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  419 
 See  Navigator  March  30  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1.  While  WorldCom  has  not  provided  a  clear  explanation  of  its 
 integration  efforts  in  this  proceeding,  the  Texas  Commission  noted  that  WorldCom  has  previously  stated  that  it  has 
 integrated  several  fields,  including  the  account  telephone  number.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at 
 6. 


 420  Although  AT&  T  does  not  provide  a  detailed  description  of  the  process  by  which  it  takes  address  information 


 obtained  through  pre-  ordering  and  completes  an  order,  AT&  T  does  not  suggest  that  it  re-  types  such  information, 
 but  instead  it  has  endeavored  to  integrate  DataGate  with  its  EDI  ordering  system.  See  AT&  T  Texas  I 
 Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  92-  94.  Also,  WorldCom  confirms  that  it  has  integrated  certain  pre-  order  fields 
 (including  account  telephone  number),  but  apparently  has  not  attempted  to  integrate  the  address  fields  and 
 instead  manually  re-  types  them.  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  8. 


 421  We  understand  that,  if  a  competing  carrier  places  an  incorrectly-  parsed  address  on  an  order  (i.  e.,  a  segment  of 


 the  address  is  placed  into  an  inappropriate  field)  it  will  result  in  a  reject  with  an  address-  related  reject  code.  There 
 are  many  other  reasons  for  rejects  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  parsing  addresses,  as  evidenced  by  the  hundreds 
 of  reject  codes  that  correspond  to  the  hudreds  of  mechanized  and  manual  edits  in  SWBTs  ordering  systems.  See 
 SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Aff.,  Att.  H. 


 422  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  61  and  Att.  D-  1  (listing  carrier-  specific  reject  rates  for  April  2000). 


 423  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.,  Att.  H  (listing  the  percentage  of  orders  that  receive  each  type  of  reject  code,  for 
 certain  carriers  and  for  all  carriers  in  the  aggregate). 
 424  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  11,  18-  23. 


 425  See  id. 
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 80 
 assertion  that  SWBT  is  substantially  responsible  for  its  integration  difficulties.  426  As  an  initial 
 matter,  Sages  commercial  experience  indicates  that  successful  integration  is  possible.  There  also 
 is  evidence  in  the  record  that  AT&  Ts  address-  related  rejects  are  relatively  low,  and  that  some  of 
 AT&  Ts  address-  related  rejects  may  be  unrelated  to  parsing  problems.  427  This  suggests  that, 
 contrary  to  AT&  Ts  assertions,  its  integration  efforts  have  in  fact  been  successful. 


 158.  In  addition  to  the  evidence  pointing  towards  successful  integration  in  a  commercial 
 setting,  we  also  rely  on  the  customized  integration  test  performed  by  Telcordia.  The  Texas 
 Commission  explains  that  Telcordia  was  retained  in  April  2000  to  review  the  documentation  and 
 other  information  available  to  competing  LECs  and  determine  whether  this  information  enables  a 
 competing  LEC  to  parse  and  integrate  information  obtained  from  SWBTs  pre-  ordering  systems 
 into  the  ordering  process.  428  Telcordia  reports  that  it  used  documentation  and  other  information 
 obtained  from  SWBT  to  develop  a  program  that  automatically  parsed  and  transferred  information, 
 including  address  information,  obtained  through  the  pre-  ordering  process  directly  onto  an  LSR.  429 
 We  conclude  that  this  supplemental  functionality  test,  performed  at  the  specific  request  of  the 
 Texas  Commission  in  order  to  augment  the  record  in  this  proceeding,  provides  us  with  additional 
 assurance  that  competing  LECs  should  be  able  to  write  a  parsing  program  which  enables 
 integration  efficiencies. 


 159.  We  disagree  with  AT&  T  and  WorldCom,  who  argue  that  Telcordias  conclusions 
 merit  little  weight  in  this  analysis.  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  suggest  that  Telcordias  test  is 
 unreliable  because  it  did  not  involve  the  actual  submission  of  orders,  and  did  not  appear  to  test  a 
 broad  range  of  address  scenarios.  430  While  this  type  of  additional  testing  would  certainly  have 
 bolstered  Telcordias  conclusion,  and  in  fact  may  be  critical  to  another  BOCs  section  271 
 application,  we  note  that  Telcordias  test  does  not  stand  alone  in  this  instance  and  supplements 
 evidence  of  integration  in  a  commercial  setting.  431  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  also  note  that  Telcordia 


 426  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  48  and  55. 
 427  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  21  and  45  (suggesting  that  address-  related  rejects  also  may 
 result  from  mismatches  between  SWBTs  two  internal  address  databases,  PREMIS  and  CRIS). 
 428  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  7  and  Att.  5  (  Telcordia  Pre-  order/  Order  Integration  Analysis). 


 429  We  note  that  Telcordia  required  oral  clarification  from  SWBT  on  several  points  in  order  to  complete  its  work. 
 See  Telcordia  Pre-  Order/  Order  Integration  Analysis  at  7.  Telcordia  recommend[  ed]  several  improvements  to  the 
 documentation  so  that  others  will  similarly  receive  such  clarification.  Id.  SWBT  reports  that  it  has  already 
 implemented  these  documentation  changes.  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  36. 


 430  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  23.  Telcordia  explains  that,  while  it  did  not  actually 


 send  test  orders  through  the  editing  process,  it  visually  confirmed  that  each  [address]  element  was  in  fact 
 populated  in  its  correct  field.  See  Telcordia  June  13,  2000  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2.  Telcordia  further  explained  that  it 
 formulated  20  testing  scenarios,  and  also  used  different  combinations  of  the  elements  of  an  address,  to  ensure  that 
 the  concatenated  address  information  could  be  parsed  correctly.  Id. 


 431  A  comprehensive  third  party  test  of  integration  functions  that  includes  an  assessment  of  the  various  steps  a 


 competitive  LECs  would  take  in  order  to  accomplish  integration  of  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions  would 
 provide  compelling  evidence  that  a  BOCs  interfaces  can  be  integrated.  In  this  regard,  substantial  weight  may  be 
 given  to  a  test  where  the  tester  (i)  submits  a  pre-  order  query;  (ii)  receives  data  from  the  BOC;  (iii)  auto-  populates 
 (continued.) 
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 81 
 tested  whether  it  could  integrate  address  information  received  via  the  EDI  pre-  ordering  interface, 
 rather  than  the  DataGate  interface  upon  which  SWBT  relies  to  demonstrate  nondiscriminatory 
 access  to  pre-  ordering  functions.  432  Telcordia  subsequently  explained,  in  a  submission  in  this 
 proceeding,  that  the  task  of  parsing  and  integrating  address  information  obtained  via  EDI  is 
 functionally  the  same  as  parsing  address  information  received  directly  from  DataGate.  433  We  thus 
 find  that  Telcordias  evaluation  is  useful  to  demonstrate  that  effective  parsing  can  occur  with 
 respect  to  information  provided  by  SWBT  through  its  pre-  ordering  interfaces. 


 160.  As  noted  above,  we  base  our  conclusion  that  SWBTs  systems  can  be  integrated 
 on  carriers  actual  commercial  experiences  and  Telcordias  findings.  As  further  evidence  that 
 successful  integration  can  continue  to  occur  in  the  future,  we  are  encouraged  by  the  recent  steps 
 SWBT  has  taken  in  this  area.  Specifically,  we  note  that  SWBT  has  recently  implemented  a 
 programming  change  which  will  virtually  eliminate  address-  related  rejects  received  by  competing 
 LECs  on  most  types  of  orders.  434  As  of  May  2000,  SWBT  no  longer  requires  carriers  to  populate 
 the  service  address  fields  on  orders  that  convert  a  retail  or  resale  customer  to  UNE-  P  service. 
 Even  the  relatively  low  levels  of  address-  related  rejects  received  by  AT&  T  and  Sage  should  thus 
 be  reduced  even  further.  Although  this  enhancement  occurred  after  it  filed  this  application,  and 
 therefore  is  not  decisional,  it  provides  assurances  that  carriers  that  have  yet  to  attempt  integration 
 should  be  able  to  avoid  the  burden  of  receiving  and  processing  a  large  number  of  address-  related 
 rejects.  435  To  the  extent  that  competing  carriers,  in  the  future,  present  evidence  that  undermines 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 the  data  into  an  LSR;  and  (iv)  submits  the  LSR  to  the  BOC.  SWBT  itself  identified  these  four  key  elements  of 
 integration  testing.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  14  (outlining  steps  that  typically  would  be  taken  by  a 
 competitive  LEC  to  accomplish  integration  of  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions). 


 432  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  23. 


 433  Telcordia  explained  that  Datagate  .  .  .  concatenated  address  information  is  similar  to  the  EDI  concatenated 
 values.  In  both  situations,  the  methodology  is  the  same.  The  only  difference  is  in  the  different  coding  language 
 used.  Telcordia  concludes  that  the  programming  concept  used  for  the  script  in  parsing  EDI  files,  both  non-concatenated 
 and  concatenated  values,  can  also  be  applied  to  Datagate  .  .  .  files.  See  Telcordia  June  13,  2000  Ex 
 Parte  letter  at  2-  3;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  33.  We  accept  Telcordias  explanation  and 
 find  that,  in  this  limited  instance,  its  findings  relating  to  EDI  have  relevance  in  assessing  whether  information 
 obtained  directly  from  DataGate  can  be  integrated  into  the  ordering  process. 


 434  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  24  32  and  Att.  I  (SWBT  Accessible  Letter  No.  CLECSS00-  051, 


 March  29,  2000).  For  these  orders,  SWBT  will  suppress  the  address  edits  and  itself  will  populate  the  service 
 address  contained  in  the  CSR  onto  competing  LECs  orders.  SWBT  suggests  that  this  change  would  have 
 eliminated  99.8%  of  AT&  Ts  address-  related  rejects  in  January  2000.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  27. 
 Several  commenters  have  agreed  that  this  change  would  likely  reduce  rejects,  particularly  those  associated  with 
 address-  related  errors.  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  paras.  73-  74;  WorldCom  Texas  II 
 McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Decl.  at  para.  40  (but  suggesting  that  this  change  may  have  negative  consequences  as 
 well);  see  also  Sage  March  29  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2. 


 435  We  note  that  the  TN  Ordering  change  will  not  altogether  eliminate  the  need  for  carriers  to  parse  address 


 information.  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Decl.  at  paras.  35-  38;  but  see  SWBT  Texas  II 
 Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  81-  83  (explaining  that  WorldCom  overstates  the  instances  in  which  carriers  will  have  to 
 use  addresses).  Nonetheless,  as  noted  above,  SWBT  enables  carriers  to  perform  this  parsing. 
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 82 
 our  finding  that  SWBTs  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  systems  may  be  integrated    such  as  evidence 
 that  they  are  unable  to  avoid  rejects  attributable  to  inadequacies  in  SWBTs  documentation  or 
 systems    then  we  may  consider  an  enforcement  action  under  section  271(  d)(  6).  436 


 161.  Finally,  we  recognize  that  SWBT  has  engaged  GE  Global  eXchange  Services 
 (GXS)  as  a  third  party  expert  to  provide  high-  level  consulting  advice  to  competing  carriers  that 
 seek  to  integrate  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  functions.  437  We  believe  that  GXS  may  provide 
 valuable  assistance  to  competing  LECs  seeking  to  design  or  improve  their  ordering  systems  to 
 maximize  the  functionality  offered  by  SWBT. 


 162.  Interface  Response  Times  and  Availability.  We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that 
 it  provides  requesting  carriers  access  to  pre-  ordering  functionality  in  a  manner  that  allows  an 
 efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  Specifically,  we  have  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  that  SWBT  provides  to  itself.  438  With  respect  to  the  timeliness  of 
 pre-  ordering  responses  using  DataGate,  we  note  that  the  Texas  Commission  established 
 benchmark  standards  rather  than  identifying  a  retail  analogue.  439  We  accept  the  Texas 
 Commissions  determination  regarding  these  time  intervals,  which  were  established  with  input 
 from  competing  carriers,  and  conclude  that  performance  satisfying  these  benchmarks  would 
 provide  competing  carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 163.  Performance  data  from  January  2000  to  April  2000  demonstrate  that  SWBT 
 consistently  satisfies  the  Texas  Commissions  benchmark  standards  for  timeliness  of  various 


 436  The  Department  of  Justice  described  this  system  enhancement  as  one  of  several  significant  steps  taken 
 recently  by  SWBT  to  alleviate  concerns  related  to  pre-  ordering  and  ordering  integration.  See  Department  of 
 Justice  June  13  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  18. 


 437  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  15;  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  30.  SWBT  explains  that 


 GXS  is  familiar  with  SWBTs  systems  and  ordering  rules  because  they  have  developed  an  integrated  solution  for 
 a  CLEC  in  SWBTs  region  .  .  .  .  GXS  has  the  experience  and  know-  how  to  evaluate  a  CLECs  technological 
 platform  and  strategy  and  provide  the  CLEC  with  recommendations  to  insure  sucessful  integration.  SWBT  Texas 
 II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  30. 


 438  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4025  and  4029,  paras.  145  and  154. 


 439  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  34.  For  example,  the  benchmark  for  responding  to  DataGate 
 address  verification  queries  is  4.  7  seconds;  for  requests  for  telephone  numbers,  4.  5  seconds;  for  requests  for  CSRs, 
 6.  6  seconds;  and  for  PIC  information,  28  seconds.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.,  Att.  A  at  8-  9.  We  note  that 
 commenters  do  not  argue  that  these  standards  are  improperly  lenient,  although  AT&  T  does  suggest  that  a  parity 
 comparison  would  be  preferable.  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  Pfau/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  n.  102. 
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 83 
 pre-  order  inquiries.  440  Correspondingly,  commenters  have  not  argued  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide 
 timely  responses  to  pre-  ordering  inquiries. 


 164.  We  further  conclude  that  SWBTs  interfaces  are  available  in  a  stable  and  consistent 
 manner,  which  affords  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  SWBT 
 reports  the  percentage  of  time  its  DataGate  interface  is  available  based  on  its  scheduled  available 
 hours.  441  SWBT  has  satisfied  the  Texas  Commissions  benchmark  of  99.  5%  availability  for  five 
 of  the  last  six  months.  442  The  one  exception  was  March  2000,  where  the  DataGate  interface  was 
 available  98.5%  of  the  time.  While  interface  outages  may  substantially  inconvenience  competing 
 carriers  and  harm  competition,  we  conclude  that  the  March  performance  appears  to  be  an  isolated 
 incident,  when  viewed  against  the  backdrop  of  performance  that  consistently  satisfies  the  Texas 
 Commissions  benchmark.  Moreover,  we  note  that  commenters  generally  do  not  assert  that 
 SWBTs  DataGate  interface  is  unreliable.  443 


 165.  Access  to  Loop  Qualification  Information.  We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that 
 it  offers  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  pre-  ordering  functions  associated  with  determining 
 whether  a  loop  is  capable  of  supporting  xDSL  advanced  technologies.  444  As  discussed  above,  for 
 the  purposes  of  this  proceeding,  we  evaluate  whether  SWBT  is  in  compliance  with  the  regulatory 
 requirements  in  place  on  the  date  of  its  section  271  filing,  and  do  not  consider  whether  SWBT 
 complies  with  the  new  loop  qualification  requirements  that  took  effect  on  May  18,  2000.  445  In  this 
 regard,  as  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  446  we  will  consider  whether  SWBT  provides 


 440  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  1  (  Average  Response  Time  for  OSS  Pre-Order), 
 and  Measurement  No.  2  (  Response  Received  Within  X  Seconds)  at  271-  No.  1a  to  2d.  SWBT  has 
 satisfied  the  benchmarks  for  average  response  time,  as  well  as  percent  within  X  seconds,  for  each  of  seven 
 DataGate  pre-  order  functions  for  each  of  the  last  six  months. 


 441  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.  at  para.  111.  We  note,  however,  that  SWBT  does  not  specify  what  the  hours  of 


 availability  for  its  DataGate  interface. 
 442  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  4  (  OSS  Interface  Availability    DataGate)  at 


 271-  No.  4a  (100%,  99.7%,  100%,  100%,  98.5%  and  99.7%  for  November  1999  to  April  2000,  respectively). 
 443  AT&  T  notes  that  SWBTs  performance  data  would  not  reflect  outages  or  unavailability  of  an  underlying 


 database,  from  which  DataGate  must  obtain  data.  AT&  T  indicates  that  such  an  event  occurred  in  November  1999, 
 and  effectively  made  it  impossible  for  it  to  perform  pre-  ordering  functions  during  the  period  of  outage.  See  AT&  T 
 Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  106-  108.  We  do  not  find  that  there  is  evidence  to  suggest  that  the 
 problem  of  subtending  database  outage  is  systemic,  however,  and  conclude  that  SWBTs  evidence  adequately 
 demonstrates  the  reliability  of  its  DataGate  interface. 


 444  As  we  have  explained  in  the  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  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4021,  para.  140. 


 445  See  section  III.  B,  supra;  see  also  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3926,  para.  527. 


 446  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4021-  22,  paras.  140-  141. 
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 84 
 requesting  carriers  equivalent  access  to  the  loop  qualification  functionality  that  it  provides  to 
 itself. 


 166.  SWBT  provides  three  avenues  for  competing  carriers  to  obtain  loop  make-  up 
 information.  First,  SWBT  provides  carriers  real-  time  electronic  access,  through  the  Verigate  and 
 DataGate  interfaces,  to  its  database  containing  theoretical  loop  make-  up  information  that  is 
 based  upon  the  standard  loop  design  for  the  longest  loop  in  the  end  users  distribution  area.  447 
 Second,  for  actual  loop  make-  up  information  stored  in  SWBTs  electronic  systems,  SWBT 
 enables  carriers  to  submit  requests  via  fax  or  email.  SWBT  explains  that  its  retail  representatives 
 request  loop  qualification  information  from  SWBT  operations  via  email  as  well.  448  Third,  to 
 access  loop  make-  up  information  that  is  not  stored  by  SWBT  in  an  electronic  format,  competing 
 LECs  may  request  a  manual  search  of  engineering  records.  449  Requests  for  a  manual  look-  up  are 
 submitted  via  Verigate  or  DataGate  directly  to  SWBTs  engineering  operations,  and  no  longer 
 involve  SWBTs  local  service  center  (  LSC)  as  an  intermediary.  Once  the  manual  search  has 
 been  completed,  the  information  will  be  updated  in  the  mechanized  loop  qualification  system,  and 
 the  competing  LEC  will  have  the  option  of  receiving  the  loop  qualification  results  via  email  at  this 
 point,  or  may  instead  query  the  mechanized  loop  qualification  system  using  Verigate  or  DataGate.  450 


 167.  We  find  that  these  mechanized  and  manual  processes  provide  competing  carriers 
 access  to  loop  qualification  functionality  in  substantially  the  same  time  an  manner  as  SWBTs 
 retail  operations.  Specifically,  where  loop  make-  up  information  resides  in  an  electronic  format 
 within  SWBTs  systems  and  is  accessible  by  SWBTs  retail  operations,  SWBT  enables  competing 
 LECs  to  request  access  to  this  information  via  the  same  channels  as  SWBTs  retail  operations.  451 
 Where  this  information  resides  in  engineering  records,  and  is  accessible  by  SWBTs  retail 
 operations  only  via  a  manual  look-  up,  competing  LECs  also  may  request  a  manual  look-  up. 
 Moreover,  SWBTs  performance  data  reflect  that  it  provides  responses  to  competing  LEC 
 requests  for  loop  information  in  substantially  the  same  time  as  for  itself.  In  three  of  the  last  four 
 months,  SWBT  has  returned  competing  LEC  loop  qualification  requests,  on  average,  in  less  time 
 than  it  takes  to  respond  to  requests  from  its  retail  operations.  452 


 447  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  18  and  Att.  D  (SWBT  Accessible  Letter  No.  CLECSS00-  043);  see 
 also  SWBT  Texas  II  Cruz  Aff.  at  para.  33  and  Att.  E  at  1  (SWBT  Accessible  Letter  No.  CLEC00-  062). 
 448  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Chapman  Aff.  at  para.  26.  We  recognize  that,  as  of  April  29,  2000,  SWBT  also  began 


 providing  real-  time  access  via  Verigate  and  DataGate/  EDI  to  this  actual  loop  make-  up  information.  See  SWBT 
 Texas  II  Reply  at  17;  SWBT  Texas  II  Cruz  Aff.  at  para.  38. 


 449  See  id.  at  para.  37. 


 450  See  id. 
 451  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Cruz  Aff.  at  para.  33;  SWBT  Texas  I  Chapman  Aff.  at  para.  26. 
 452  SWBT  reports  that  it  returned  competitive  LEC  requests  for  loop  make-  up  information,  on  average,  in  4.34, 
 2.63  and  1.72  days  in  February,  March  and  April,  2000,  compared  to  3.99,  5.39  and  2.15  days  for  the  same 
 (continued.) 
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 85 
 168.  We  applaud  the  Texas  Commissions  ongoing  efforts  in  resolving  issues  emerging 
 from  the  Covad/  Rhythms  DSL  arbitration  in  Texas,  including  issues  relating  to  access  to 
 information  used  by  carriers  at  the  pre-  ordering  stage.  Specifically,  we  note  that  the  Texas 
 Commission  is  overseeing  implementation  of  the  internal  firewall  that  SWBT  was  required  to 
 establish  under  the  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award  as  a  means  to  ensure  nondiscriminatory 
 access  to  competitively  significant  information.  453  SWBT  has  submitted  several  versions  of  its 
 firewall  plan  and  the  Texas  Commission  has  twice  instructed  SWBT  to  modify  these  plans.  454 
 Most  recently,  on  June  23,  2000,  the  Texas  Commission  required  SWBT  to  make  two  minor 
 adjustments  to  its  latest  firewall  plan,  which  the  Commission  had  previously  approved  on  May 
 8,  2000.  455  We  disagree  with  Covads  suggestion  that  full  compliance  with  this  aspect  of  the 
 Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award  is  a  prerequisite  of  satisfying  the  competitive  checklist.  456 
 Indeed,  in  requiring  SWBT  to  make  modifications  in  its  June  23,  2000  Order,  the  Texas 
 Commission  did  not  indicate  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide  competing  carriers  equivalent  access  to 
 the  loop  qualification  functionality  it  provides  to  itself.  Rather,  this  modification  indicates  that  the 
 Texas  Commission  is  still  in  the  process  of  ensuring  that  SWBT  fully  satisf[  ies]  the  concerns 
 identified  in  the  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award.  457  As  stated  above,  the  evidence  before  us  in 
 the  instant  proceeding  demonstrates  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS,  in 
 compliance  with  the  statute  and  our  rules. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 requests  submitted  by  its  retail  operations.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  57 
 (  Average  Response  Time  for  Loop  Make-  Up  Information)  at  271-  No.  57. 


 453  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  18;  Arbitration  Award,  Petitions  of  Rhythms  Links,  Inc.  and  Dieca 


 Communications,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Covad  Communications  Company  for  Arbitration  of  Interconnection  Rates,  Terms, 
 Conditions  and  Related  Arrangements  with  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  Docket  Nos.  20226  and  20272 
 (Nov.  30,  1999)  (  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award);  Texas  Commission  January  27,  2000  Open  Meeting 
 Transcript  at  63-  67  (Jan.  27  Open  Meeting  Tr.)  (affirming  November  30,  1999  decision  of  Texas  Commission 
 arbitrator). 


 454  See  SWBT  May  11  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Att.  2;  Covad  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2-  4. 


 455  See  Covad  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Att.  A  (Implementation  of  Docket  Numbers  20226  and  20272,  Order  No. 
 13,  Docket  No.  22165  (Texas  PUC,  June  23,  2000)  (  June  23  Arbitration  Order)).  In  granting  reconsideration  of 
 its  May  8,  2000  order  approving  SWBTs  firewall  plan,  the  Texas  Commission  arbitrators  explained  that  the 
 existing  firewall  plan  help[  s]  to  ensure  competitive  neutrality  within  SBC,  but  nonetheless  ordered  SWBT  to 
 make  two  minor  adjustments:  (i)  to  explicitly  state  the  restriction  of  assigning  employees  to  both  wholesale  and 
 retail  responsibilities;  and  (ii)  to  explicitly  state  that  the  term  Competitor  Information  .  .  .  includes  any 
 information  received  from  a  CLEC,  including  CLEC  customer  information,  that  if  provided  to  SWBTs  retail 
 operatiors  or  affiliates,  would  place  SWBTs  retail  operations  or  affiliates  at  a  competitive  advantage.  Id.  at  3-  4. 


 456  See  Covad  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3. 


 457  See  June  23  Arbitration  Order  at  2;  see  also  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award  at  70  (explaining  that  the 
 firewall  plan  would  provide  further  assurance  that  competitively  beneficial  information  is  not  being  passed  from 
 SWBTs  network  provisioning  operations  to  its  retail  service  operations.). 
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 86 
 f.  Ordering 
 169.  In  this  section  we  address  SWBTs  ability  to  provide  access  to  its  OSS  ordering 
 functions  to  competing  carriers.  We  conclude  that,  based  on  all  the  evidence  in  the  record, 
 SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  ordering  systems  in 
 accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  271. 


 (i)  Discussion 
 170.  We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates,  with  performance  data  and  other  evidence,  that 
 it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  key  aspects  of  a  BOCs  ordering  systems,  as  identified 
 in  our  prior  section  271  orders.  458  Specifically,  SWBT  has  shown  that:  (i)  it  is  able  to  return 
 timely  order  confirmation  and  rejection  notices;  (ii)  its  systems  flow-  through  a  high  percentage  of 
 orders  without  manual  handling,  at  a  rate  that  is  comparable  overall  to  the  flow-  through  rate  for 
 its  retail  services;  (iii)  the  mechanized  orders  that  do  not  flow-  through  are  handled  in  a  reasonably 
 prompt  and  accurate  manner;  (iv)  the  mechanized  and  manual  components  of  its  ordering  systems 
 are  scalable  to  accommodate  increasing  demand;  (v)  it  provides  jeopardy  notices  in  a 
 nondiscriminatory  manner;  and  (vi)  it  provides  timely  order  confirmation  notices.  459  Because  most 
 of  these  ordering  functions  lack  a  direct  retail  analogue,  our  standard  of  review  is  to  determine 
 whether  SWBTs  systems  and  performance  allow  an  efficient  carrier  a  meaningful  opportunity  to 
 compete.  For  those  functions  of  the  ordering  systems  for  which  the  Texas  Commission  has 
 identified  a  retail  analogue,  we  shall  assess  whether  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with 
 access  to  its  OSS  systems  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  provides  to  its  retail 
 operations. 


 (a)  Order  Confirmation  Notices 
 171.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  is  providing  timely  order  confirmation  to  competing 
 LECs  in  Texas.  The  Commission,  in  prior  section  271  orders,  has  held  that  the  functionality 
 encompassed  by  order  confirmation  notices  is  a  very  important  element  of  the  ordering  process, 
 and  that  data  demonstrating  that  they  are  provided  in  a  timely  manner  is  a  key  consideration  for 
 assessing  whether  competitors  are  allowed  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  460  We  find  that 
 SWBT  is  providing  timely  order  confirmation  notices  to  competing  LECs  in  Texas  that  use  EDI 
 and  LEX  for  resale  and  UNE-  P  ordering.  For  both  types  of  orders,  SWBT  has  consistently  met 
 the  Texas  Commissions  standard  of  returning  95%  of  confirmation  notices  within  five  hours  of 


 458  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4035,  para.  163;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana 
 Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20677,  para.  117. 
 459  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4035-  4039,  paras.  163-  166. 


 460  See  id.  at  paras.  163-  164  (discussing  order  confirmation  notices);  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20680,  para.  120.  In  this  instance,  as  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  are  not  presented  with  a 
 retail  analogue  for  order  confirmation  notices,  and  thus  assess  whether  the  process  and  performance  offered  by  the 
 applicant  enables  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 
86
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 87 
 submission  of  the  order  (and  within  24  hours  for  complex  business  orders).  461  These  data  indicate 
 that,  in  only  one  month,  April  2000,  did  SWBTs  performance  for  EDI  orders  drop  below  the 
 benchmark  to  94.1  percent.  462  Because  this  performance  is  barely  below  the  benchmark,  and 
 because  SWBT  had  satisfied  the  standard  for  the  preceding  seven  straight  months,  we  conclude 
 that  SWBTs  performance  in  this  area  satisfies  the  nondiscrimination  standard  and  provides 
 competitors  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  463 


 172.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to  order  confirmation 
 notice  timeliness  for  unbundled  loop  orders  submitted  electronically  meets  the  nondiscrimination 
 requirement.  SWBT  is  required  to  report  its  performance  in  this  area  separately  for  orders 
 submitted  via  EDI  and  those  submitted  via  LEX,  and  also  is  required  to  divide  loops  into  those 
 ordered  with  a  ported  number,  and  those  without,  and  a  separate  category  for  xDSL-  capable 
 loops.  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to  stand-  alone  loops  has  been  consistently  above  the  95 
 percent  benchmark  for  the  last  five  months,  for  both  the  EDI  and  LEX  interfaces.  464  Moreover, 
 the  average  time  to  return  confirmation  notices  for  stand-  alone  loop  orders  generally  has  been 
 under  two  hours  for  these  months.  465  The  percentage  of  confirmation  notices  returned  within  five 


 461  SWBT  is  required  to  return  95%  of  order  confirmations  (both  manually-  and  mechanically-  processed)  within  5 
 hours  of  order  submission.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.,  Att.  A  at  A-  13.  For  the  past  five  months  (December 
 1999  to  April  2000),  SWBT  has  returned  over  95%  of  order  confirmation  notices  within  five  hours  for  Residence 
 and  Simple  Business  orders  submitted  via  both  LEX  and  EDI,  with  only  one  exception.  See  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  5  (  Percent  FOCs  Received  Within  X  Hours    Mechanized)  (Residence 
 and  Simple  Business)  at  271-  No.  5a  and  5c.  While  Residence  and  Simple  Business  orders  include  both  UNE-  P 
 and  resale  POTS  orders,  SWBT  has  shown  that  the  vast  majority  of  these  orders  submitted  via  EDI  are  for  UNE-  P. 
 See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.,  Att.  X-  2;  see  also  SWBT  Feb.  14  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Att.  2  (showing  that,  from 
 September  to  December  1999,  order  confirmation  timeliness  for  UNE-  P  orders  ranged  from  96.48  to  99.13 
 percent).  As  in  New  York,  complex  business  orders  and  loop  orders  over  a  certain  size  (10  lines  in  New  York  and 
 50  lines  in  Texas)  are  given  a  longer  processing  standard;  these  orders  are  relatively  low  in  volume  and  are  not 
 addressed  separately  here. 


 462  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  5,  at  271-  No.  5c. 


 463  The  Texas  Commission  also  concluded  that  SWBT  provides  timely  order  confirmation  notices.  See  Texas 
 Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  39-  40.  Although  the  Department  of  Justice  expressed  concern  in  the  Texas  I 
 proceeding  that  SWBTs  late-  1999  performance  on  order  completion  notices  appeared  to  be  deteriorating  as 
 volumes  increased,  see  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  38-  39,  we  note  that  SWBTs  performance  has 
 been  satisfactory  in  this  calendar  year,  notwithstanding  considerably  heightened  order  volumes. 


 464  For  December  1999  to  April  2000,  SWBT  returned  85.8,  96.2,  98.4,  98.1  and  98.8  percent  of  confirmation 


 notices  on  orders  for  stand-  alone  loops  sumbitted  via  EDI  within  5  hours,  with  corresponding  LEX  performance  at 
 97.5,  97.5,  92.9,  98.1  and  97.6  hours.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  5  (  Percent 
 FOCs  Received  Within  X  Hours    Mechanized)  (UNE  Loop  1-  49)  at  271-  No.  5b  and  5d.  Although  SWBTs 
 performance  in  this  area  was  slightly  below  the  benchmark  for  EDI  in  December  1999  and  for  LEX  in  February 
 2000,  we  note  that  it  surpassed  the  benchmark  for  four  of  the  other  five  months  for  both  interfaces,  and  thus 
 conclude  that  the  single  shortfalls  do  not  appear  to  reflect  a  systemic  problem. 


 465  For  the  months  of  December  1999  to  April  2000,  SWBT  returned  order  confirmation  notices  for  unbundled 


 loop  orders  in  an  average  of  0.9,  1.2,  2.0,  1.4  and  1.4  hours  for  LEX,  and  2.3,  1.6,  1.1,  1.2  and  1.3  hours  for  orders 
 submitted  via  EDI.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  6  (  Average  Time  to  Return  FOC 
 (Hours)    Mechanized)  (UNE  Loop  1-  50)  (LEX)  at  271-  No.  6b,  and  (EDI)  at  271-  No.  6d.  SWBTs  performance 
 (continued.) 
87
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 88 
 hours  for  orders  of  loops  with  a  ported  number  also  has  been  generally  satisfactory,  and  has 
 consistently  been  near  or  above  the  95  percent  benchmark  during  the  last  three  months.  466  Finally, 
 as  discussed  in  more  detail  below  in  part  V.  D,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  satisfactory 
 performance  for  xDSL  capable  loop  orders,  returning  96  percent  of  order  confirmation  notices 
 within  24  hours  for  orders  submitted  via  EDI,  and  94  percent  within  24  hours  for  LEX  orders.  467 


 173.  Furthermore,  we  do  not  find  that  SWBTs  order  confirmation  process  itself  is 
 flawed,  as  urged  by  several  commenters.  ALTS/  CLEC  Coalition,  for  example,  argues  that  SWBT 
 sends  an  unacceptably  high  volume  of  jeopardies  after  sending  an  order  confirmation  notice,  and 
 that  this  is  evidence  that  SWBTs  systems  send  order  confirmation  notices  prematurely,  before 
 fully  checking  on  the  availability  of  facilities  and  due  dates.  468  We  conclude  that  there  is 
 insufficient  evidence  in  the  record  to  indicate  that  SWBTs  process  is  discriminatory.  Moreover, 
 SWBT  explains  that  it  uses  the  same  systems  to  check  facilities  availability  for  retail  orders  as  it 
 does  for  competing  carriers  orders.  469  Accordingly,  we  conclude  that  SWBTs  system  for 
 returning  order  confirmation  notices  allows  competing  carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to 
 compete. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 for  these  months  with  respect  to  order  confirmation  notices  for  UNE-  P  and  resale  orders  averaged  1.  2,  1.  0,  1.  0,  0.  6 
 and  0.6  hours  for  LEX  orders,  and  0.7,  0.7,  0.8,  5.6  and  1.4  hours  for  EDI  orders.  See  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  6  (  Average  Time  to  Return  FOC  (Hours)    Mechanized)  (Residence  and 
 Simple  Business)  (LEX)  at  271-  No.  6a,  and  (EDI)  at  271-  No.  6c.  We  note  that,  considering  the  loop  and  UNE-  P 
 orders  together,  this  performance  is  several  hours  faster  than  the  average  performance  reported  by  Bell  Atlantic 
 (8.48,  8.84,  6.16  and  6.46  hours  for  loops  and  UNE-  P  combined  in  June  to  September,  1999).  Bell  Atlantic  New 
 York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4037,  para.  164,  n.  506.  In  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  concluded  that  Bell 
 Atlantics  ability  to  process  nearly  all  competing  carrier  UNE  orders  in  under  24  hours,  and  a  majority  of  such 
 orders  within  two  hours  of  submission,  provides  an  efficient  competing  carrier  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to 
 compete.  Id.  at  para.  164.  We  caution  that  the  comparison  of  performance  data  between  BOCs  can  be 
 misleading,  because  the  measurement  methodologies,  statistical  approaches,  definitions,  and  exclusions  may  vary 
 in  significant  ways.  In  this  instance,  however,  we  determine  that  the  comparison  is  a  meaningful  one. 


 466  For  the  months  of  December  1999  to  April  2000,  SWBT  satisfied  the  five-  hour  standard  for  77.7,  92.9,  95.0, 


 95.  0  and  94.  1  percent  of  loop  with  ported  number  orders  submitted  via  LEX,  and  93.  2,  98.  2,  97.  1,  96.  4  and  96.  1 
 percent  for  EDI  orders.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  94  (  Percent  FOCs  Received 
 Within  X  Hours)  (Residence  and  Simple  Business  With  Loop  1-  19)  at  271-  No.  94a  and  94c.  In  the  Texas  I 
 Proceeding,  SWBT  explained  that  its  sub-  standard  performance  at  the  end  of  1999,  for  loops  with  a  ported 
 number,  was  attributable  to  inadequate  training  and  staffing,  and  would  be  cured  by  retraining  and  reallocating  its 
 workforce.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.  at  paras.  595,  598. 


 467  See  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  5.  1  (  Percent  Firm  Order  Confirmations  Relating 


 to  xDSL-  capable  Loops  Returned  within  X  Hours)  at  271-  No.  5.1a. 
 468  ALTS/  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Reply  at  17. 


 469  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  151. 
88
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 89 
 (b)  Reject  Notices 
 174.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with  timely  order  rejection 
 notices  in  a  manner  that  allows  competing  LECs  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  compete.  SWBT 
 provides  carriers  with  two  types  of  rejects:  mechanically-  generated  reject  notices,  which  are 
 returned  over  the  same  interface  used  to  submit  the  order,  and  manually-  generated  rejects,  which 
 are  returned  via  a  separate  graphical  user  interface.  470  SWBTs  performance  data  demonstrates 
 that  it  consistently  has  satisfied  the  Texas  Commissions  one-  hour  standard  for  timely  return  of 
 mechanically-  generated  reject  notices.  471  Prompt  return  of  these  reject  notices  by  SWBT 
 minimizes  delays  associated  with  order  rejections,  and  enables  competing  carriers  to  correct  and 
 resubmit  these  orders  in  a  timely  manner. 


 175.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to  manually-  generated 
 rejects  satisfies  the  nondiscrimination  standard.  SWBT  has  returned  manually-  generated  rejects, 
 on  average,  in  under  eight  hours  for  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  and  its  performance  has 
 shown  improvement  during  this  period  even  as  overall  order  volumes  have  increased.  472  We 
 recognize  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  the  Texas  Commissions  strict  five  hour  standard  in  this  area 
 only  once  in  the  last  three  months.  We  nonetheless  conclude  that  SWBTs  ability  to  return 
 manually-  generated  rejects  in  an  average  of  five  to  eight  hours  provides  efficient  competing 
 carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete,  particularly  in  light  of  the  fact  that  most  rejects  are 
 mechanically-  generated  and  are  returned  in  under  an  hour.  473  Finally,  we  agree  with  SWBT  that 
 the  long  average  processing  time  reported  in  December  1999  and  January  2000  do  not  accurately 


 470  See  SWBT  Ham  Texas  I  Decl.  at  para.  147.  Errors  detected  by  mechanized  edits  automatically  result  in  rejects 
 that  are  returned  electronically  via  LEX  or  EDI,  while  errors  detected  during  manual  processing  result  in 
 manually-  generated  rejects  returned  electronically  via  the  LASR  GUI  interface.  Id. 


 471  For  the  months  of  December  1999  to  April  2000,  SWBT  reports  that  the  average  duration  between  receiving 


 an  order  and  returning  a  mechanically-  generated  reject  notice  ranged  from  20  to  28  minutes  (0.  34  to  0.  47  hours) 
 for  orders  submitted  via  EDI    with  one  exception,  March  2000,  where  the  mean  time  to  return  was  6.03  hours. 
 See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data  ,  Measurement  No.  11  (  Mean  Time  to  Return  Mechanized  Rejects)  at 
 271-  No.  10-  11.  SWBT  explains  that  the  aberrant  performance  in  March  2000  related  only  to  AT&  Ts  orders  and 
 suggests  that  the  ultimate  root  cause  of  the  delays  was  a  programming  change  on  AT&  Ts  side  of  the  interface. 
 See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  104.  AT&  T  has  not  contested  SWBTs  explanation,  and  thus  we 
 have  no  reason  to  conclude  that  this  anomalous  performance  in  March  2000  reflects  discrimination  against  AT&  T 
 or  a  systemic  problem  with  SWBTs  reject  notification  process. 


 472  For  the  months  of  December  1999  to  April  2000,  SWBT  reports  that  it  returned  manually-  generated  rejects  in 


 an  average  of  35.65,  28.47,  7.55,  6.41  and  4.93  hours,  respectively.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  10.  1  (  Mean  Time  to  Return  Manual  Rejects  Received  Electronically  Via  LEX/  EDI);  see  also 
 SWBT  Ham  2  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  36. 


 473  We  thus  disagree  with  AT&  Ts  contention  that  SWBTs  failure  to  satisfy  the  Texas  Commissions  strict  five-hour 


 standard  proves  that  SWBTs  performance  is  unsatisfactory.  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl. 
 at  paras.  101-  102.  We  further  note  that,  while  the  Texas  Commission  did  not  comment  on  SWBTs  improved 
 reject  processing  times  in  this  proceeding,  it  concluded  that  SWBTs  reject  processing  performance  was 
 satisfactory  in  its  Texas  1  Comments.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  25. 
89
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 90 
 reflect  average  performance  for  live  orders  submitted  in  those  months,  and  had  little  or  no 
 competitive  impact.  474 


 176.  We  disagree  with  several  commenters  who  suggest  that  SWBTs  reject  rate 
 indicates  that  it  fails  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  ordering  systems.  475  We  note  that 
 the  Texas  Commission  did  not  establish  a  reject  rate  standard,  and  neither  has  this  Commission 
 previously  engaged  in  a  parity  or  direct  benchmark  analysis  of  a  carriers  overall  reject  rate.  We 
 have,  however,  indicated  that  we  will  not  hold  a  BOC  accountable  for  rejects  that  occur  for 
 reasons  within  a  competing  LECs  control.  476  As  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  note 
 that  order  rejections  in  this  instance  vary  widely  by  individual  carrier,  from  10.8  percent  to  higher 
 than  60  percent.  477  We  find  that  such  a  wide  variation  in  the  individual  reject  rates  strongly 
 implies  that  the  care  a  competing  carrier  takes  in  submitting  its  orders  makes  a  significant 
 difference  in  the  rate  at  which  its  orders  are  rejected.  In  light  of  this  variation,  we  conclude  that 
 the  overall  reject  rates  faced  by  competing  carriers  in  this  instance  on  orders  submitting  via  the 
 EDI  interface  do  not  appear  to  indicate  flaws  in  SWBTs  OSS  systems  or  processes.  478 


 177.  In  reaching  the  foregoing  conclusion,  we  note  that  some  commenters  argue  that 
 address-  related  rejects  delay  orders  and  impose  additional  costs  on  competing  carriers,  and  are 
 largely  attributable  to  SWBT.  Specifically,  competing  carriers  argue  that  these  unavoidable 
 address-  related  rejects  can  be  attributed  to  two  causes:  parsing/  integration  difficulties,  and 
 mismatches  between  SWBTs  two  primary  address  databases    PREMIS  and  CRIS.  479  As  noted 
 above,  SWBT  denies  that  any  address-  related  rejects  are  related  to  parsing/  integration  difficulties. 


 474  SWBT  provided  a  detailed  analysis  of  reject  notices  provided  during  these  months,  demonstrating  that  the  long 
 processing  times  were  largely  attributable  to  a  handful  of  extremely  tardy  reject  notices  which  related  to 
 duplicate  orders  that  had  already  been  filled  months  earlier.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  36;  SWBT 
 Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  paras.  27-  28;  SWBT  March  31  Ex  Parte  Letter;  see  also  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers 
 DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  104. 


 475  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  85  and  98  (arguing  that  the  combined  rejection  rate  of 


 30%  for  LEX  and  EDI  orders  in  February  2000  is  unreasonable  by  any  standard,  and  that  even  a  rejection  rate 
 of  approximately  20  percent  is  .  .  .  excessive). 


 476  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4044,  para.  175;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13 


 FCC  Rcd  at  20673-  74,  paras.  111-  112. 
 477  See  SWBT  June  12  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Att.  1;  see  also  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  Att.  D  (listing  carrier-  specific 


 reject  rates). 
 478  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  9  (  Percent  Rejects)  at  271-  No.  9a.  We 


 recognize  that  a  small  portion  of  the  recent  decline  in  overall  and  carrier-  specific  reject  rates  may  be  attributable  to 
 SWBTs  conversion,  in  mid-  January,  of  certain  rejects  into  jeopardies.  See  AT&  T  Texas  II 
 Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  93.  We  agree  with  the  Texas  Commission,  however,  that  the  effect  of  this 
 change  on  overall  reject  rates  appears  to  be  minimal.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  9;  SWBT 
 Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  73-  76. 


 479  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  48  and  58;  WorldCom  Texas  II 


 McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Decl.  at  paras.  17  and  41-  48. 
90
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 91 
 SWBT  does  not  dispute,  however,  that  some  address-  related  rejects  may  be  due  to  discrepancies 
 between  PREMIS  and  CRIS.  480  Even  assuming  that  some  of  the  responsibility  for  address-  related 
 rejects  may  be  attributed  to  SWBT,  we  do  not  find  that  competing  carriers  have  been  deprived  of 
 a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  Indeed,  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  fewer  than 
 five  percent  of  carriers  orders  are  rejected  for  address-  related  reasons,  which  suggests  that, 
 despite  any  address-  related  rejects,  carriers  have  been  largely  successful  in  submitting  their  orders. 
 In  view  of  our  finding  that  reject  rates  correlate  to  the  care  a  carrier  takes  in  submitting  its 
 orders,  and  given  that  the  low  level  of  address-  related  rejects  in  Texas  does  not  deprive  an 
 efficient  competitor  of  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete,  we  decline  to  further  address 
 carriers  numerous  and  specific  claims  regarding  the  nature  and  scope  of  address-  related  rejects  in 
 SWBTs  systems. 


 178.  We  recognize  that  SWBT  and  several  commenters  agree  that  an  order  process 
 enhancement  implemented  by  SWBT  in  May  2000    the  TN  Ordering  change    will  reduce  the 
 number  of  rejects.  481  Specifically,  this  change  obviates  the  need  for  carriers  to  list  an  end  users 
 address  on  orders  involving  the  migration  of  an  end-  user  from  retail  or  resale  to  UNE-  P  service. 
 This  provides  us  with  additional  assurances  that  competing  LECs  will  be  able  to  further  reduce 
 their  reject  rates  and  avoid  the  potentially  time-  consuming  task  of  resolving  address-  related 
 rejects.  We  note  that  this  enhancement  should  be  particularly  beneficial  to  carriers  such  as 
 WorldCom  who  plan  to  increase  volumes  considerably  in  offering  service  to  the  mass  market.  482 
 Although  several  carriers  have  expressed  concern  that  the  TN  Ordering  change  will  shift  the 
 burden  of  manually  resolving  database  mismatches  from  competing  LECs  to  SWBT  (thus  creating 
 the  potential  for  delays,  if  SWBT  is  unable  to  handle  the  workload),  the  evidence  in  the  record 
 does  not  indicate  that  the  increased  burden  on  SWBT  will  be  substantial.  483 


 (c)  Flow-  through  Rate 
 179.  In  prior  section  271  orders,  the  Commission  used  order  flow-  through  484  as  a 
 potential  indicator  of  a  wide  range  of  problems  that  we  consider  in  determining  whether  a  BOC 


 480  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  45  (referring  to  the  PREMIS/  CRIS  mismatch  problem  and 
 indicating  that  this  problem  may  be  responsible  for  certain  address-  related  rejects). 
 481  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  24-  32;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  paras.  73-  74;  WorldCom  Texas  II 


 McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Decl.  at  para.  40. 
 482  We  thus  believe  that  WorldComs  concerns  about  processing  a  high  level  of  address-  related  rejects  will  not 


 likely  be  realized.  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  3;  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg 
 Reply  Decl.  at  para.  7. 


 483  SWBTs  data  indicate  that  fewer  than  five  percent  of  all  carriers  orders  submitted  via  EDI  are  rejected  for 


 address-  related  reasons,  which  would  include  orders  rejected  due  to  database  mismatches.  See  SWBT  Texas  II 
 Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  Att.  H. 


 484  A  competing  carriers  orders  flow-  through  if  they  are  submitted  electronically  and  pass  through  SWBTs 


 ordering  OSS  into  its  back  office  systems  without  manual  intervention.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  125; 
 Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4033,  n.  488. 
91
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 92 
 provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS.  485  We  have  not  considered  flow-  though  rates  as  the 
 sole  indicia  of  parity,  however,  and  thus  have  not  limited  our  analysis  of  a  BOCs  ordering 
 processes  to  a  review  of  its  flow-  through  performance  data.  Instead,  we  have  held  that  factors 
 such  as  a  BOCs  overall  ability  to  return  timely  order  confirmation  and  rejection  notices, 
 accurately  process  manually  handled  orders,  and  scale  its  systems  are  relevant  and  probative  for 
 analyzing  a  BOCs  ability  to  provide  access  to  its  ordering  functions  in  a  nondiscriminatory 
 manner.  486  Moreover,  we  have  consistently  stated  that  a  BOC  is  not  accountable  for  orders  that 
 are  rejected  or  fail  to  flow  through  due  to  competing  carriers  mistakes.  487 


 180.  We  conclude  that  the  flow-  through  rate  reported  by  SWBT  indicates  that  SWBTs 
 systems  are  capable  of  achieving  high  overall  levels  of  order  flow-  through.  488  Specifically,  SWBT 
 reports  a  higher  than  96  percent  flow-  through  rate  for  orders  submitted  via  EDI.  489  In  other 
 words,  over  96  percent  of  EDI  orders  that  are  designed  to  flow  through,  and  that  are  not  rejected, 
 are  processed  through  the  ordering  systems  without  manual  intervention.  Even  when  considering 
 all  orders  (and  not  just  orders  designed  to  flow-  through),  SWBT  demonstrates  that  a  high 
 percentage  of  its  orders  are  processed  without  manual  intervention.  490 


 181.  We  disagree  with  commenters  who  argue  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect 


 485  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4034,  para.  162  (  Flow-  through  rates  .  .  .  are  not  so  much 
 an  end  in  themselves,  but  rather  are  a  tool  used  to  indicate  a  wide  range  of  possible  deficiencies  in  a  BOCs 
 OSS.). 


 486  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4034-  4035,  paras.  161-  163. 


 487  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4044,  para.  175;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13 
 FCC  Rcd  at  20673-  76,  paras.  111-  115. 
 488  We  note  that  SWBTs  flow-  through  rate  reflects  only  those  orders  that  are  not  rejected,  and  thus  does  not  alter 


 our  findings  regarding  reject  rates. 
 489  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  13  (  Order  Process  %  Flow  Through)  at  271- 


 No.  13.  We  place  greater  weight  on  the  flow-  through  capability  of  SWBTs  EDI  interface  than  we  do  on  the  less-sophisticated 
 LEX  graphical  user  interface  because  EDI  is  an  industry-  standard  application-  to-  application 
 interface,  and  thus  disagree  with  AT&  Ts  suggestion  that  SWBT  should  not  be  allowed  to  rely  primarily  on  EDI  to 
 demonstrate  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  OSS  ordering  functions.  See  AT&  T  Texas  II 
 Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  108-  109.  In  any  case,  we  note  that  SWBTs  flow  through  rate  for  orders 
 submitted  via  the  LEX  interface  has  ranged  from  87.  3  to  92.  5  percent  for  December  1999  to  April  2000,  and 
 achieved  a  better-  than-  parity  rate  for  the  past  two  months.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement 
 No.  13  (  Order  Process  %  Flow  Through)  at  271-  No.  13. 


 490  Several  commenters  suggest  that  SWBTs  Measurement  13  overstates  its  actual  flow-  through  rate  and  that  the 


 measurement  should  be  viewed  with  respect  to  all  orders  and  not  just  orders  designed  to  flow  through.  See  AT&  T 
 Texas  1  Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  154-  155.  Even  under  such  a  total  flow-  through  approach,  however,  we 
 note  that  SWBTs  OSS  flow  through  a  high  percentage  of  orders  submitted  via  EDI:  for  the  months  of  August  to 
 December  1999,  for  example,  an  average  of  84  to  97  percent  of  all  service  orders  submitted  via  EDI  were  able  to 
 flow  through  the  ordering  systems  without  manual  intervention.  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.,  Att.  X;  SWBT  Texas  I 
 Ham  Reply  Aff.,  Att.  F. 
92
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 93 
 to  flowing  through  UNE  loop  orders  is  inadequate.  491  We  recognize  that  additional  data 
 submitted  by  SWBT  confirms  that  UNE  loop  orders  flow  through  at  a  considerably  lower  rate 
 than  UNE-  P  or  resale  orders  submitted  via  EDI.  As  noted  above,  however,  the  Texas 
 Commission  established  a  method  of  comparing  retail  and  competing  LEC  flow-  through  rates  in 
 the  aggregate  (combining  all  resale  and  UNE  orders),  and  SWBT  has  satisfied  this  level  of 
 performance.  While  we  may  conclude  that  failure  to  provide  parity  or  benchmark  performance 
 for  a  single  sub-  category  of  service  constitutes  a  failure  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 OSS,  we  do  not  find  this  to  be  the  case  here  with  respect  to  flow-  through.  As  we  have  stated  in 
 prior  section  271  orders,  a  BOCs  ability  to  return  timely  order  confirmation  and  rejection  notices, 
 accurately  process  manually  handled  orders,  and  scale  its  systems  is  more  relevant  and  probative 
 for  analyzing  the  BOCs  ability  to  provide  access  to  its  ordering  functions  than  a  simple  flow-through 
 analysis.  Indeed,  as  explained  in  this  section,  the  record  before  us  supports  a  finding  that 
 SWBT  is  able  to  perform  these  key  ordering  functions  in  a  timely  and  accurate  manner.  We  thus 
 find  that  the  relatively  low  flow-  through  rate  for  UNE-  loop  orders  is  not,  in  itself,  an  indication 
 that  competing  carriers  are  denied  nondiscriminatory  access  to  SWBTs  ordering  systems  and 
 processes. 


 182.  Several  competing  LECs  assert  that  manual  order  processing  by  SWBT,  including 
 the  manual  creation  of  service  orders,  can  inject  errors  into  the  process  which  causes  delays  and 
 may  lead  to  provisioning  errors.  492  Although  SWBT  does  not  provide  performance  data  regarding 
 the  accuracy  of  orders  created  and  handled  manually  by  SWBT,  493  evidence  in  the  record  indicates 
 that  SWBT  has  procedures  in  place  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  these  manual  processes.  494  In 
 addition,  Telcordia  concluded  that  SWBT  employs  a  comprehensive  approach  for  the  detection 
 and  analysis  of  manual  data  entry  errors,  with  a  goal  of  reducing  manual  data  entry  errors.  495  We 
 also  note  that  the  performance  data  concerning  trouble  reports  within  10  or  30  days  of  installation 
 suggests  that  SWBT  is  provisioning  orders  accurately.  496  Thus,  while  some  commenters  allege 
 generally  that  orders  are  provisioned  inaccurately,  the  evidence  does  not  support  a  conclusion  that 
 such  inaccuracies  are  attributable  to  processing  errors  by  SWBT  personnel.  Moreover,  we 


 491  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  67. 
 492  See  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Tidwell/  Kettler  Aff.  at  para.  22. 
 493  SWBTs  PM  12  (  Mechanized  Provisioning  Accuracy)  excludes  mechanized  orders  that  were  entered 
 manually  into  SWBTs  ordering  systems,  and  no  other  measurement  picks  up  these  orders  that  did  not  flow 
 through.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application,  Appendix  C,  Tab  1815  at  54.  In  any  case,  we  note  that  SWBTs 
 performance  regarding  fully-  mechanized  orders  has  generally  been  better  than  parity.  See  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  12  (  Mechanized  Provisioning  Accuracy)  at  271-  No.  12.  While  SWBTs 
 performance  slipped  noticeably  in  February  and  March  2000,  SWBT  has  provided  better  than  parity  performance 
 on  this  metric  for  all  other  months  since  August  1999,  and  achieved  99  percent  accuracy  in  April  2000.  Id. 


 494  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  18-  19  (explaining  internal  processes  that  monitor  individual 


 employees  processing  errors). 
 495  Telcordia  Final  Report,  Sec.  4.5.4.5. 


 496  See  section  V.  B.  1.  g.,  infra. 
93
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 94 
 recognize  that  SWBT  demonstrates  a  high  overall  flow-  through  rate,  which  necessarily  means  that 
 relatively  few  mechanically-  submitted  orders  will  fall  out  for  manual  processing.  Where  an 
 applicant  is  unable  to  demonstrate  a  high  flow-  through  rate,  and  thus  manual  processing  of 
 mechanized  orders  is  more  common,  we  may  require  more  extensive  data  with  respect  to  this 
 issue. 


 183.  Finally,  we  disagree  with  commenters  contentions  that,  notwithstanding  the 
 relatively  high  flow-  through  rates  and  low  overall  level  of  manual  processing,  SWBTs  OSS  will 
 be  unable  to  accommodate  reasonably  foreseeable  increases  in  commercial  order  volumes.  We 
 note  that  Telcordia  tested  the  capacity  of  SWBTs  OSS  systems  in  July  1999  and  determined  that 
 SWBT  could  handle  projected  first  quarter  2000  volumes.  497  This  conclusion  is  generally 
 supported  by  SWBTs  performance  data,  which  indicates  that  SWBT  has  maintained  on-  time 
 performance  for  key  functions  notwithstanding  steadily-  increasing  daily  order  volumes.  498  We 
 recognize,  as  AT&  T  points  out,  that  SWBT  employed  a  policy  in  January  and  February  2000  of 
 manually  processing  only  500  of  AT&  Ts  orders  per  hour.  499  We  reject  AT&  Ts  assertion, 
 however,  that  this  policy  indicates  that  SWBT  is  unable  to  handle  reasonably  foreseeable 
 commercial  order  volumes.  Indeed,  SWBT  explains  that  it  instituted  this  policy  in  direct  response 
 to  actions  taken  by  AT&  T.  Specifically,  for  several  days  in  January  and  February  2000,  AT&  T 
 altered  its  normal  practice  of  submitting  orders  on  a  real  time  basis,  and  instead  saved  its  orders 
 and  submitted  them  all  at  once    thus  sending  more  than  ten  times  its  order  volume  in  a  single 
 hour.  500  SWBT  states  that,  although  AT&  Ts  practice  did  not  cause  its  systems  to  fail,  its  ability 
 to  process  orders  efficient[  ly]  was  impeded.  501  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  indicating  that 
 SWBTs  policy  has  impeded  any  carriers  ability  to  compete.  Moreover,  we  note  that  AT&  T  no 
 longer  uses  the  ordering  practice  that  triggered  SWBTs  policy.  502  We  thus  find  that  SWBTs 
 policy  for  processing  AT&  Ts  orders,  under  these  circumstances  and  in  light  of  these  findings, 
 was  a  reasonable  method  of  ensuring  that  its  ability  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  all 


 497  Telcordia  concluded  that  SWBTs  major  OSS  systems  had  the  capacity  at  the  time  of  the  test  to  process 
 projected  first  quarter  2000  volumes,  or  220,000  orders  per  month.  Telcordia  Final  Report  at  105-  131.  As  part  of 
 this  test,  Telcordia  also  concluded  that  SWBTs  systems  could  handle  a  peak  volume  of  2,000  orders  per  hour. 
 Telcordia  Final  Report  at  130. 


 498  See  generally,  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  13  (  Flow  Through)  at  271-  No.  13 


 (indicating  that  competing  LEC  orders  submitted  via  EDI  and  LEX  more  than  doubled  between  January  and  April 
 2000);  see  also,  e.  g.,  id.  at  271-  No.  5c  and  5d  (timely  order  confirmation  notices),  271-  No.  10.1,  11.1  (improving 
 performance  for  returning  manual  reject  notices). 


 499  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  paras.  146-  151;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply 


 Decl.  at  paras.  52-  53.  SWBT  explains  that  it  no  longer  applies  this  limitation  to  AT&  Ts  orders.  See  SWBT 
 Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  94. 


 500  According  to  AT&  T,  it  decided  to  submit  all  of  its  orders  in  once-  or  twice-  daily  batches  to  allow  for  a  final 


 internal  due  date  check  point  that  ensure[  s]  that  its  outbound  EDI  files  contained  valid  due  dates.  AT&  T 
 Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  53  and  Att.  25;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  121. 


 501  Id.  at  paras.  117-  118. 


 502  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  93-  94. 
94
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 95 
 competing  carriers  is  not  impaired,  and  is  not  a  basis  for  finding  that  SWBTs  OSS  is  not  scalable. 
 (d)  Jeopardy  Notices 
 184.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  jeopardy  notices  (i.  e.,  notice  that  a  service 
 installation  due  date  will  be  missed)  to  competing  carriers  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  SWBT 
 provides  two  types  of  jeopardy  notifications  to  competing  carriers.  First,  SWBT  provides 
 mechanized  jeopardy  notifications  to  competing  carriers  via  LEX  or  EDI  if  it  determines,  after  a 
 service  appointment  is  scheduled,  that  the  necessary  facilities  are  unavailable.  503  SWBT  explains 
 that  this  no  facilities  available  jeopardy  notice  is  the  only  type  of  jeopardy  notification  it 
 provides  within  its  retail  operations.  SWBT  provides  a  second  type  of  electronic  jeopardy 
 notification  in  certain  instances  other  than  no  facilities  available,  and  sends  these  notices  over  a 
 web-  based  GUI.  SWBT  explains  that  these  GUI  jeopardies  include,  for  example,  instances  where 
 a  dispatch  technician  is  unable  to  access  an  end  users  property  or  discovers  that  additional 
 driving  instructions  are  needed.  504  SWBT  states  that  there  is  no  retail  equivalent  for  this  second 
 type  of  jeopardy  notice. 


 185.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  no  facilities  jeopardy  notices  to  competing 
 carriers  and  to  its  own  operations  in  the  same  time  and  manner.  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 utilizes  the  same  databases  and  returns  the  notices  real-  time  using  the  electronic  ordering  interface 
 used  to  submit  the  order.  505  Commenters  do  not  provide  any  indication  that  these  no  facilities 
 electronic  jeopardy  notices  are  not  created  and  returned  promptly  after  SWBT  determines  that 
 facilities  are  unavailable.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBTs  process  for  returning  other  jeopardy 
 notifications  via  GUI  provides  efficient  carriers  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  506  We 
 disagree  with  carriers  who  suggest  that  flaws  in  SWBTs  jeopardy  process    specifically,  that  too 
 many  orders  receive  jeopardies  and  that  jeopardies  are  sent  too  late  in  the  ordering  process    deny 
 carriers  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  507  First,  the  record  does  not  support  carriers 
 claims  that  SWBT  returns  an  unreasonably  high  number  of  jeopardy  notifications.  SWBT  has 
 submitted  data  indicating  that  less  than  five  percent  of  all  carriers  orders  result  in  the  issuance  of 
 jeopardy  notices.  508  While  we  recognize  that  jeopardies  may  lead  to  delays  in  the  ordering 
 process,  the  record  does  not  indicate  that  competing  carriers  customers  feel  the  impact  of  such 


 503  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  151. 
 504  See  id.  at  para.  152;  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  22  and  Att.  B. 
 505  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  151. 
 506  SWBT  explains  that  its  process  for  returning  these  GUI  jeopardies  was  introduced  last  year,  and  has  been 
 amended  through  the  change  management  process.  See  id.  at  para.  152;  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Reply  Aff.  at 
 para.  22.  As  noted  above,  there  is  no  analogous  retail  process  for  returning  these  GUI  jeopardy  notices. 


 507  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  112;  WorldCom  Texas  II  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Decl.  at 


 paras.  58-  65. 
 508  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  74  and  Att.  N  (showing  that  the  number  of  jeopardies 


 as  a  percentage  of  orders  (LSRs)  ranged  from  3.2  to  5.2  percent  in  January  to  March  2000). 
95
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 96 
 delays  in  Texas.  Moreover,  SWBT  is  held  accountable,  through  its  performance  measurements, 
 for  instances  where  SWBT-  caused  jeopardy  situations  result  in  missed  due  dates.  As  discussed 
 below  in  section  V,  SWBT  misses  fewer  due  dates  for  competing  LECs  than  it  does  for  its  own 
 retail  operations,  across  almost  all  categories  of  service. 


 186.  Carriers  also  contend  that  SWBTs  GUI  jeopardies  include  errors  that  should 
 have  been  identified  earlier  in  the  ordering  process,  before  an  order  confirmation  notice  is 
 returned  and  before  a  due  date  is  established.  509  We  note,  however,  that  many  of  the  GUI 
 jeopardies  reflect  circumstances  that  could  only  be  detected  at  the  provisioning  stage    such  as  a 
 situation  where  a  technician  is  unable  to  access  the  end  users  premises,  or  requires  additional 
 driving  directions.  Moreover,  we  agree  with  SWBT  that  carriers  may  seek  process  changes  to 
 implement  additional  up-  front  edits,  where  possible,  to  reduce  the  number  of  jeopardies  received 
 by  competing  LECs.  510 


 (e)  Completion  Notices 
 187.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  order  completion  notification  in  a 
 nondiscriminatory  manner.  511  In  this  case,  SWBT  has  not  indicated  whether  it  provides 
 completion  notification  information  to  its  retail  operations.  The  Texas  Commission  did  not 
 identify  a  retail  analogue,  but  instead  established  a  benchmark  against  which  SWBTs 
 performance  in  this  area  is  to  be  compared.  512  We  accept  the  Texas  Commissions  approach  and 
 will  assess  whether  SWBT  provides  completion  notification  sufficient  to  allow  an  efficient 
 competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  513  We  have  recognized  that  such  a  notice  can 
 play  the  crucial  role  of  informing  the  carrier  that  it  can  begin  billing  the  customer  for  service  and 
 addressing  any  maintenance  problems  experienced  by  the  customer.  514  The  timely  provision  of 


 509  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  112;  WorldCom  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply 
 Decl.  at  para.  60. 
 510  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  76-  78. 


 511  An  order  completion  notice  informs  a  competing  carrier  that  SWBT  has  completed  the  installation  of  the 
 service  requested  by  the  particular  order.  See  OSS  Appendix  for  additional  details  of  the  SOC  process. 
 512  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  40  (benchmark  for  PM  7);  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.,  Att.  A  at 


 A-  16  (benchmark  for  PM  7.1). 
 513  In  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Section  271  proceeding,  Bell  Atlantic  represented  that  it  did  not  provide 


 completion  notification  to  its  own  retail  representatives,  and  the  New  York  Commission  concluded  that  order 
 completion  notification  lacks  a  retail  analogue.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4052,  para.  187, 
 n.  591.  Accordingly,  rather  than  assess  whether  Bell  Atlantic  provided  order  completion  notification  in 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  provides  such  information  to  its  retail  operations,  we  assessed 
 whether  Bell  Atlantic  provided  completion  notification  sufficient  to  allow  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  See  id.  To  avoid  uncertainty  on  this  issue  in  future  applications,  we  strongly  urge 
 applicants  to  indicate  whether  they  provide  completion  information  to  their  retail  operations. 


 514  See  id.  at  4052,  para.  187  (  Until  the  competing  carrier  receives  a  completion  notice,  the  carrier  does  not  know 


 that  the  customer  is  in  service,  and  cannot  begin  billing  the  customer  for  service  or  addressing  any  maintenance 
 problems  experienced  by  the  customer.). 
96
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 97 
 such  notices  thus  can  directly  impact  a  competing  carriers  ability  to  serve  its  customers  at  the 
 same  level  of  quality  that  SWBT  provides  to  its  retail  customers. 


 188.  We  base  our  finding  that  SWBT  provides  sufficient  order  completion  notification 
 on  SWBTs  provision  on  Service  Order  Completion  notices  to  competing  carriers.  The  Texas 
 Commission  established  a  performance  standard  requiring  SWBT  to  return  97  percent  of 
 completion  notices  within  one  day  of  work  completion.  515  SWBT  has  satisfied  this  standard  for 
 each  of  the  last  three  months  for  orders  submitted  via  EDI.  516  SWBTs  performance  for  LEX 
 orders  has  not  met  the  Texas  Commissions  standard  for  these  months,  but  has  been  improving 
 and  was  only  0.2  percent  below  the  benchmark  in  April  2000.  517  Moreover,  considering  EDI  and 
 LEX  orders  together,  SWBTs  performance  exceeded  97  percent  in  April  2000.  Based  on  the 
 level  of  overall  performance,  and  the  steady  improvement  in  LEX  performance,  we  agree  with  the 
 Texas  Commission  that  SWBTs  provision  of  completion  notices  allows  competing  LECs  a 
 reasonable  opportunity  to  compete.  518  Finally,  although  AT&  T  argues  that  SWBTs  performance 
 with  respect  to  AT&  Ts  UNE  loop  orders  is  lower  than  these  aggregate  figures,  we  do  not  find 
 that  this  demonstrates  a  systemic  problem  with  SWBTs  OSS  or  that  competing  carriers  are 
 denied  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  519 


 (f)  Other  Issues 
 189.  LIDB.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  enables  carriers  to  update  customer  information 
 contained  in  SWBTs  Line  Information  Database  (  LIDB)  in  substantially  the  same  time  and 
 manner  as  its  retail  operations.  LIDB  contains  end  user  information  that  is  used  to  enable  calling 
 card  and  collect  calls,  information  used  for  branding  operator  and  directory  assistance  calls,  and 
 also  customers  interLATA  and  intraLATA  PIC.  520  SWBT  provides  carriers  two  ways  to  update 
 LIDB  records:  first,  a  carrier  may  use  the  initial  LSR  requesting  service  to  trigger  a  LIDB 
 update;  and  second,  where  a  carrier  must  update  LIDB  records  for  an  existing  customer,  updates 


 515  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.,  Att.  2  at  16. 
 516  For  the  months  of  December  1999  through  April  2000,  SWBT  returned  97.1,  98.2,  98.6,  97.2  and  98.7  percent 
 of  SOCs  within  one  day  of  work  completion  for  orders  submitted  via  EDI.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  7.1  (  Percent  Mechanized  Completions  Returned  Within  1  Day  of  Work  Completion)  at  271- 
 No.  7.1. 


 517  For  the  months  of  December  1999  through  April  2000,  SWBT  returned  87.5,  91.1,  92.9,  95.5  and  96.8  percent 


 of  SOCs  within  one  day  of  work  completion  for  orders  submitted  via  LEX.  Id. 
 518  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Reply  at  25-  26. 


 519  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  118  (indicating  that  SWBT  returned  completion 
 notices  within  one  day  of  completing  its  UNE  loop  orders  only  80  percent  of  the  time  in  January  and  February 
 2000). 


 520  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Rogers  Aff.  at  para.  59. 
97
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 98 
 may  be  batched  and  submitted  to  SWBT  via  one  of  two  electronic  interfaces.  521 
 190.  WorldCom  asserts  that  SWBTs  LSR  process  for  updating  carriers  LIDB 
 records  is  flawed.  Specifically,  based  on  its  initial  experience  in  sending  live  orders,  WorldCom 
 reports  that  SWBT  consistently  fails  to  complete  the  LIDB  updates  in  a  prompt  and  accurate 
 manner.  522  While  we  share  the  concern  expressed  by  the  Department  of  Justice  on  this  issue,  523  we 
 conclude  that  the  record  does  not  support  a  finding  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide  a  mechanism  for 
 updating  LIDB  records  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  As  an  initial  matter,  we  note  that  there  is 
 no  indication  that  these  particular  LIDB  updating  errors  actually  harmed  WorldComs  customers 
 in  any  way.  524  Furthermore,  SWBT  explains  that  the  delays  and  incorrect  updates  identified  by 
 WorldCom  were  caused  by  a  particular  type  of  manual  error  committed  by  SWBT  personnel.  525 
 SWBT  states  that  it  has  resolved  this  problem,  having  retrained  its  LSC  representatives  and 
 implemented  other  safeguards  to  protect  against  a  recurrence  of  these  mistakes.  526  We  rely  on 
 SWBTs  assertion  that  it  has  correctly  identified  the  root  cause  of  this  problem,  and  thus  expect 
 that  the  changes  SWBT  has  implemented  remedy  the  problem  and  essentially  eliminate  errors  in 


 521  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Rogers  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  20.  SWBT  implemented  the  process  allowing  competing 
 carriers  to  update  an  end  users  LIDB  records  through  the  initial  order  establishing  service  on  January  15,  2000. 
 Id.  We  conclude  that  this  new  process  adequately  addresses  carriers  assertions  that  SWBTs  system  used  to  be 
 discriminatory,  because  carriers  may  now  update  new  customers  records  promptly  at  the  time  of  the  order,  and  no 
 longer  need  to  submit  the  same  customer  information  twice  (once  on  the  LSR  and  again  to  update  LIDB).  See 
 WorldCom  Texas  I  McMillon/  Sivori  Decl.  at  para.  83;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  1  Tidwell/  Kettler  Decl.  at  paras.  86-89. 


 522  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Decl.  at  paras.  66-  73  (reporting  that  it  had  found  LIDB 
 processing  errors  for  19  orders,  out  of  a  sample  of  60);  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply 
 Decl.  at  paras.  26-  40  (reporting  that  it  had  found  LIDB  processing  errors  for  157  orders,  out  of  an  additional 
 sample  of  360).  Most  of  the  errors  identified  by  WorldCom  were  instances  where  the  customers  LIDB  records 
 contained  the  wrong  intraLATA  and/  or  long  distance  carrier  (  PIC).  In  some  cases,  WorldCom  was  denied 
 access  to  its  customers  LIDB  records,  indicating  that  SWBT  had  failed  to  promptly  transfer  ownership  of  the 
 records.  Id. 


 523  See  Department  of  Justice  June  13  Ex  Parte  at  18-  19. 


 524  SWBT  indicates  that  end  users  are  not  affected  by  this  particular  LIDB  problem    delays  in  updating  PIC 
 information,  which  lists  the  customers  long  distance  carrier.  Specifically,  SWBT  explains  that  the  PIC  listed  in 
 LIDB  has  no  impact  on  an  end  users  service,  and  WorldCom  has  not  disputed  this  contention  or  otherwise  alleged 
 that  their  customers  have  been  impacted  by  incorrect  PIC  updates.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Rogers  Reply  Aff.  at 
 paras.  7-  8;  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  35-  38.  WorldCom  has  also 
 suggested  that  errors  in  updating  another  LIDB  field  (the  Account  Owner  field)  could  cause  their  customers  to 
 receive  incorrect  branding  on  directory  assistance  and  operator  calls,  but  alleges  only  three  instances  in  which  this 
 actually  has  occurred.  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  para.  72.  We  agree  that  incorrect  branding  can  harm 
 competing  carriers,  but  the  record  does  not  reflect  that  this  problem  actually  has  affected  competition  in  Texas. 


 525  Specifically,  SWBT  explains  that  certain  service  representatives  contrary  to  [SWBTs]  processes  failed  to  type 


 the  Toll  File  Guide  portion  (referred  to  as  the  N  order)  of  the  competitive  LECs  request  in  a  timely  manner.  As 
 a  result,  the  portions  of  the  LIDB  record  which  are  updated  based  on  the  Toll  File  Guide  order  also  were  not 
 updated  in  a  timely  manner.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Aff.  at  para.  88. 


 526  See  id.  at  paras.  87-  92. 
98
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 99 
 processing  LIDB  updates.  If  a  carrier  were  to  demonstrate,  in  the  future,  that  SWBT  continues 
 to  cause  LIDB  records  to  be  updated  incorrectly  or  late,  and  that 
99
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 100 
 these  problems  are  competitively  harmful,  SWBT  may  be  subject  to  enforcement  action  under 
 section  271(  d)(  6).  527 


 191.  Posting  Process.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBT  posts  competing  LECs  orders 
 to  its  billing  systems  in  a  manner  that  gives  efficient  competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to 
 compete.  This  posting  process  involves  establishing  the  end  users  new  billing  relationship  and, 
 for  orders  involving  the  transfer  of  an  existing  customer  from  SWBT  to  a  competing  carrier,  it 
 also  involves  terminating  the  existing  billing  relationship.  The  Texas  Commission  has  established 
 a  performance  metric  to  measure  the  percentage  of  competing  carriers  orders  posted  to  SWBTs 
 billing  systems  prior  to  the  competing  carriers  next  bill  period,  and  compares  SWBTs 
 performance  in  this  area  for  competing  carriers  to  its  performance  in  posting  orders  on  the  retail 
 side.  528  According  to  the  performance  data,  SWBT  has  consistently  posted  over  98  percent  of 
 carriers  orders  to  its  billing  systems  in  time  for  the  next  billing  cycle.  529  While  commenters  note 
 that  SWBTs  performance  was  slightly  out-  of-  parity  in  the  first  two  months  of  this  year,  they  do 
 not  establish  that  the  slight  difference  reflected  in  the  performance  data  is  competitively  significant 
 or  reflects  a  systemic  problem  in  SWBTs  OSS.  530  We  thus  conclude  that  SWBT  provides 
 nondiscriminatory  performance  in  this  area. 


 192.  Several  carriers  nonetheless  complain  that  double  billing  has  occurred  in  isolated 
 instances,  and  that  they  are  harmed  by  such  billing  mistakes.  531  The  Commission  previously  has 


 527  Finally,  we  disagree  with  WorldComs  contention  that  the  process  for  updating  existing  customers  LIDB 
 records  is  discriminatory.  See  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  4,  14-  17;  WorldCom  Texas  I 
 McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  30-  32;  see  also  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at 
 n.  6.  WorldCom  has  not  demonstrated  that  the  GUI  process  offered  by  SWBT  is  unreasonably  burdensome  or  per 
 se  discriminatory,  and  we  conclude  that  this  process  provides  carriers  with  access  to  LIDB  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner  as  SWBT  provides  for  itself. 


 528  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.  at  521  and  Att.  A  at  A-  28.  While  this  performance  data  provides  some 


 indication  that  SWBTs  systems  post  completed  orders  to  the  billing  systems  in  a  timely  manner,  it  does  not  reflect 
 how  long  (i.  e.,  how  many  days)  it  takes  most  orders  to  post.  We  note  with  approval  that  SWBT  has  committed  to 
 implement  a  performance  measurement  that  tracks  the  average  time  it  takes  to  post  all  orders.  Such  a  measure  was 
 implemented  recently  by  Bell  Atlantic  in  New  York.  See  Bell  Atlantic-  New  York  Authorization  Under  Section  271 
 of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  New  York,  File  No.  EB-  00-  IH-0085, 
 Acct.  No.  X32080004,  Order  and  Consent  Decree. 


 529  SWBTs  data  for  the  last  five  months  indicate  that  it  posts  an  average  of  98.  15  percent  of  competing  carriers 


 orders  within  the  correct  billing  period,  compared  to  98.  95  percent  of  its  own  orders.  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measure  No.  17  (  Billing  Completeness)  at  271-  No.  15,  16,  17. 


 530  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  74-  77. 


 531  AT&  T  explains  that  it  reviewed  a  sample  of  six  orders  that  had  posted  late  in  August  1999  and  found  that,  for 
 all  six,  the  customer  received  a  SWBT  bill  after  the  order  completion  date.  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Decl.  at 
 paras.  193-  196.  It  is  unclear  whether  such  situations  were  examples  of  double  billing  for  the  same  time  period 
 or,  as  suggested  by  SWBT,  were  simply  cases  involving  a  final  SWBT  bill  covering  a  prior  period  before  the  end 
 user  switched  carriers.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Locus  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  10-  13.  In  the  end,  the  evidence  presented  in 
 the  record  does  not  indicate  that  SWBTs  process  of  updating  its  billing  systems,  or  its  overall  performance  in  this 
 area,  deprives  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 
100
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 101 
 found  that  double  billing,  which  results  from  failure  to  terminate  promptly  the  BOCs  existing 
 billing  relationship,  is  compelling  evidence  that  a  BOCs  OSS  for  ordering  and  provisioning  of 
 wholesale  services  is  not  operationally  ready.  532  SWBT  has  established  procedures  for 
 automatically  updating  its  billing  systems    and  manual  processes  to  attend  to  orders  that  do  not 
 update  properly.  533  The  Texas  Commission  concluded  that  SWBT  has  adequate  billing  processes 
 in  place  which  minimize  the  likelihood  of  double  billing.  534  While  we  do  not  discount  the  potential 
 harm  of  double-  billing  on  affected  customers,  there  is  insufficient  evidence  of  double  billing  in  this 
 instance  to  indicate  that  SWBTs  systems  process  for  updating  its  billing  records  is  discriminatory. 


 193.  Loss  Notification  Reports.  AT&  T  also  reports  that  it  recently  has  discovered 
 instances  in  which  SWBT  fails  to  provide  timely  loss  notification  reports,  which  signal 
 competing  carriers  that  a  customer  has  migrated  to  another  LEC.  535  AT&  T  explains  that  this 
 failure  caused  it  improperly  to  continue  billing  99  customers  in  April  2000  who  apparently  had 
 switched  to  back  to  SWBT  or  to  another  LEC.  We  note  that  AT&  T  is  entitled  to  receive  these 
 loss  notification  reports  pursuant  to  its  interconnection  agreement  with  SWBT,  which  sets  out  in 
 detail  the  procedure  by  which  AT&  T  is  able  to  request  these  reports.  536  While  we  recognize  that 
 failure  to  provide  loss  notification  reports  may  impact  customers  and  impede  a  competitive 
 carriers  ability  to  compete,  we  also  recognize  that  AT&  T  does  not  indicate  whether  it  has 
 registered  to  receive  these  reports  as  necessary  under  the  interconnection  agreement.  There  is 
 thus  no  basis  for  finding  that  SWBT  has  failed  to  follow  the  loss  notification  procedures  contained 
 in  its  interconnection  agreement,  or  is  otherwise  at  fault  for  these  missing  loss  notification  reports. 
 Also,  because  no  other  carrier  suggests  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide  these  notices,  there  is  nothing 
 to  suggest  that  this  is  a  systemic  problem.  We  reject  AT&  Ts  claim,  then,  that  these 
 circumstances  warrant  a  finding  that  SWBT  has  failed  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its 
 OSS. 


 g.  Provisioning 
 194.  In  this  section  we  conclude  that,  overall,  SWBT  provisions  competing  LEC 
 customers  orders  for  resale  and  UNE-  P  services  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it 
 provisions  orders  for  its  own  retail  customers.  537  Consistent  with  our  approach  in  prior  section 


 532  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20618,  para.  203. 
 533  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Locus  Reply  Aff..  at  paras.  10-  13;  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  55  (describing  the 
 specialized  Error  Response  Team  which  focuses  solely  on  clearing  errors  on  orders  that  have  been  completed  but 
 fail  to  post  to  billing.  SWBT  explains  that  this  team  prioritizes  its  work  by  age  of  the  error  and  bill  dates.). 


 534  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  43. 


 535  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  78-  82. 
 536  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application,  App.  B,  Tab  60  (SWBT/  AT&  T  Interconnection  Agreement)  at  Att.  5,  sec.  7 
 (loss  notification  reports  associated  with  resale  services)  and  Att.  10,  sec.  7  (loss  notification  reports  associated 
 with  UNEs). 


 537  We  discuss  loop  provisioning  below.  See  section  V.  D.,  infra. 
101
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 102 
 271  orders,  we  examine  SWBTs  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).  538  We  note, 
 however,  that  SWBTs  electronic  processes  for  provisioning  UNE-  P  orders  may  falter  when 
 handling  orders  that  contain  address-  related  discrepancies  that  are  not  resolved  by  SWBTs  front-end 
 edits.  SWBT  concedes  that  mismatched  addresses  can  disrupt  the  normal  order  process  flow, 
 but  indicates  that  its  process  for  manually  catching  and  correcting  such  errors  are  adequate  to 
 minimize  the  occurrence  of  service  outage.  We  note  that  customer-  affecting  problems  arising 
 from  these  address  discrepancies  appear  to  be  rare,  and  conclude  that  these  process  failures, 
 standing  alone,  do  not  warrant  a  finding  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 its  provisioning  functions. 


 195.  Provisioning  Processes.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that 
 SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  provisioning  processes. 
 Specifically,  we  find  that  SWBT  provides  competitive  LECs  and  its  retail  operations  with 
 equivalent  access  to  information  on  available  service  installation  dates.  539  For  orders  that  do  not 
 require  a  dispatch  technician  to  complete,  SWBT  asserts  that  it  makes  available  the  same  set  of 
 standard  provisioning  intervals  for  competing  carriers  and  its  retail  representatives.  540  Dispatch 
 orders,  on  the  other  hand,  are  routed  to  SWBTs  provisioning  systems  and  assigned  a  technician 
 in  the  same  manner  as  SWBT  retail  orders  requiring  a  technician.  541  We  also  find  that  SWBTs 
 processes  provide  requesting  carriers  with  the  same  level  of  confidence  as  its  own  retail 
 operations  that  the  due  date  promised  to  customers  will  be  the  actual  due  date  that  the  BOC 
 assigns  to  the  order  when  it  is  processed.  542 


 196.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provisions  orders  for  resale  POTS  and  specials  to 
 competitors  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  it  provisions  equivalent  orders  to  itself. 
 Specifically,  SWBT  provides  performance  data  showing  that  it  provisions  resale  service  at  parity 
 with  its  own  retail  operations.  First,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  misses  fewer  competitive  LEC 
 customer  appointments  for  installing  resale  POTS  and  special  services,  and  provisions  such 
 service  within  equivalent  average  intervals,  compared  to  appointments  and  service  for  its  own 
 retail  customers.  543  Second,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  the  quality  of  installations  provided  to 


 538  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4058,  para.  196. 
 539  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  187. 
 540  See  id. 
 541  See  id. 
 542  See  id.  at  para.  189  (noting  that  SWBT  changed  the  Customer  Desired  Due  Date  field  on  the  FOC  on  only 
 3.67%  of  orders  in  October  1999). 
 543  For  timely  provisioning  of  Resale  POTS  orders,  we  consider  the  following  measurements:  SWBT 


 Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos.  27-  01  to  27-  04  (  Mean  Installation  Interval)  (POTS    Resale)  at 
 271-  No.  27a;  id.,  Measure  Nos.  29-  01  to  29-  04  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  (POTS    Resale)  at 
 271-  No.  29-  a.  For  timely  provisioning  of  Resale  Specials  orders,  we  considered  primarily  the  following 
 measurements:  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos.  43-  01  to  43-  08  (  Average  Installation 
 (continued.) 
102
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 103 
 competitors  customers  is  very  close  to  parity,  or  above  parity,  compared  to  similar  work 
 performed  for  its  own  retail  customers.  544  We  further  note  that  the  Texas  Commission  concludes, 
 based  on  this  performance  data,  that  SWBT  provisions  resale  services  in  a  nondiscriminatory 
 manner.  545 


 197.  Based  on  a  review  of  corresponding  performance  measurements  for  UNE-  P 
 service,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  also  provisions  competing  LEC  orders  for  these  network 
 combinations  in  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  provisions  equivalent  retail  services.  Specifically, 
 the  record  evidence  demonstrates  that  SWBT  is  meeting  the  service  installation  dates  for 
 competitive  LEC  customers  at  higher  rates  than  for  its  own  retail  customers,  and  completes  these 
 competing  LECs  orders,  on  average,  in  less  time  than  it  completes  analogous  retail  orders.  546 
 SWBTs  performance  data  also  indicates  that  it  provisions  UNE-  P  orders  at  generally  the  same 
 level  of  quality  (i.  e.,  with  a  comparably  low  level  of  troubles  reported  within  the  first  ten  days 
 after  installation)  as  it  provisions  analogous  retail  service.  547  Specifically,  while  SWBT  reported 
 slightly  more  installation-  related  troubles  associated  with  UNE-  P  orders  requiring  no  field  work 
 than  for  analogous  retail  orders  in  February  2000,  it  reported  better  than  parity  performance  for 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Interval)  (Specials    Resale)  at  271-  No.  43a-  b;  id.,  Measure  Nos.  45-  01  to  45-  08  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed 
 Due  Dates)  (Specials    Resale)  at  271-  No.  45a-  b.  These  data  indicate  that  SWBT  satisfied  the  parity  standards  in 
 the  several  sub-  categories  (residential  and  business  orders,  POTS  and  specials  orders,  orders  requiring  field  work 
 and  those  requiring  no  field  work)  for  each  of  the  past  five  months  (December  1999    April  2000),  with  only 
 isolated  exceptions.  We  thus  conclude  that  SWBT  provisions  competing  carriers  orders  for  reseale  services, 
 overall,  in  substantially  the  same  time  as  its  provisions  equivalent  retail  services. 


 544  For  provisioning  quality  of  Resale  POTS  orders,  we  look  to  SWBT  performance  data  reflecting  the  number 


 of  trouble  tickets  submitted  within  the  first  ten  days  after  service  is  provisioned.  See  SWBT  Aggregate 
 Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos.  35-  01  to  35-  08  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N  and  T  Orders  within  10  Days 
 and  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  C  Orders  within  10  Days)  (POTS    Resale)  at  271-  No.  35a-  b.  SWBTs 
 performance  on  these  measurements  was  generally  better  than  parity.  For  provisioning  quality  of  Retail  Specials 
 orders,  we  focus  on  the  following  performance  measurements:  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos. 
 46-  01  to  46-  08  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30  Days)  (Specials    Resale)  at  271-  No.  46a-b. 
 SWBTs  performance  was  above  parity  for  each  type  of  resale  specials  service,  with  only  isolated  exceptions. 


 545  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  93-  94. 


 546  SWBTs  Percent  Missed  Due  Dates  performance  metric  demonstrates  that,  for  the  last  five  months,  SWBT 
 has  consistently  met  a  higher  percentage  of  installation  appointments  for  competing  carriers  resale  and  UNE-  P 
 orders  than  it  has  for  analagous  retail  orders.  See  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos.  29-  05  and 
 29-  06  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  at  271-  No.  29b.  SWBTs  performance  data  also  indicates  that 
 it  provisions  competing  LECs  UNE-  P  orders,  on  average,  in  the  same  or  shorter  period  of  time  than  it  does  for  its 
 own  analogous  services.  See  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos.  27-  05  and  27-  06  (  Mean 
 Installation  Interval)  at  271-  No.  27b.  We  recognize  that  these  average  completed  interval  metrics  reflect  only  a 
 portion  of  competing  LEC  orders,  as  they  exclude  orders  for  which  competing  carriers  request  longer-  than-standard 
 completion  intervals.  Combined  with  the  missed  due  dates  metric  described  above,  however,  this 
 measurement  provides  an  additional  indication  that  SWBT  is  provisioning  UNE-  P  and  resale  service  in  a  timely 
 manner,  when  compared  to  its  retail  operations. 


 547  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measure  Nos.  35-  09  to  35-  12  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  Within  10 


 Days)  at  271-  No.  35c. 
103
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 104 
 March  and  April  2000.  548  We  also  note  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to  UNE-  P  orders 
 requiring  field  work  reflects  an  installation-  related  trouble  rate  than  is  very  slightly  higher  than  the 
 analogous  retail  rate.  549  We  conclude  that  this  level  of  disparity  is  minimal,  however,  and  does  not 
 indicate  that  SWBT  fails  to  provision  competing  LEC  orders  in  the  same  time  and  manner  as  its 
 own. 


 198.  Address  Discrepancies  and  Service  Outages.  Evidence  submitted  by  SWBT  and 
 various  commenters  indicates  that  the  normal  order  flow  may  be  disrupted  if  a  UNE-  P  order 
 contains  an  address  discrepancy  that  is  not  detected  during  the  initial  editing  process.  550 
 Specifically,  SWBT  uses  a  three  order  process  under  which  it  splits  a  carriers  LSR  into  three 
 separate  sub-  orders,  each  of  which  performs  different  tasks    such  as  provisioning  and  billing 
 functions    in  SWBTs  back  office  systems.  SWBT  explains  that  it  populates  one  of  the  orders 
 with  the  address  submitted  by  the  competing  LEC,  and  takes  the  address  for  the  remaining  two 
 orders  from  one  of  its  internal  address  databases.  If  these  addresses  are  not  exactly  consistent 
 (and  SWBT  has  explained  scenarios  where  they  may  not  be  consistent),  551  SWBTs  process  for 
 automatically  relating  these  three  service  orders  fails  and  the  three  orders  become  disassociated.  552  SWBT  explains  that  one  of  these  disassociated  orders  will  act  as  a 


 disconnect  order  and  cut  off  the  customers  dial  tone  unless  SWBT  promptly  intervenes  and 
 manually  reunites  the  three  orders.  553  SWBT  does  not  dispute  that  the  potential  exists  for  order 
 disassociation  leading  to  service  outage,  but  explains  that  it  has  implemented  a  manual  process  to 
 monitor  for  disassociated  orders,  which  enables  it  to  manually  re-  associate  orders  and  prevent 
 outages.  554 


 548  See  id.  at  271-  No.  35c. 
 549  Specifically,  for  March  and  April  2000,  4.01  and  5.02  percent  of  UNE-  P  orders  experienced  a  trouble  report 
 within  10  days  of  installation,  compared  to  3.  13  and  3.  68  percent  for  analogous  retail  orders.  See  id. 
 550  See  Appendix  B  (  OSS  Appendix)  for  a  more  detailed  description  of  SWBTs  provisioning  process. 


 551  An  address  mismatch  could  occur  for  two  reasons.  First,  there  could  be  a  problem  with  the  address  submitted 
 by  the  competing  LEC  that  was  not  picked  up  by  SWBTs  up-  front  edits.  Second,  a  mismatch  could  result  from  an 
 inconsistency  between  SWBTs  two  address  databases.  See  Appendix  B. 


 552  See  id.;  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  73. 


 553  See  id.  (if  the  C  and  D  orders  have  different  addresses,  the  two  service  orders  will  flow  through  all 
 provisioning  systems  as  independent  service  orders  .  .  .  .  The  D  order  will  flow  on  Due  Date  and  disconnect  the 
 [customers]  service.). 


 554  See  id.;  SWBT  March  10  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Att.  4  (explaining  that  orders  that  become  disassociated  due  to  an 


 address  mismatch  are  routed  to  the  local  service  center  (LSC)  for  resolution).  SWBTs  minutes  from  a  December 
 21,  1999  CLEC  Users  Forum  suggest  that  SWBT  planned  to  implement  a  new  process  to  address  address 
 mismatches  on  January  14,  2000,  under  which  it  would  create  a  mechanized  report  listing  UNE-  P  orders  that  had 
 become  disassociated  and  check  the  report  three  times  daily.  See  AT&  T  Texas  1  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply  Aff.,  Att. 
 21  (SWBT  Accessible  Letter  No.  CLEC00-  002)  at  3.  SWBT  placed  a  copy  of  this  mechanized  report  (  an  internal 
 report  currently  used  by  SWBT  to  detect  orders  that  are  at  risk  of  an  outage)  on  the  record  on  March  13,  2000. 
 SWBT  March  13  Ex  Parte  Letter,  Att.  1. 
104
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 105 
 199.  We  conclude,  based  on  evidence  submitted  by  SWBT  and  commenting  parties, 
 that  service  outages  attributable  to  problems  with  the  three  order  process  are  very  rare,  and 
 thus  do  not  warrant  a  finding  that  SWBT  fails  to  provision  UNE-  P  orders  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner  as  it  provisions  equivalent  retail  services.  We  recognize  that  the  Texas 
 Commission  has  reviewed  allegations  and  evidence  of  UNE-  P  outages  and  concluded  that  the 
 occurrence  of  such  outages  is  minimal.  555  We  agree  with  the  Texas  Commission  in  this  matter: 
 evidence  submitted  by  carriers  in  this  proceeding  indicates  that,  at  present,  service  outages 
 associated  with  UNE-  P  conversions  are  relatively  infrequent,  and  thus  does  not  lead  us  to  a 
 different  conclusion.  We  recognize  that  one  commenter  alleges  that  5.6  percent  of  UNE-  P  orders 
 experience  a  loss  of  service  at  installation,  and  another  claims  a  2.8  percent  outage  rate.  556 
 SWBT  disputes  these  figures,  however,  and  offers  evidence  indicating  that,  for  these  two  carriers, 
 the  occurrence  of  outages  resulting  from  errors  in  its  OSS  was  actually  less  than  one  percent.  557 
 While  it  is  difficult  to  resolve  conclusively  these  disputed  claims,  we  find  that  SWBTs  evidence, 
 along  with  the  prior  determination  of  the  Texas  Commission,  sufficiently  refutes  these  claims.  If, 
 however,  such  outages  rise  to  a  level  that  impedes  a  carriers  opportunity  to  compete,  we  will 
 take  appropriate  enforcement  action  under  section  271(  d)(  6). 


 200.  In  addition,  we  note  that  several  commenters  raise  other  complaints  about 
 problems  which  they  attribute  to  the  three-  order  process.  The  CLEC  Coalition,  for  example, 
 blames  imperfections  in  SWBTs  three-  order  process  for  other  service-  affecting  problems  such  as 
 loss  of  long  distance  service,  loss  of  vertical  features,  loss  of  outbound  calling,  double  billing  and 
 inability  to  call  certain  local  numbers.  558  While  we  do  not  discount  the  impact  such  problems 
 would  have  on  customers,  we  find  that  commenters  did  not  document  some  of  these  problems, 
 while  others  appear  to  be  infrequent.  We  thus  conclude  that  these  problems  do  not  warrant  a 


 555  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  18;  see  also  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Tidwell/  Kettler  (Birch 
 Telecom.)  Aff.  at  63-  70  and  Att.  AA  at  3  (explaining  to  the  Texas  Commission  in  November  1999  that  the 
 volume  of  loss  of  dial  tone  is  fairly  small). 


 556  See  CompTel  May  11  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  2  (reporting  service  disruptions  for  January  to  April,  2000);  AT&  T 


 Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  41  (reporting  lost  dial  tone  for  August  to  November  1999).  Birch 
 Telecommunications  filed  an  informal  complaint  with  the  Texas  Commission  in  September  1999,  arguing  that 
 service  outages  during  the  UNE-  P  conversion  process  were  adversely  affecting  its  ability  to  compete    but  did  not 
 quantify  the  frequency  of  these  outages.  See  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  27-  28. 


 557  SWBT  claims  that  AT&  Ts  figure  is  too  high,  instead  suggesting  that  fewer  than  one  percent  of  AT&  Ts 


 UNE-  P  conversions  in  December  1999  and  January  2000  resulted  in  lost  dial  tone.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Ham  Aff. 
 at  para.  31;  SWBT  March  24  ex  parte  Letter.  SWBT  further  claims  that,  based  on  its  own  review  of  trouble  tickets 
 submitted  by  Network  Intelligence,  that  none  of  the  service  problems  identified  by  Network  Intelligence  were 
 attributable  to  the  three-  order  process:  SWBT  either  found  no  problem  to  exist,  or  determined  that  the  problem 
 was  attributable  to  the  customers  wiring,  or  SWBTs  central  office  or  cable  facilities.  See  SWBT  Texas  II 
 Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  78-  83. 


 558  See  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Tidwell/  Kettler  (Birch)  Aff.  at  paras.  81-  90.  Birch  Telecom  complained  of  other 


 problems  relating  to  the  UNE-  P  three-  order  process  which  are  addressed  elsewhere  in  this  Order.  See  CLEC 
 Coalition  Texas  I  Tidwell/  Kettler  (Birch)  Aff.  at  paras.  76-  91;  see  section  V.  B.  1.d.  1.f,  supra  (addressing  delays  in 
 posting  to  billing,  double-  billing  and  LIDB  update  issues). 
105
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 106 
 finding  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  provisioning  systems  and 
 processes.  Finally,  several  commenters,  including  CompTel,  argue  that  the  three  order  process 
 is  inherently  discriminatory,  as  it  unlawfully  splits  already-  combined  elements  apart  and  puts  them 
 back  together.  559  We  disagree  with  this  characterization  of  SWBTs  three-  order  process    SWBT 
 does  not  require  carriers  to  order  or  pay  for  the  network  elements  separately,  nor  does  SWBT 
 physically  separate  and  reassemble  the  network  elements.  SWBT  has  explained  that  the  three 
 orders  simply  correspond  to  different  functions  that  must  be  completed  in  its  back  office  systems. 


 h.  Maintenance  &  Repair 
 201.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 maintenance  and  repair  OSS  functions.  First,  we  find  that  SWBT  has  deployed  the  necessary 
 interfaces,  systems,  and  personnel  to  enable  requesting  carriers  to  access  the  same  maintenance 
 and  repair  functions  that  SWBT  provides  to  itself.  We  then  conclude  that  SWBTs  systems  allow 
 carriers  to  access  those  functions  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  SWBTs  retail 
 operations.  We  further  find  that  SWBT  restores  service  to  customers  of  competing  carriers  in 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  restores  service  to  its  own  customers.  Finally,  we 
 conclude  that  SWBT  performs  maintenance  and  repair  work  for  customers  of  competing  carriers 
 at  substantially  the  same  level  of  quality  that  it  provides  to  its  own  customers. 


 (i)  Background 
 202.  As  part  of  its  obligation  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  functions, 
 SWBT  must  provide  requesting  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  maintenance  and 
 repair  systems.  560  A  competing  carrier  that  provides  service  through  resale  or  unbundled  network 
 elements  remains  dependent  upon  the  incumbent  LEC  for  maintenance  and  repair.  Because 
 SWBT  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  SWBT  provides  its  retail  customers.  561  Equivalent 
 access  ensures  that  competing  carriers  can  assist  customers  experiencing  service  disruptions  using 
 the  same  network  information  and  diagnostic  tools  that  are  available  to  SWBT  personnel.  562 
 Without  equivalent  access,  a  competing  carrier  would  be  placed  at  a  significant  competitive 
 disadvantage,  as  its  customer  would  perceive  a  problem  with  SWBTs  network  as  a  problem  with 
 the  competing  carriers  own  network.  563 


 559  See  CompTel  Texas  II  Comments  at  3-  4;  Global  Crossing  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  2. 
 560  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4067,  para.  212;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20692;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20613,  20660-  61. 
 561  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  4067,  para.  212;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at 


 20692-  93. 
 562  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4067,  para.  212. 


 563  See  id. 
106
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 107 
 (ii)  Discussion 
 203.  Functionality.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  offers  maintenance  and  repair  interfaces 
 and  systems  that  enable  a  requesting  carrier  to  access  all  the  same  functions  that  are  available  to 
 SWBTs  retail  representatives.  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with  several  options  for 
 requesting  maintenance  and  reporting  troubles.  Competing  carriers  may  electronically  access 
 SWBTs  maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  UNE-  Loop,  UNE-  Platform,  and  resale  through  the 
 Graphical  User  Interface  Toolbar  Trouble  Administration  interface  (Toolbar)  or  the  application-to- 
 application  Electronic  Bonding  Trouble  Administration  interface  (EBTA).  564  Both  the  EBTA 
 and  Toolbar  interfaces  flow  directly  into  SWBTs  back-  end  OSS  systems  and  enable  competing 
 carriers  to  perform  the  same  functions,  in  the  same  manner,  that  SWBTs  retail  operations 
 perform.  565  SWBT  also  offers  requesting  carriers  non-  electronic  access  to  its  maintenance  and 
 repair  functions  through  the  SWBT  Local  Operations  Center  (LOC).  566  The  LOC  handles  all 
 competing  carrier  repair  and  maintenance  requests  for  UNEs,  resale,  and  interconnection.  567 


 204.  WorldCom  complains  that  it  is  precluded  from  accessing  SWBTs  EBTA  interface 
 for  a  new  customer  until  that  customers  order  has  posted  to  SWBTs  wholesale  billing  systems.  568  Without  this  ability,  WorldCom  notes  that  it  cannot  use  EBTA  to  submit  trouble 


 tickets  or  perform  loop  tests  on  the  day  service  is  provisioned,  and  possibly  for  several  days 
 thereafter.  WorldCom  has  the  option  of  using  the  Toolbar  interface  for  these  installation-  related 


 564  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  217;  see  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  paras.  66-  68. 
 565  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  218,  222  and  229.  The  Toolbar  interface  enables  carriers  to  perform  the  the  same 
 functions  that  SWBTs  retail  operations  perform,  including:  (1)  issue  trouble  reports;  (2)  conduct  a  mechanized 
 loop  test;  (3)  determine  that  status  of  an  opened  trouble  report;  (4)  check  history;  (5)  view  a  list  of  open  trouble 
 reports;  (6)  view  a  list  of  trouble  reports  closed  within  the  last  120  days.  Id.  at  para.  219.  Although  the  EBTA 
 interface  provides  only  functions  1  to  4,  this  does  not  reflect  a  deficiency  in  SWBTs  OSS.  The  Commission 
 previously  has  determined  that  a  BOC  is  not  required,  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  checklist  item  2,  to  implement 
 an  application-  to-  application  interface  for  maintenance  and  repair  functions    provided  it  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  equivalent  access  to  its  maintenance  and  repair  functions  in  another  manner.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York 
 Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4068,  para.  215. 


 566  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  65;  see  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  217.  The  LOC  is  staffed  by  165 


 employees  and  is  available  through  a  hotline  number  24  hours  a  day,  seven  days  a  week.  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway 
 Aff.  at  para.  15,  28,  31. 


 567  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  65-  66.  Since  1996,  the  LOC  has  processed  over  195,600  POTS 


 maintenance  reports  in  Texas  and  an  additional  66,900  reports  in  the  remainder  of  SWBTs  region.  Id.  at  para. 
 65. 


 568  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  53-  56.  We  note  that  carriers 


 raised  a  similar  concern  in  the  Texas  I  proceeding,  explaining  that  SWBTs  Toolbar  system  had  the  same 
 limitation.  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Texas  I  Dalton/  DeYoung  Decl.  at  para.  200;  WorldCom  Texas  I  McMillon/  Sivori 
 Decl.  at  paras.  191-  92.  SWBT  implemented  a  change  on  March  18,  2000,  however,  which  removed  this  restriction 
 on  the  use  of  Toolbar  and  enabled  carriers  to  use  the  interfaces  normal  functions  for  telephone  number  formatted 
 resale  and  UNE-  P  services  on  or  after  the  provisioning  due  date.  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  111  & 
 Attach.  K  (SWBT  Feb.  18,  2000  Accessible  Letter,  No.  CLECSS00-  018). 
107
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 108 
 trouble  situations,  or  may  call  SWBTs  Local  Operations  Center  (  LOC)  to  report  troubles  in 
 such  circumstances.  569  While  reliance  on  these  alternative  means  of  accessing  SWBTs 
 maintenance  and  repair  OSS  undermines  the  efficiency  and  convenience  of  using  EBTA,  we 
 conclude  that  these  alternative  processes  are  adequate  and  enable  carriers  that  rely  on  EBTA  to 
 access  SWBTs  OSS  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  SWBT  retail.  570  In  addition, 
 SWBT  reports  that,  as  of  June  20,  2000,  it  has  lifted  this  restriction  on  access  to  EBTA,  thereby 
 enabling  WorldCom  to  submit  trouble  tickets  on  the  completion  date  prior  to  posting  of  the  order.  571  We  expect  that  SWBT  will  implement  this  change  for  other  carriers  using  EBTA  as  well. 


 205.  Interface  Response  Times.  We  further  conclude  that  SWBTs  maintenance  and 
 repair  interfaces  and  systems  process  trouble  inquiries  from  competing  carriers  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner  as  SWBT  processes  inquiries  concerning  its  own  retail  customers.  572  To 
 compete  effectively  in  the  local  exchange  market,  competing  carriers  must  be  able  to  diagnose  and 
 process  customer  trouble  complaints  with  substantially  the  same  speed  and  accuracy  that  SWBT 
 diagnoses  and  processes  complaints  from  its  retail  customers.  A  slower  process  can  lead  to 
 customer  perception  that  the  competing  carrier  is  a  less  efficient  service  provider  than  the  BOC. 
 SWBT  has  provided  evidence  of  the  transaction  times  for  its  Toolbar  interfaces  that  indicates  it 
 responds  to  competing  carrier  requests  for  maintenance  and  repair  inquiries  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  as  it  does  for  itself.  573  Moreover,  we  note  that  no  commenter  has  asserted  otherwise. 


 206.  Time  to  Restore.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  repairs  reported  troubles  competing 
 carriers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  it  repairs  troubles  reported  by  its  own 
 customers.  The  Commission  has  stressed  that  a  BOC  is  obligated  to  repair  troubles  for  a 
 customer  of  a  requesting  carrier  in  substantially  the  same  time  that  it  takes  to  repair  problems 
 experienced  by  its  own  customers.  574  For  example,  because  a  reliable  telephone  line  may  be 
 crucial  for  a  business  customer  to  conduct  its  business,  the  Commission  has  emphasized  the 
 importance  of  timely  resolution  of  trouble  reports  from  a  competing  carriers  business  customers.  575 


 569  Id.  at  para.  224-  226;  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  112. 
 570  Indeed,  SWBTs  performance  data  indicates  that  carriers  have  been  confronted  with  a  very  low  number  of 
 trouble  reports  within  ten  days  of  provisioning,  and  we  would  expect  the  number  of  troubles  occurring  before  an 
 order  posts  to  billing  and  triggers  EBTA  availability  (which  certainly  should  occur  in  under  ten  days)  to  be  even 
 lower.  See,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  35  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  C 
 Orders  Within  10  Days)  (UNE-  P)  at  271-  No.  35b  (indicating  that  competing  LECs  received  installation  related 
 trouble  reports  on  less  than  one  percent  of  UNE-  P  orders  in  March  and  April  2000). 


 571  See  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  9. 


 572  See  SWBT  January  21  Ex  Parte  Letter  (maintenance  &  repair  interface  response  times),  Tab  1. 
 573  See  id. 
 574  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20693,  para.  147. 
 575  Id. 
108
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 109 
 207.  We  base  our  finding  of  nondiscriminatory  restoration  time  on  SWBTs 
 performance  data.  SWBTs  performance  data  for  December  1999  through  April  2000  indicates 
 that,  for  both  resale  and  unbundled  network  elements,  SWBT  repaired  troubles  reported  by 
 customers  of  competing  carriers,  on  average,  in  substantially  the  same  time  that  it  repaired 
 troubles  reported  by  its  own  retail  customers.  576  In  addition  to  SWBTs  performance  with  respect 
 to  average  restoration  intervals,  we  note  that  SWBT  is  able  to  meet  a  comparable  number  of 
 repair  commitments  for  competing  carriers  (in  the  resale  POTS  and  UNE-  P  service 
 categories)  as  for  its  own  customers.  577  This  level  of  performance  is  substantial  evidence  that 
 SWBT  responds  to  trouble  reports  and  restores  service  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner 
 for  competing  carriers  as  for  itself.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  performance  measurements 
 provide  compelling  evidence  that  SWBT  responds  to  competitors  trouble  complaints  in 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  it  responds  to  its  own  customers  complaints. 


 208.  The  one  service  category  for  which  SWBT  has  not  consistently  performed  repair 
 functions  for  competing  LECs  and  its  retail  operations  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner 
 is  resale  specials    particularly  SWBTs  resold  Voice  Grade  Private  Line  service  and  ISDN 
 products.  578  SWBTs  performance  data  indicates  that,  for  these  two  services,  SWBT  generally 
 has  taken  two  or  three  hours  longer  to  perform  repairs  for  competing  LEC  customers  than  for  its 
 own  customers.  579  In  this  instance,  however,  we  conclude  that  this  difference  in  repair  time  is  not 


 576  For  resale  POTS,  SWBT  took  less  time  to  repair  end  user  troubles  reported  by  its  competitors  than  those 
 involving  its  own  retail  customers  for  virtually  all  disaggregated  sub-  categories  for  business  and  residential 
 customers,  for  dispatch  and  nondispatch  repair  jobs,  and  for  troubles  affecting  service  and  those  taking  a 
 customer  out  of  service.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  39  (  Receipt  to  Clear 
 Duration)  at  271-  No.  39a-  39b.  The  only  exceptions  were  SWBTs  performance  in  February  and  April,  in  which  it 
 reported  slightly  longer-  than-  parity  intervals  to  resolve  business  customers  affecting  service  troubles  that  did  not 
 require  dispatch.  Id.  at  271-  No.  39a.  We  conclude  that  these  exceptions,  particularly  when  viewed  in  the  context 
 of  the  related  metrics  that  reflect  parity  performance,  do  not  reflect  a  systemic  problem  with  SWBTs  OSS. 
 Similarly,  for  UNE-  P,  SWBT  reports  shorter  repair  intervals  for  its  competitors  customers  than  for  its  own  retail 
 customers  in  every  sub-  category  during  this  same  time  period.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  39  (  Receipt  to  Clear  Duration)  at  271-  No.  39c. 


 577  For  the  months  of  December  1999  through  April  2000,  SWBT  met  substantially  the  same  percentage  of  repair 


 commitments  for  troubles  on  competing  LECs  resold  and  UNE-  P  lines  as  it  did  for  comparable  retail  repair 
 commitments.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  38  (%  Missed  Repair  Commitments) 
 at  271-  No.  38a-  b.  The  only  exceptions  occurred  in  April  2000,  with  respect  to  business  POTS  troubles  (no 
 dispatch)  and  UNE-  P  troubles  (no  dispatch).  Because  SWBT  has  reported  satisfactory  performance  for  the 
 preceding  four  months  in  these  two  areas,  however,  we  do  not  conclude  that  this  April  performance  represents  a 
 systemic  problem. 


 578  SWBT  has  achieved  parity  with  respect  to  VGPL  troubles  for  only  one  of  the  last  five  months  and  reported 


 that,  in  March  2000,  it  took  an  average  of  12  hours  longer  to  repair  or  restore  competing  LECs  VGPL  troubles 
 than  for  its  own  customers.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  52  (  Mean  Time  to  Restore) 
 at  271-  No.  52a.  Similarly,  SWBT  achieved  parity  with  respect  to  ISDN  (BRI)  troubles  for  only  one  of  the  last  five 
 months  and  reported  that,  in  March  2000,  it  took  an  average  of  almost  14  hours  longer  to  repair  or  restore 
 competing  LECs  ISDN  troubles  than  for  its  own  customers.  Id.  at  271-  No.  52b. 


 579  Calculations  using  SWBTs  reported  performance  data  indicates  that,  for  the  last  five  months  other  than 


 March  2000,  the  parity  gap  averaged  2.5  hours  for  Measurement  52-  01,  and  3.0  hours  for  Measurement  52-  06. 
109
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 110 
 competitively  significant  because  it  is  so  slight.  In  addition,  we  view  these  two  performance 
 measurements  in  the  context  of  SWBTs  strong  overall  maintenance  and  repair  performance  for 
 resale  services  (described  above).  We  thus  conclude  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to 
 these  two  service  offerings  does  not  indicate  that  SWBT  fails  to  repair  troubles  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner  for  retail  and  wholesale  customers. 


 209.  Quality  of  Work  Performed.  We  also  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 performs  maintenance  and  repair  work  for  customers  of  competing  carriers  at  the  same  level  of 
 quality  as  it  performs  for  its  retail  customers.  A  competing  carriers  customer  may  become 
 dissatisfied  if  the  customer  experiences  frequent  service  problems,  especially  repeated  troubles.  In 
 determining  the  quality  of  maintenance  and  repair  work  performed  by  SWBT  for  competing 
 carriers,  we  examine  the  rate  of  trouble  reported  by  customers  of  competing  carriers  as  compared 
 with  SWBTs  own  retail  customers,  as  well  as  the  rate  of  repeat  reports  of  trouble.  SWBTs 
 performance  data  reveals  that  competing  carriers  customers  generally  reported  the  same  or  lower 
 rate  of  troubles,  for  both  resold  services  and  UNE-  P,  as  SWBTs  retail  customers.  580  Similarly, 
 performance  data  on  the  rate  of  repeat  trouble  reports  submitted  by  competing  carriers  are 
 generally  lower  than  for  SWBTs  retail  customers.  581  Based  on  the  foregoing,  we  conclude  that 
 SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  maintenance  and  repair  functions. 


 i.  Billing 
 210.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  its  billing  functions, 
 based  on  an  assessment  of  its  billing  processes  and  its  Texas  performance  data.  Competing 
 carriers  need  access  to  billing  information  to  provide  accurate  and  timely  bills  to  their  customers.  582  SWBT  is  obligated  to  provide  competing  carriers  with  complete  and  accurate 


 reports  on  the  service  usage  of  competing  carriers  customers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and 
 manner  that  SWBT  provides  such  information  to  itself.  To  do  so,  SWBT  provides  competing 
 carriers  with  billing  information  through  the  Usage  Extract  process  and  carrier  bills.  583  The  Usage 


 580  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  37  (  Trouble  Report  Rate)  (Resale  POTS  and 
 UNE-  P)  at  271-  No.  37,  and  Measurement  No.  54  (  Failure  Frequency)  (Resale  Specials)  at  271-  No.  54a-  b.  In  only 
 a  handful  on  instances  did  SWBT  report  a  higher  trouble  rate  for  competitors  than  for  its  retail  operations: 
 Residence  POTS  (February  2000),  UNE-  P  (December  1999),  resold  DSL  (December  1999)  and  UNE-  P  ISDN 
 (April  2000).  Id.  We  do  not  find  these  scattered  discrepancies  to  be  competitively  significant  for  this  metric  in  this 
 instance. 


 581  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  41  (  Percent  Repeat  Reports)  (Resale  POTS  and 


 UNE-  P)  at  271-  No.  41,  and  Measurement  No.  53  (  Repeat  Reports)  (Resale  Specials)  at  271-  No.  53a-  b.  These 
 performance  data  reveal  a  statistically-  significant  disparity  in  only  two  instances:  a  higher  number  of  repeat 
 reports  for  competitive  LECs  than  for  its  retail  operations  for  UNE-  P  in  December  1999,  and  for  resold  DS1 
 service  in  January  2000.  We  do  not  find  that  these  results,  particularly  when  viewed  against  the  above-  parity 
 performance  for  the  other  months,  indicate  a  competitively-  significant  disparity. 


 582  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4075,  para.  226;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20698,  paras.  158-  160. 
 583  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Locus  Aff.  at  paras.  10-  11. 
110
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 111 
 Extract  itemizes  usage  records  for  competing  carrier  customers,  while  carrier  bills  serve  as  a 
 monthly  invoice  that  incorporates  charges  for  all  of  the  products  and  services  provided  to  a 
 competing  carrier  by  SWBT.  Similar  mechanisms  are  used  to  provide  billing  information  to 
 SWBTs  retail  operations.  584 


 211.  We  find  that  the  performance  standards  and  measurements  established  by  the 
 Texas  Commission  and  developed  in  conjunction  with  SWBT  and  competing  carriers  are 
 appropriate  measures  of  SWBTs  ability  to  provide  competing  carriers  with  usage  data  in 
 substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  SWBT  provides  such  information  to  itself.  585 
 SWBTs  performance  data  indicate  that,  during  the  period  from  December  1999  to  April  2000, 
 SWBTs  actual  commercial  performance  consistently  satisfied  these  standards  for  usage  data 
 timeliness  and  accuracy.  586  The  one  exception  occurred  in  February  2000,  when  SWBT  returned 
 only  91.  3  percent  of  daily  usage  feed  records  within  six  days,  falling  short  of  the  95  percent 
 standard.  587  SWBT  explains  that  its  performance  in  this  month  was  affected  by  the  one-  time 
 recovery  and  return  of  missing  records  from  September,  October  and  November  1999.  588  We 
 recognize  that  lost  records,  and  even  late  records,  can  cause  direct  financial  harm  to  competing 
 carriers.  In  this  instance,  however,  we  note  that  SWBT  claims  to  have  fixed  the  underlying 
 problem,  589  and  further  note  that  carriers  do  not  dispute  that  the  problem  has  been  fixed.  Based 
 on  these  factors,  and  because  SWBTs  performance  was  satisfactory  for  the  two  preceding  and 
 two  subsequent  months,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  does  not  discriminate  in  the  provision  of  usage 
 feeds  to  competing  carriers. 


 212.  Although  several  commenters  complain  that  SWBTs  performance  with  respect  to 
 wholesale  bills  is  inadequate,  the  record  does  not  indicate  that  SWBTs  performance  in  this  area 
 deprives  carriers  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  compete.  As  noted  by  the  National  ALEC 
 Association  and  other  commenters,  we  recognize  that  SWBT  has  failed  to  satisfy  the  standard  for 
 timeliness  of  wholesale  bills  sent  to  resellers  for  three  of  the  last  five  months.  590  SWBT  offers  a 


 584  See  id.  at  paras.  6  and  9. 
 585  Specifically,  the  standard  adopted  by  the  Texas  Commission  requires  that  SWBT  transmit  95  percent  of  its 
 Daily  Usage  Feeds  for  resale  and  UNEs  to  competing  carriers  within  six  business  days  after  creation,  and  95 
 percent  of  its  wholesale  bills  within  six  work  days  of  the  bill  date.  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Decl.  at  para.  510  and 
 Att.  A  at  A-  30  and  A-  31.  The  Texas  Commission  also  established  standards  regarding  the  percent  of  usage 
 records  transmitted  correctly  (95%  correct). 


 586  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  14  (  Billing  Accuracy),  Measurement  No.  16 


 (  Percent  of  Usage  Records  Transmitted  Correctly)  and  Measurement  No.  19  (  Daily  Usage  Feed  Timeliness)  at 
 271-  No.  14,  271-  No.  15/  16/  17,  and  271-  No.  18/  19/  20. 


 587  See  id.,  Measurement  No.  19  at  271-  No.  18/  19/  20;  see  also  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para. 


 133. 
 588  See  SWBT  Texas  II  McLaughlin  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  5-  7. 


 589  See  id. 
 590  See  National  ALEC  Association  /  Prepaid  Communications  Association  Texas  I  Comments  at  6;  AT&  T  Texas 
 II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  134-  135.  For  the  months  of  December  1999  to  April  2000,  SWBT 
 (continued.) 
111
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 112 
 separate  explanations  for  each  failure,  suggesting  that  unique  one-  time  occurrences  caused  the 
 disparate  results,  and  that  the  incident  in  March  also  delayed  SWBTs  own  retail  bills.  591 
 Commenters  have  not  disputed  SWBTs  explanations,  and  we  recognize  that  SWBT  reported  100 
 percent  on-  time  performance  for  February  and  April  2000.  AT&  T  further  complains  that  SWBT 
 does  not  report  whether  it  provides  timely  wholesale  bills  for  its  UNE-  P  orders.  592  Neither 
 AT&  T,  nor  any  other  competing  LEC  (other  than  the  resellers  discussed  above)  suggests  that  it 
 actually  receives  such  bills  late  or  has  been  harmed  by  late  bills.  While  we  do  not  minimize  the 
 importance  to  carriers  of  receiving  wholesale  bills  in  a  timely  manner,  the  record  does  not  reflect 
 that  carriers,  overall,  are  not  receiving  wholesale  bills  in  a  timely  manner.  We  thus  conclude  that 
 SWBT  does  not  discriminate  against  competing  carriers  in  the  provision  of  wholesale  bills. 


 2.  UNE  Combinations  and  Other  Issues 
 213.  In  this  section,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 combinations  of  unbundled  network  elements.  We  also  reject  allegations  that  SWBT  imposes 
 unreasonable  and  discriminatory  restrictions  on  certain  types  of  combinations.  Finally,  we  reject 
 allegations  that  SWBT  places  restrictions  on  intellectual  property  associated  with  UNEs  that 
 contravene  its  obligations  under  the  Act. 


 a.  Background 
 214.  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)  .  .  .  .  593  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  .  .  .  .  594  Section  251(  c)(  3)  of  the  Act  also 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 returned  76.3,  92.2,  100,  65.7  and  100  percent  of  mechanized  carrier  bills  (resale  carriers  only)  within  six  days  of 
 the  end  of  the  bill  cycle.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  18  (  Billing  Timeliness)  at 
 271-  No.  15/  18. 


 591  See  SWBT  March  15  Ex  Parte  Letter  (explaining  December  1999  and  January  2000  performance);  SWBT 


 Texas  II  McLaughlin  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  9. 
 592  SWBTs  Measure  18    Billing  Timeliness  (Wholesale  Bill)    covers  only  resale  carriers  receiving  bills 


 electronically  (i.  e.,  it  covers  only  those  wholesale  bills  processed  through  the  CRIS  system  and  supplied  to 
 competing  carriers  via  EDI).  SWBT  Application,  App.  C,  Tab  1815  at  59.  Although  this  document  suggests  that 
 [  a]  separate  measure  is  produced  for  carriers  ordering  UNEs  and  UNE-  P,  see  id.,  the  record  does  not  reflect  that 
 such  a  measure  exists.  The  Texas  Commission  did  not  address  the  issue  of  whether  carriers  are  receiving  timely 
 wholesale  bills  in  its  Comments  in  this  proceeding.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  42-  45 
 (discussing  other  aspects  of  SWBTs  billing  functions  and  performance).  We  note  that  Telcordias  conclusion  that 
 the  majority  of  paper  and  mechanized  bills  were  timely  is  too  vague  to  merit  any  waight.  Telcordia  Final  Report 
 at  8;  see  also  id.  at  112  (  mechanized  and  paper  bills  were  generally  sent/  transmitted  in  a  timely  manner). 


 593  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii). 


 594  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
112
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 113 
 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.  595 


 215.  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.  596  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.  597  Moreover,  combining  the  incumbents  unbundled  network  elements  with  their  own 


 facilities  encourages  facilities-  based  competition  and  allows  competing  providers  to  provide  a 
 wide  array  of  competitive  choices.  598  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,  we  examine  section  271  applications  to 
 determine  whether  competitive  carriers  are  able  to  combine  network  elements  as  required  by  the 
 Act  and  the  Commissions  regulations.  599 


 b.  Discussion 
 (i)  Combinations  of  Unbundled  Network  Elements 
 216.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides 
 requesting  telecommunications  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  unbundled  network 
 elements  (UNEs)  at  any  technically  feasible  point.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  access 
 to  UNEs  in  a  manner  that  allows  requesting  carriers  to  combine  those  elements,  and  that  SWBT 
 provides  access  to  preexisting  combinations  of  network  elements.  We  base  our  conclusion  on 
 evidence  of  actual  commercial  usage,  and  also  on  SWBTs  legal  obligation  to  provide  such  access 
 as  established  in  the  T2A. 


 217.  The  record  indicates  that  SWBT,  as  required  by  the  Texas  Commission,  provides  a 
 variety  of  methods  that  allow  competitive  carriers  to  combine  unbundled  network  elements.  For 
 example,  in  addition  to  the  standard  physical  and  virtual  collocation  arrangements,  SWBT 
 provides  alternative  collocation  arrangements  such  as  shared  collocation  cages,  common  cage, 
 and  cageless  collocation  arrangements.  600  Where  space  for  physical  collocation  is  not  available, 


 595  Id. 
 596  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20718-  19;  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  646. 
 597  BellSouth  South  Carolina  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  646.  See  also  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11 
 FCC  Rcd  at  15666-  68. 
 598  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  230. 


 599  Id. 
 600  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  38;  SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  at  para.  164;  SBC  Texas  I  Application  App.  A-  3, 
 Vol.  1,  Tab  1,  Affidavit  of  Michael  C.  Auinbauh  at  paras.  40,  95-  97  (SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.);  Texas  271 
 (continued.) 
113
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 114 
 SWBT  also  permits  competing  LECs  to  collocate  their  equipment  in  adjacent  controlled 
 environmental  vaults  or  huts.  Moreover,  competitive  LECs  may  request  other  technically  feasible 
 methods  of  combining  UNEs  that  are  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  1996  Act  and  other 
 governing  statutes  and  decisions.  601  For  example,  SWBT  will  provide  interested  competitive 
 LECs  access  to  a  secured  frame  room  (or  cabinet,  where  space  constraints  require)  that  is  set 
 aside  for  accomplishing  the  necessary  connections.  602 


 218.  The  record  also  indicates  that  SWBT  provides  access  to  combinations  of  network 
 elements  in  compliance  with  our  UNE  rules.  603  SWBT  has  a  legal  obligation,  under  certain 
 existing  interconnection  agreements  and  the  T2A  to  provide  access  to  preassembled  combinations 
 of  network  elements,  including  the  loop-  switch  port  platform  combination  (known  as  the  UNE 
 platform  or  UNE-  P)  and  the  Enhanced  Extended  Loop  (EEL),  a  combination  of  loop  and 
 transport  facilities.  604 


 219.  We  disagree  with  arguments  of  several  competing  carriers  that  SWBTs  ordering 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Agreement  Attach.  6.  The  terms  and  conditions  for  access  to  unbundled  network  elements  through  physical 
 collocation  arrangements  are  set  forth  in  the  T2A,  which  was  approved  by  the  Texas  Commission.  SWBT  Texas  I 
 Application  at  39;  SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  at  paras,  151-  163.  SWBT  has  provided  655  physical  and  40  virtual 
 collocation  arrangements  to  requesting  carriers.  It  has  683  physical  and  158  virtual  arrangements  still  pending. 
 SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  Attach.  E.  Texas  271  Agreement  Attach.  6,    2.4.  Competing  carriers  can  obtain 
 tariffed  collocation  pursuant  to  FCC  Tariff  No.  73,  through  SWBTs  Texas  Collocation  Tariffs,  or  by  negotiating 
 the  terms  and  conditions  for  collocation  in  their  interconnection  agreements.  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at 
 paras.  40-  79;  95-  97  and  Attachments  C,  D,  E. 


 601  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  39;  SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  at  80-  84;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para. 


 66;  Texas  271  Agreement  Attach.  6,    2.22. 
 602  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  40,  64,  95-  97.  Collocation  is  not  required  in  order  to  use  this  option 


 for  combining  network  elements.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  24.  Furthermore,  when  competitors 
 order  UNEs  for  combining  at  the  secured  frame  or  cabinet,  SWBT  is  required  to  cross-  connect  those  elements  to 
 the  frame  or  cabinet  at  no  additional  charge.  Id.  at  24-  25. 


 603  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  86. 


 604  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  87-  93;  Texas  271  Agreement  Attach.  6,    14.2  -  14.4,14.7.  In 
 addition,  under  the  terms  of  the  Texas  271  Agreement,  SWBT  will  unbundle  local  loops  with  unbundled  local 
 switch  ports  for  competitive  LECs  to  provide  service  to  business  customers  until  at  least  October  13,  2001  using 
 elements  that  are  not  currently  combined.  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  35  (  Texas  271  Agreement  obligates 
 SWBT  to  assemble  previously  uncombined  network  elements  for  [competitive  LECs]  .  .  .  .);  SWBT  Texas  I 
 Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  88,  91-  94;  Texas  271  Agreement  Attach.  6,    2.4,  14.7;  SWBT/  AT&  T  Agreement 
 Attach.  6,    2.4.  After  October  13,  2001,  in  those  SWBT  central  offices  where  there  are  four  or  more  competitive 
 LECs  collocated  and  where  SWBT  has  provided  unbundled  network  elements,  SWBT  may  elect  not  to  combine 
 unbundled  network  elements  for  a  competitive  LECs  business  customers  when  the  same  UNEs  are  not  already 
 combined  in  that  central  office.  If  SWBT  makes  such  an  election,  it  will  provide  the  requesting  carrier  with  access 
 to  a  secured  frame  where  the  competitive  LEC  can  perform  its  own  combining  of  those  elements.  SWBT  will 
 provide  new  combinations  of  unbundled  local  loop  and  switching  not  currently  interconnected  and  functional  in 
 SWBTs  network  for  the  competitive  LEC  to  provide  service  to  residential  customers  through  the  full  term  of  the 
 Texas  271  Agreement. 
114
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 115 
 process  for  UNE-  P  is  per  se  discriminatory  and  violates  rule  315(  b)  s  prohibition  against 
 separating  individual  network  elements  that  are  already  combined.  605  These  parties  assert  that 
 rather  than  migrating  pre-  existing  combinations  of  elements  as  is,  SWBTs  ordering  process 
 functionally  disconnects  the  existing  service  configuration  in  the  switch  and  replaces  it  with  a  new 
 configuration  established  by  the  competitive  LECs  local  service  request.  According  to  these 
 parties,  SWBTs  three-  order  process  results  in  service  outages  and  disruptions  for  their 
 customers,  negatively  impacting  the  competitive  carriers  ability  to  compete  in  the  local  market.  606 


 220.  Rule  315(  b)  forbids  an  incumbent  LEC  from  separating  network  elements  that  are 
 already  combined  to  provide  a  service.  607  SWBT  is  not  separating  network  elements  in  this 
 context.  Instead,  SWBT  engages  in  a  billing  software  change  in  order  to  establish  service  on 
 behalf  of  a  competitive  LEC.  In  particular,  for  SWBT  to  migrate  a  customer  to  a  requesting 
 carrier  using  the  UNE  platform,  it  must  enter  a  software  change  that  instructs  its  systems  that  the 
 customer  no  longer  belongs  to  SWBT,  identifies  the  new  provider  for  that  customer,  and  changes 
 billing  instructions  accordingly.  We  find  that  SWBTs  ordering  process  that  converts  its  retail 
 customer  to  a  requesting  carriers  UNE  platform  customer  through  a  software  change  does  not 
 involve  separation  of  combined  network  elements,  and  therefore  is  not  prohibited  by  rule  315(  b). 


 221.  For  the  same  reason,  we  find  that  SWBTs  ordering  process  is  not  per  se 
 discriminatory.  The  record  shows  that  SWBTs  ordering  system  is  designed  to  link  orders  to  flow 
 through  its  systems  together.  Thus,  if  SWBTs  ordering  process  operates  as  SWBT  claims  it  is 
 intended  to  operate,  the  three  orders  would  be  processed  simultaneously  and  the  change  would  be 
 imperceptible  to  the  end-  user  customer.  As  described  in  the  OSS  section  supra,  SWBT  is 
 providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to  OSS  ordering  functions  as  evidenced  by  its  performance 
 data.  Therefore,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  is  meeting  its  statutory  obligation  of  providing 
 nondiscriminatory  access  regardless  of  the  specific  type  of  ordering  process  it  has  chosen  to 
 implement. 


 222.  Finally,  we  note  that  the  Department  of  Justice  expressed  concern  about  two 
 recent  disturbing  allegations  by  competing  LECs  regarding  limitations  on  the  availability  of 


 605  See,  e.  g.,  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments  at  5-  6;  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments,  Exhibit  A,  Affidavit  of  Burk 
 (CompTel  Texas  I  Burk  Aff.)  at  paras.  1-  24;  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments,  Exhibit  B,  Affidavit  of  Thompson 
 (CompTel  Texas  I  Thompson  Aff.)  at  para.  26;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  57-  58;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments, 
 App.  Vol.  IIIA,  Tab  D,  Declaration  of  DeYoung  (AT&  T  DeYoung  Decl.)  at  paras.  301-  302.  See  also  CLEC 
 Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  26-  27. 


 606  See  discussion  supra  in  OSS  section.  SWBTs  ordering  system  separates  the  requesting  carriers  local  service 


 request  into  three  separate  orders:  (1)  a  disconnect  or  D  order  instructs  SWBTs  systems  to  disconnect  the 
 service  presently  installed  at  the  customer  location;  (2)  a  new  or  N  order  is  created  that  instructs  SWBTs 
 systems  to  install  new  service  at  the  customer  location;  and  (3)  a  change  or  C  order  is  created,  instructing 
 SWBTs  system  to  modify  billing  for  the  line. 


 607  Rule  51.315(  b)  reads:  Except  upon  request,  an  incumbent  LEC  shall  not  separate  requested  network  elements 


 that  the  incumbent  LEC  currently  combines.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.315.  This  rule  was  challenged  but  upheld  by  the 
 Supreme  Court.  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999). 
115
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 116 
 UNE-  P.  608  Based  on  our  review  of  these  allegations  and  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that 
 SWBT  satisfies  its  statutory  obligation  to  provide  access  to  UNE-  P  on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis. 
 First,  AT&  T  alleges  that  SWBT  refuses  to  provide  fiber-  to-  the-  curb  lines  originating  from  a 
 central  office  in  Richardson,  Texas  to  competitive  LECs  on  a  UNE-  P  basis,  making  them  available 
 only  on  a  resale  basis.  609  While  SWBT  concedes  that  some  orders  for  UNE-  P  over  fiber-  to-  the-curb 
 architecture  were  improperly  rejected,  it  states  that  it  completed  other  orders  and  that  the 
 improper  rejections  have  not  recurred  since  February  2000.  610  Moreover,  SWBT  explains  that 
 these  rejections  resulted  from  mistakes  made  by  individual  personnel  and  do  not  reflect  its  official 
 policy.  SWBT  also  submitted  copies  of  internal  procedures  for  completing  such  orders.  611 


 223.  Second,  Global  Crossing  alleges  that  SWBT  has  stonewalled  Global  Crossings 
 request  to  convert  its  resale  customers  in  Texas  to  UNE-  P  service.  612  We  have  previously  stated 
 that  we  will  not  withhold  section  271  authorization  on  the  basis  of  isolated  instances  of  alleged 
 unfair  dealing  or  discrimination  under  the  Act.  613  In  this  instance,  we  do  not  find  that  the  incident 
 cited  by  Global  Crossing  constitutes  a  pattern  of  discriminatory  conduct  or  undermines  our 
 overall  conclusion  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  combinations  of  network 
 elements.  614  Moreover,  we  note  that  SWBT  now  acknowledges  that  resale-  to-  UNE-  P 
 conversions  are  covered  by  Global  Crossing/  Frontiers  current  interconnection  agreement  in 
 Texas,  and  SWBT  suggests  that  it  is  willing  to  resolve  this  issue  promptly.  615 


 608  See  Department  of  Justice  June  13  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  n.  54. 
 609  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Chambers/  DeYoung  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  55-  62. 
 610  See  SWBT  July  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4. 
 611  See  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4  and  Att.  13  (confidential).  Although  we  recognize  that  earlier 
 remarks  made  by  SWBT  personnel  in  a  workshop  convened  by  the  Texas  Commission  appear  inconsistent  with 
 this  policy,  (see  AT&  T  Texas  2  Chambers/  DeYoung  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  59  and  Att.  9),  we  rely  on  SWBTs 
 clarification  provided  in  its  June  23  ex  parte  letter. 


 612  See  Global  Crossing  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  2-  3  (accusing  SWBT  of  refusing  to  allow  Global  Crossing  to 


 provide  UNE-  P  service  in  Texas  even  though  existing  agreements  expressly  provide  for  the  availability  of 
 unbundled  network  elements). 


 613  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  444;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20749. 


 614  SWBT  concedes  that  one  of  its  account  representatives  caused  this  delay  by  initially  insisting  that  Global 
 Crossing/  Frontier  could  not  convert  its  Texas  resale  customers  to  UNE-  P.  See  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4. 
 We  further  note  that  Global  Crossing  may  choose  to  address  disputes,  such  as  this  one,  arising  out  of  its 
 interconnection  agreement  with  the  Texas  Commission.  See  Texas  Commission  June  19  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4 
 (  welcom[  ing]  the  opportunity  to  work  with  [Global  Crossing]  to  resolve  any  potential  issues). 


 615  See  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4. 
116
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 117 
 (ii)  Access  to  the  Enhanced  Extended  Link 
 224.  Section  251(  c)(  3)  of  the  Act  imposes  on  incumbent  LECs  such  as  SWBT  the 
 obligation  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  unbundled  network  elements.  616  AT&  T  and 
 other  commenters  assert  that  SWBT  places  unreasonable  and  discriminatory  restrictions  on  a 
 combination  of  the  loop  and  transport  network  elements  (also  known  as  an  enhanced  extended 
 link  or  EEL)  in  violation  of  this  statutory  requirement.  617  We  disagree. 


 225.  In  a  further  notice  of  proposed  rulemaking  that  accompanied  the  UNE  Remand 
 Order,  we  requested  comment  on  the  legal  and  policy  implications  of  allowing  interexchange 
 carriers  to  gain  access  to  the  EEL  solely  for  the  purpose  of  providing  special  access  to  their 
 customers  at  UNE-  based  rates,  thereby  avoiding  an  incumbent  LECs  tariffed  special  access 
 service.  618  We  were  specifically  concerned  that  such  access  would  imperil  the  universal  service 
 subsidies  implicit  in  the  access  services  provided  by  incumbent  LECs.  619  In  our  Supplemental 
 Order  in  the  same  proceeding,  we  exercised  our  authority  to  protect  universal  service  during 
 periods  of  regulatory  transition  by  issuing  a  substantive  rule  temporarily  conditioning  an 
 interexchange  carriers  access  to  the  EEL  on  the  interexchange  carriers  provision  of  a  significant 
 amount  of  local  exchange  service,  in  addition  to  exchange  access  service,  to  given  customers.  620 


 226.  On  June  2,  2000,  we  clarified  and  extended  that  interim  measure  in  a  Supplemental 
 Order  Clarification,  establishing  safe  harbor  guidelines  for  what  constitutes  a  significant  amount 


 616  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
 617  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  59-  60;  Level  3  Texas  II  Comments  at  7-  8;  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  37. 
 618  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  RCC  Rcd  at  3914-  15,  paras.  494-  496.  Special  access  service  typically  consists  of:  (1) 
 entrance  facilities,  which  are  dedicated  transport  links  from  an  interexchange  carriers  point  of  presence  to  an 
 incumbent  LECs  switch  or  serving  wire  center  (SWC);  (2)  a  dedicated  transport  link  from  the  serving  wire  center 
 to  an  end  office  (i.  e.,  interoffice  transport);  and  (3)  a  channel  termination  facility  from  the  end  office  to  the  end 
 user  (i.  e.,  the  local  loop).  Id.  at  3912-  13,  paras.  485,  489. 


 619  Id.  at  3912-  13,  3915,  paras.  485-  489,  496;  see  also  id.  at  3915,  para.  496  (seeking  comment  on  the  policy 


 implications  for  our  universal  service  program  of  a  significant  reduction  in  special  access  revenues). 
 620  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No. 


 96-  98,  Supplemental  Order,  FCC  99-  370  at  paras.  4-  5  (rel.  Nov.  24,  1999)  (Supplemental  Order);  see  Competitive 
 Telecommunications  Association  v.  FCC,  117  F.  3d  1068,  1073-  75  (8  th  Cir.  1997)  and  MCI  Telecommunications 
 Corp.  v.  FCC,  750  F.  2d  135,  140  (D.  C.  Cir.  1984)).  The  Supplemental  Order  extended  the  terms  of  the  temporary 
 constraint  imposed  in  the  UNE  Remand  Order  beyond  merely  the  entrance  facility  portion  of  special  access 
 because  we  had  originally  underestimated  the  extent  of  the  policy  implications  associated  with  temporarily 
 constraining  interexchange  carriers  only  from  substituting  entrance  facilities  for  incumbent  LECs  special  access 
 service.  Supplemental  Order  at  para.  4  &  n.  5  (extending  temporary  constraint  to  include  combinations  of 
 unbundled  loops  and  dedicated  interoffice  transport  network  elements).  See  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  38 
 (noting  that  our  provisional  use  restriction  on  UNEs  as  a  substitute  for  access  services  was  carefully  tailored  in 
 an  effort  to  preserve  requesting  carriers  rights  to  use  UNE  combinations  for  all  other  telecommunications 
 purposes). 
117
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 118 
 of  local  exchange  service.  621  In  that  order,  we  explained  that,  in  addition  to  the  universal  service 
 concerns  underlying  the  Supplemental  Order  itself,  we  had  not  conducted  an  impairment 
 analysis  under  section  251(  d)(  2)  specifically  addressing  a  carriers  access  to  the  EEL  for  purposes 
 of  competing  in  the  exchange  access  market.  622  The  need  for  such  an  analysis,  we  observed,  was 
 particularly  important  in  light  of  the  Supreme  Courts  recent  invalidation  of  our  previous 
 implementation  of  the  impairment  standard  as  insufficiently  rigorous.  623  We  found  that  we 
 needed  additional  time  to  complete  that  empirical  inquiry,  and  we  explained  that  incumbent  LECs 
 have  no  statutory  obligation  to  provide  the  EEL  solely  or  primarily  for  use  in  the  exchange  access 
 market  unless  and  until  we  exercise  our  legislative  rulemaking  authority  under  section  251(  d)(  2) 
 to  impose  that  obligation.  624  We  specifically  rejected,  on  the  basis  of  our  long-  standing  experience 
 in  this  area,  the  contention  that  this  temporary  constraint  on  access  to  the  EEL  would  enable 
 incumbent  LECs  to  engage  in  price  squeezes  or  other  anticompetitive  conduct  once  they  enter 
 the  long-  distance  market.  625 


 227.  We  disagree  with  WorldComs  claim  that  SWBT  has  imposed  discriminatory  and 
 unreasonable  restrictions  on  access  to  EELs.  626  WorldCom  points  to  three  requirements  that 
 SWBT  places  on  access  to  EELs:  (1)  collocation;  (2)  refusal  to  permit  commingled  traffic;  and 
 (3)  certification  by  the  competitive  LEC  that  the  leased  UNEs  will  carry  only  certain  patterns  of 
 traffic.  627  First,  as  we  indicated  in  the  UNE  Remand  Order  and  in  the  Supplemental  Order 
 Clarification,  collocation  is  a  reasonable  requirement  for  access  to  EELs.  628  Secondly,  under  the 
 three  safe  harbor  circumstances  described  in  the  Supplemental  Order  Clarification,  incumbent 
 LECs  are  allowed  to  prohibit  commingling.  As  we  stated  in  that  order,  we  are  not  persuaded  that 
 removing  the  prohibition  in  those  local  usage  options  would  not  lead  to  the  use  of  unbundled 
 network  elements  by  interexchange  carriers  solely  or  primarily  to  bypass  special  access  services.  629 
 Finally,  certification  is  not  an  unreasonable  requirement  for  implementing  the  Supplemental 
 Order,  where  we  expressly  stated  that  competing  carriers  using  EELs  must  provide  a  significant 


 621  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No. 
 96-  98,  Supplemental  Order  Clarification,  FCC  00-  183  at  paras.  1,  21-  23  (rel.  June  2,  2000)  (Supplemental  Order 
 Clarification). 


 622  See  Supplemental  Order  Clarification  at  paras.  13-  17. 


 623  Id. 
 624  Id.  at  paras.  15-  16  &  n.  50. 
 625  Id.  at  paras.  19-  20.  The  Eighth  Circuit  upheld  a  similar  determination  by  this  Commission  in  Southwestern 
 Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  FCC,  153  F.  3d  523,  548  (8  th  Cir.  1998). 
 626  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  37. 


 627  Id.  at  39-  41. 
 628  See  UNE  Remand  Order  at  para.  486;  Supplemental  Order  Clarification  at  paras.  22-  24. 
 629  See  Supplemental  Order  Clarification  at  para.  28. 
118
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 119 
 amount  of  local  exchange  service.  630  In  fact,  all  three  of  the  safe  harbor  circumstances  described 
 in  the  Supplemental  Order  Clarification  for  determining  whether  a  requesting  carrier  is  providing 
 a  significant  amount  of  local  exchange  service  call  for  certification  by  the  requesting  carrier.  631 


 228.  There  is  no  indication  in  the  record  that  SWBT  has  imposed  any  restriction  on 
 access  to  EELs  that  conflicts  with  our  specific  guidance  in  the  Supplemental  Order.  Because  the 
 substantive  interim  rules  we  have  adopted  in  our  orders  on  this  subject  define  the  nature  of 
 SWBTs  statutory  obligations,  SWBTs  adherence  to  them  cannot  constitute  a  basis  for  finding 
 noncompliance  with  the  checklist.  It  would  be  quite  unfair  to  a  BOC  applicant  to  deny  it  approval 
 to  compete  in  the  long-  distance  market  on  the  basis  of  conduct  that,  in  other  proceedings,  we 
 have  explicitly  authorized.  For  the  section  271  process  to  work,  potential  BOC  applicants  must 
 have  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty  about  what  they  need  to  do  to  bring  themselves  in 
 compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements,  and  they  therefore  need  to  be  able  to  rely  on  our  rules 
 for  appropriate  guidance. 


 (iii)  Intellectual  Property  Rights  for  UNEs 
 229.  We  reject  AT&  Ts  assertion  that  SWBT  places  restrictions  on  intellectual  property 
 associated  with  UNEs  in  violation  of  sections  251(  c)(  3)  and  252(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act.  632  Furthermore, 
 AT&  T  appears  to  believe  that  SWBT  has  an  obligation  to  protect  competitive  LECs  that  lease 
 network  elements  from  intellectual  property  liability.  633  AT&  T  notes  that  SWBT  could  eliminate 
 the  problem  by  agreeing  to  indemnify  competitive  LECs  using  UNEs  in  a  manner  equivalent  to 
 SWBT  against  any  intellectual  property  liabilities  that  competitive  LECs  may  incur  from  that  use.  634 


 230.  We  recently  addressed  the  intellectual  property  rights  surrounding  UNEs  in  our 
 Intellectual  Property  Order  released  April  27,  2000.  635  In  that  order,  we  declared  that  section 
 251(  c)(  3)  requires  an  incumbent  LEC  such  as  SWBT  to  use  its  best  efforts  to  obtain  coextensive 
 intellectual  property  rights  associated  with  UNEs  from  a  vendor  on  terms  and  conditions  that  are 
 equal  in  quality  to  the  terms  and  conditions  under  which  the  incumbent  LEC  has  obtained  its 


 630  Supplemental  Order  at  para.  5  &  n.  9  (noting  that  allowing  requesting  carriers  to  self-  certify  that  they  are 
 providing  a  significant  amount  of  local  exchange  service  would  not  delay  their  ability  to  convert  facilities  to 
 unbundled  network  element  pricing). 


 631  Id.  at  paras.  22-  23. 


 632  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  57. 
 633  See  id.;  Letter  from  Mark  E.  Haddad,  Counsel  for  AT&  T  Corp.,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal 
 Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65  at  1-  2  (filed  June  27,  2000). 
 634  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  58. 


 635  Petition  of  MCI  for  Declaratory  Ruling  that  New  Entrants  Need  Not  Obtain  Separate  License  or  Right-  to-  use 
 Agreements  Before  Purchasing  Unbundled  Elements,  CCBPol.  97-  4  &  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98,  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order,  FCC  00-  139  (rel.  Apr.  27,  2000)  (Intellectual  Property  Order). 
119
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 120 
 rights.  636  SWBT  has  stated  that  it  will  fully  comply  with  the  Intellectual  Property  Orders 
 requirement  to  use  best  efforts  to  obtain  coextensive  third-  party  intellectual  property  rights  for 
 competitive  LECs  using  UNEs.  637  Additionally,  the  T2A  provides  that  the  terms  of  the 
 Intellectual  Property  Order  control  over  language  in  the  T2A  that  AT&  T  asserts  is 
 discriminatory.  638  We  therefore  find  that  SWBT  does  not  insist  on  language  in  its  interconnection 
 agreements  that  violates  its  obligation  to  provide  nondiscriminatory  access  to  UNEs  under  section 
 251(  c)(  3)  or  252(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act,  as  AT&  T  argues.  Moreover,  the  Intellectual  Property  Order 
 did  not  require  that  incumbent  LECs  indemnify  competitive  LECs  for  any  intellectual  property 
 liability  associated  with  their  use  of  UNEs,  and  we  do  not  find  that  unwillingness  to  provide  such 
 indemnification  would  necessarily  constitute  a  violation  of  the  Act.  All  that  the  nondiscrimination 
 principle  requires  in  this  context  is  that  the  incumbent  LEC  utilize  its  best  efforts  to  obtain 
 coextensive  third  party  intellectual  property  rights  for  competitive  LECs  in  the  use  of  unbundled 
 network  elements. 


 3.  Pricing  of  Network  Elements 
 a.  Background 
 231.  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.  639 
 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.  640  Section  252(  d)(  1)  requires  that  a 
 state  commissions  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.  641  Pursuant  to  this  statutory  mandate,  the  Commission  has  determined  that 
 prices  for  UNEs  must  be  based  on  the  total  element  long  run  incremental  cost  of  providing  those 


 636  Id.  at  para.  2.  The  Commission  reasoned  that  the  nondiscriminatory  access  obligation  in  section  251(  c)(  3) 
 requires  incumbent  LECs  to  use  their  best  efforts  to  provide  all  features  and  functionalities  of  each  unbundled 
 network  element  they  provide,  which  includes  any  associated  intellectual  property  rights  that  are  necessary  for  the 
 requesting  carrier  to  use  the  network  element  in  the  same  manner  as  the  incumbent  LEC.  Id.  at  para.  9. 


 637  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  64. 


 638  Id.;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments,  Vol.  4,  Tab  F,  Declaration  of  Mark  Witcher  and  Daniel  P.  Rhinehart  at  para. 
 16  (objecting  to  sections  7.3.2  through  7.3.4  of  the  T2A).  Section  7.3.5  of  the  T2A  provides  that  the  provisions  of 
 the  Intellectual  Property  Order  shall  control  over  the  terms  of  sections  7.  3.  2  through  7.  3.  4.  Id.  Furthermore, 
 any  disputes  between  SWBT  and  the  other  party  to  the  T2A  regarding  implementation  of  the  Intellectual  Property 
 Order  are  subject  to  expedited  dispute  resolution  procedures  before  the  Texas  Commission.  Id. 


 639  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  B)(  ii). 


 640  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
 641  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  1). 
120
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 121 
 elements.  642  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.  643  Starting  in  September  1996,  the  U.  S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Eighth  Circuit  stayed 
 and  then  vacated  the  Commissions  pricing  rules,  and  in  1997  it  vacated  Rule  51.315(  b)  644  The 
 Supreme  Court  restored  these  rules,  however,  on  January  25,  1999.  645 


 232.  SWBTs  initial  application  noted  that  it  assessed  a  number  of  nonrecurring  charges 
 on  UNE  orders.  SWBT  assesses  a  $2.56  nonrecurring  service  order  charge  for  each  UNE  order.  646  SWBT  also  assesses  a  separate,  nonrecurring  charge  for  each  stand-  alone  element 


 ordered.  647  When  a  requesting  carrier  orders  UNEs  that  are  already  combined  in  SWBTs 
 network,  SWBT  assesses  the  sum  of  the  nonrecurring  charges  for  the  applicable  UNEs.  Thus,  in 
 an  order  for  a  pre-  combined  residential  platform  containing  a  two-  wire  analog  loop,  the  applicable 
 charges  were:  1)  a  $2.56  nonrecurring  service  order  charge,  2)  a  $15.03  nonrecurring  two-  wire 
 analog  loop  charge,  3)  a  $1.27  nonrecurring  port  charge,  and  4)  a  $4.17  nonrecurring  cross-connect 
 charge,  for  a  total  of  $23.03  in  nonrecurring  charges.  648  In  an  order  for  a  combination  of 
 elements  not  already  assembled  in  SWBTs  network,  SWBT  assessed  an  additional  $16.35 


 642  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15844-  46;  47  C.  F.  R.    51.501.  See  also  Line  Sharing  Order 
 (Commission  concluded  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). 


 643  See  47  C.  F.  R.    51.315(  b). 


 644  Iowa  Utilities  Board  v.  FCC,  96  F.  3d  1116  (8th  Cir.  1996)  (per  curiam)  (temporarily  staying  the  Local 
 Competition  Order  until  the  filing  of  the  courts  order  resolving  the  petitioners  motion  for  stay);  Iowa  Utilities 
 Board  v.  FCC,  109  F.  3d  418  (8th  Cir.)  (dissolving  temporary  stay  and  granting  petitioners  motion  for  stay, 
 pending  a  final  decision  on  the  merits  of  the  appeal),  motion  to  vacate  stay  denied,  117  S.  Ct.  429  (1996);  Iowa 
 Utilities  Board  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  753  (8th  Cir.  1997)  (vacating  the  Commissions  pricing  and  combination  rules). 


 645  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999). 


 646  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  App.  Pricing  UNE,  Schedule  of  Prices. 
 647  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  140;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  141. 
 648  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.,  App.  Pricing  UNE,  Schedule  of  Prices.  We  note  that  SWBTs  nonrecurring 
 charges  are  substantially  higher  than  those  charged  by  incumbent  LECs  in  other  states,  as  the  following  table 
 indicates: 


 STATE  RESIDENTIAL  LOOP-  TO-  PORT 
 COMBINATION  RATES 


 Florida  $1.46 
 New  York  $3.73 
 Connecticut  $1.78 
 Texas  $23.03 
121
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 122 
 nonrecurring  central  office  access  charge  (COAC).  649 
 233.  While  the  Eighth  Circuit  decision  invalidating  our  rule  315(  b)  was  in  effect,  the 
 Texas  Commission  approved  these  charges.  650  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  appealed  to  a  federal 
 district  court  in  Texas  the  state  commissions  decision  on  the  nonrecurring  charges,  including  the 
 COAC,  contending  that  they  constituted  non-  cost  based  glue  charges.  651  The  district  court 
 affirmed  the  Texas  Commissions  decision,  also  while  the  Eighth  Circuits  decision  was  in  effect.  652  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  then  appealed  to  the  Fifth  Circuit.  653  On  February  24,  2000,  the 


 U.  S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Fifth  Circuit  remanded  AT&  T  and  WorldComs  appeal  to  the 
 Texas  Commission  for  further  proceedings  in  light  of  the  Supreme  Courts  decision  in  Iowa 
 Utilities  Board.  654  The  Eighth  Circuit  and  the  Texas  Commission  are  currently  considering 
 whether  the  Supreme  Courts  decision  in  Iowa  Utilities  Board  and  our  rules  obligate  SWBT  to 
 combine  UNEs  in  new  combinations  as  ordered  by  competitors.  655  The  Texas  Commission  is  also 
 considering  whether  SWBT  is  entitled  to  impose  the  nonrecurring  charges  on  competitive  LEC 
 orders  for  existing  UNE  combinations  and  whether  SWBTs  current  nonrecurring  charges  are 
 adequately  supported  by  cost  documentation  as  required  by  the  Telecommunications  Act  and  our 
 rules.  656 


 649  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.,  App.  Pricing  UNE,  Schedule  of  Prices. 
 650  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  26;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142.  Rule  315(  b) 
 provides  that  an  incumbent  LEC  shall  not  separate  network  elements  that  the  incumbent  LEC  currently  combines 
 except  upon  request.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.315(  b).  Although  the  Supreme  Courts  review  of  the  Commissions  rules  in 
 Iowa  Utilities  Board  revived  rule  315(  b),  the  Court  did  not  review  the  Eighth  Circuits  decision  regarding  rules 
 315(  c)  through  (f).  See  Iowa  Utilities  Board,  525  U.  S.  366. 


 651  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  26;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142;  AT&  T  Rhinehart 


 Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  11;  WorldCom  Price  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  4.  Glue  charges  are  charges  competitors  pay  to 
 compensate  the  incumbent  LEC  for  combining  network  elements.  We  have  expressed  skepticism  regarding  the 
 lawfulness  of  such  charges  in  certain  circumstances.  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4092, 
 para.  262. 


 652  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  29;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142. 


 653  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142. 
 654  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Co.  v.  AT&  T  Communications,  No.  99-  50073,  (5  th  Cir.  Feb.  24,  2000). 
 655  See  Iowa  Utilities  Board,  525  U.  S.  366;  Texas  Commission,  Docket  No.  21622,  Order  No.  1  and  Docket  No. 
 22290,  Order  No.  5,  Consolidating  Two  Dockets  Setting  Forth  the  List  of  Issues  and  Schedule  for  Phase  I  of  the 
 Proceeding  (April  4,  2000). 


 656  See  Texas  Commission,  Docket  No.  21622,  Order  No.  1  and  Docket  No.  22290,  Order  No.  5,  Consolidating 


 Two  Dockets  Setting  Forth  the  List  of  Issues  and  Schedule  for  Phase  I  of  the  Proceeding  (April  4,  2000). 
122
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 123 
 b.  Discussion 
 234.  COAC.  SWBT  states  that  the  COAC  is  assessed  on  UNE  combinations  and 
 enhanced  extended  loops  (EELs)  that  do  not  already  exist  in  combined  form  in  SWBTs  network, 
 and  thus  require  work  by  SWBT.  657  SWBT  argues  that  the  COAC  is  not  subject  to  sections  251 
 and  252  of  the  Act,  658  and  opposed  the  remand  to  the  Texas  Commission  on  this  issue.  659 
 According  to  SWBT,  the  COAC  is  not  subject  to  the  Commissions  forward-  looking 
 methodology  because  the  Supreme  Court  held  only  that  incumbent  LECs  cannot  separate  already 
 combined  elements  before  providing  them,  not  that  they  must  combine  separate  UNEs.  660  AT&  T 
 and  WorldCom  challenge  the  COAC  as  a  non-  cost-  based  glue  charge.  661  They  state  that  the 
 COAC  is  not  based  on  the  cost  of  combining  UNEs,  but  has  its  basis  in  a  retail  tariff  that  SWBT 
 charges  to  cover  central  office  activity  to  its  retail  customers.  662  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  contend 
 that  the  COAC  double-  recovers  costs  recouped  through  the  nonrecurring  charges  assessed  on  the 
 individual  elements,  663  as  well  as  the  retail  fees  for  central  office.  664 


 235.  In  its  1997  ruling,  the  Eighth  Circuit  invalidated  rules  315(  c)  through  (f),  which 
 required  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  network  elements  in  new  combinations  requested  by  a 
 competing  carrier.  The  Supreme  Court  did  not  specifically  review  that  aspect  of  the  Eighth 
 Circuit's  holding,  which  is,  therefore,  binding  on  us  unless  and  until  it  is  vacated.  We  are  also 
 precluded  by  the  Eighth  Circuits  holding  from  denying  this  application  on  the  ground  that  SWBT 
 has  somehow  violated  the  Act  by  setting  particular  pricing  conditions  on  the  provision  of  UNE 
 combinations  that,  under  the  Eighth  Circuits  decision,  it  need  not  provide  at  all.  For  this  reason, 
 we  have  not  examined  the  prices  associated  with  the  UNE  combinations  that  SWBT  is  not 
 required  to  provide.  The  Eighth  Circuit  is  currently  considering  whether  to  revive  rules  315(  c) 
 through  (f)  on  remand  from  Iowa  Utilities  Board,  and  the  Texas  Commission  has  been  asked  to 
 consider  the  underlying  new  combinations  issue  on  remand  from  the  Fifth  Circuit. 


 657  SWBT  Texas  I  Comments  at  37-  38;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  141;  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  at  56- 
 57;  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  25;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  43. 
 658  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  43. 


 659  SWBT  Smith  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  9;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142. 
 660  SWBT  Texas  I  Comments,  App.  A-  3,  Tab  1;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  142;  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply 
 at  56-  57.  See  also  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  27. 
 661  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  35. 


 662  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  57-  58,  60;  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.,  Att.  2  at  paras.  25, 
 27;  WorldCom  Price  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  16. 
 663  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  60;  WorldCom  Price  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  17-  18;  WorldCom  Texas  II 


 Comments  at  35. 
 664  AT&  T  Rhinehart  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  25. 
123
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 124 
 Given  the  current  state  of  the  law,  those  proceedings  are  the  appropriate  forums  for  resolving 
 disputes  such  as  the  one  at  issue  here.  665 


 236.  Nonrecurring  charges  other  than  the  COAC.  As  previously  discussed,  we  are 
 reluctant  to  deny  a  section  271  application  because  a  BOC  is  engaged  in  an  unresolved  rate 
 dispute  with  its  competitors  and  the  relevant  state  commission,  which  has  primary  jurisdiction 
 over  the  matter,  is  currently  considering  the  matter.  666  Instead,  as  we  have  explained,  interim  rate 
 solutions  are  a  sufficient  basis  for  granting  a  271  application  when  an  interim  solution  to  a 
 particular  rate  dispute  is  reasonable  under  the  circumstances,  the  state  commission  has 
 demonstrated  its  commitment  to  our  pricing  rules,  and  provision  is  made  for  refunds  or  true-  ups 
 once  permanent  rates  are  set.  SWBTs  271  application  easily  meets  that  standard. 


 237.  The  dispute  over  the  nonrecurring  charges  other  than  the  COAC  has  evolved 
 significantly  since  SWBT  filed  its  initial  application.  667  The  practice  that  AT&  T  now  challenges  is 
 a  policy  under  which  SWBT  withholds  collection  of  the  relevant  charges,  effectively  imposing  an 
 interim  charge  of  zero  on  the  nonrecurring  items  that  form  the  basis  of  AT&  Ts  complaints,  if  the 
 competing  carrier  agrees  to  be  bound  by  any  true-  up  the  Texas  Commission  might  order  on 
 remand  from  the  Fifth  Circuit.  668  That  interim  solution,  which  AT&  T  chose  to  reject,  is 
 reasonable  given  the  legal  uncertainty  that  has  surrounded  these  charges  since  the  Supreme 
 Courts  1999  decision  in  Iowa  Utilities  Board.  SWBT  has  agreed  to  an  interim  solution  that 
 gives  its  competitors  the  current  benefit  of  the  doubt  on  these  rates,  subject  only  to  the  possibility 
 that  the  Texas  Commission,  and  ultimately  the  federal  courts,  might  someday  find  that  a  charge 
 greater  than  zero  is  required  by  the  Act  or  our  rules.  AT&  T  is  poorly  positioned  to  complain 
 about  that  solution.  Because  the  Texas  Commission  and  the  federal  courts  must  be  presumed  to 
 apply  the  law  correctly,  those  carriers  face  uncertainty  about  the  imposition  of  a  true-  up  only  to 
 the  extent  that  they  reasonably  believe  that  they  may  in  fact  have  a  legal  obligation  to  pay 
 something  greater  than  a  charge  of  zero.  No  carrier  is  immune  from  the  effect  of  future 


 665  WorldCom  contends  that  competitive  LECs  do  not  have  access  to  SWBTs  network  to  combine  elements  and  it 
 is  apparently  on  that  premise  that  WorldCom  infers  a  requirement  that  the  COAC  must  be  cost-  based.  That 
 premise  is  belied  by  the  provision  in  SWBTs  T2A  that  allows  competitive  LECs  to  combine  individually  ordered 
 network  elements.  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  35-  36;  see  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.,  Att.  A, 
 Attachment  UNE-  TX  at  2.  Because  SWBTs  interconnection  agreement  includes  such  a  provision,  competitors 
 have  a  method,  other  than  the  COAC,  of  combining  elements  that  are  not  previously  combined  in  SWBTs 
 network. 


 666  See  also  part  V.  A.  2  infra,  Pricing  of  Interconnection. 


 667  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  39-  42;  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  33-  34.  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  have 
 challenged  the  nonrecurring  charges  that  apply  to  the  pre-  existing  two-  wire  analog,  loop-  to-  switch  port 
 combination.  The  application  of  nonrecurring  charges  to  other  combinations  of  UNEs  was  not  raised  by  the  parties 
 as  an  issue  in  this  proceeding. 


 668  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  37;  AT&  T  June  14,  2000  Ex  Parte  Letter  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  FCC 


 Secretary,  from  Mark  E.  Haddad,  Counsel  for  AT&  T.  See  SWBT  June  27,  2000  Ex  Parte  Letter  to  Magalie 
 Roman  Salas,  FCC  Secretary,  from  Edwardo  Rodriguez,  Jr.,  SBC  Federal  Regulatory  Executive  Director;  SWBT 
 Auinbauh  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  41-  42. 
124
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 125 
 resolutions  of  disputed  issues,  and,  under  the  circumstances,  the  objection  of  AT&  T  on  this  point 
 is  entirely  insufficient  to  warrant  a  denial  of  SWBTs  application. 


 238.  In  light  of  the  Fifth  Circuit  remand  and  SWBTs  offer  to  impose  an  effective 
 interim  rate  of  zero  for  the  nonrecurring  charges  in  dispute,  therefore,  we  need  not  preempt  the 
 Texas  Commissions  ongoing  inquiry  into  whether  those  charges  comply  with  section  251  of  the 
 Act  or  our  pricing  rules.  The  Texas  Commission  has  established  a  schedule  to  set  permanent  rates 
 for  all  nonrecurring  charges,  and  has  indicated  to  the  parties  that  the  interim  rates  are  subject  to  a 
 true-  up.  The  Texas  Commission  is  currently  reviewing  whether  SWBT  is  entitled  to  impose 
 nonrecurring  charges  for  existing  UNE  combinations  and  whether  there  is  adequate  cost  support 
 for  SWBTs  proposed  nonrecurring  charges  as  required  by  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996 
 and  our  rules.  670  Interested  parties  will  have  an  opportunity  to  challenge  the  cost-  based  nature  of 
 the  rates  proposed  by  SWBT  in  the  proceeding  before  the  Texas  Commission.  671 


 239.  The  situation  we  confront  here  is  similar  to  the  situation  we  confronted  in  the  Bell 
 Atlantic  New  York  Order  on  the  issue  of  interim  rates.  672  As  in  that  proceeding,  the  rate  dispute 
 here  is  fairly  new,  the  relevant  state  commission  has  demonstrated  a  commitment  to  TELRIC,  and 
 provision  will  be  made  for  retrospective  rate  adjustments  once  permanent  rates  are  set. 
 Moreover,  SWBT  has  agreed  to  set  an  effective  interim  rate  of  zero,  subject  to  true-  up,  pending 
 resolution  of  this  dispute.  Because  we  are  confident  that  the  Texas  Commission  will  reach  an 
 appropriate  result  consistent  with  our  rules,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  has  met  its  obligations  under 
 this  checklist  item.  We  also  observe  that  in  any  context  in  which  prices  are  not  set  in  accordance 
 with  our  rules  and  the  Act,  we  retain  the  ability  to  take  a  variety  of  enforcement  actions  and  will 
 not  hesitate  to  do  so.  673 


 240.  xDSL  Rates.  Covad  argues  that  SWBT  has  not  met  the  requirements  of  checklist 
 item  (ii)  because  it  does  not  have  final,  TELRIC-  based  rates  for  charges  relating  to  the  installation 
 and  conditioning  of  xDSL-  capable  loops.  674  The  Texas  Commission,  in  the  Mega-  Arbitration,  set 
 permanent  charges  for  xDSL-  capable  loops.  675  After  reviewing  the  permanent  rates  set  in  the 
 Mega-  Arbitration,  the  arbitrator  for  the  Covad/  Rhythms  arbitration  agreement  set  interim 


 669  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  at  50;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  27-  29. 
 670  See  Texas  Commission,  Docket  No.  21622,  Order  No.  1  and  Docket  No.  22290,  Order  No.  5,  Consolidating 
 Two  Dockets  Setting  Forth  the  List  of  Issues  and  Schedule  for  Phase  I  of  the  Proceeding  (April  4,  2000). 
 671  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments,  Exh.  G,  at  3  (SWBTs  April  5,  2000  brief  before  the  Texas  Commission). 


 672  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4091,  para.  259;  see  also  Section  V.  A.  2,  Pricing  of 
 Interconnection. 
 673  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6). 


 674  Covad  Texas  I  Comments  at  15. 
 675  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  96;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  144. 
125
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 126 
 charges,  subject  to  true-  up,  that  are  the  exact  xDSL  rates  that  Covad  proposed.  676  The  Texas 
 Commission  is  now  conducting  a  proceeding  to  set  permanent  xDSL  rates  based  on  cost  studies 
 that  SWBT  submitted  at  the  direction  of  the  Texas  Commission  arbitrator.  677 


 241.  As  discussed  previously,  interim  rate  solutions  are  a  sufficient  basis  for  granting  a 
 section  271  application  when  an  interim  solution  to  a  particular  rate  dispute  is  reasonable  under 
 the  circumstances,  where  the  state  commission  has  demonstrated  its  commitment  to  our  pricing 
 rules,  and  provision  is  made  for  refunds  or  true-  ups  once  permanent  rates  are  set.  It  is  evident 
 from  a  review  of  the  Covad/  Rhythms  arbitration  proceeding  that  the  interim  xDSL  rates  are  a 
 reasonable  interim  solution  to  this  fairly  recent  dispute,  the  Texas  Commission  has  established  a 
 track  record  of  setting  interim  xDSL  rates  that  are  cost-  based,  and  the  rates  are  subject  to  a 
 retroactive  rate  adjustment.  678  We  are  confident  that  the  Texas  Commission  will  ultimately  set 
 permanent,  cost-  based  xDSL  rates  that  comply  with  our  rules.  Under  these  circumstances,  we 
 find  that  SWBT  has  met  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  2  with  respect  to  its  xDSL  rates. 


 242.  Promotional  Discounts.  AT&  T  also  asserts  that  promotional  discounts  on 
 unbundled  loop  and  platform  orders  for  telecommunications  carriers  serving  residential  customers 
 that  SWBT  offers  are  discriminatory  and  in  violation  of  the  Act.  679  These  promotions  arise  out  of 
 SBCs  merger  with  Ameritech.  680  We  found  in  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  that  these 
 promotions  will  bring  more  competitive  offerings  to  residential  customers.  681  We  also  found  that 
 these  promotional  offerings  are  offered  to  all  telecommunications  carriers  on  a  nondiscriminatory 
 basis.  682  Our  findings  in  that  order  answer  AT&  Ts  concerns  here,  and  in  any  event,  it  would  be 
 quite  unfair  to  penalize  SWBT  in  this  proceeding  for  acting  in  accordance  with  those  findings.  683 


 676  Covad  Texas  I  Comments,  Tab  5,  Final  Arbitration  Award,  Docket  Nos.  20226,  20272,  at  87-  88.  See  SWBT 
 Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  144;  SWBT  April  5  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  14. 
 677  Covad  Texas  I  Comments,  Tab  5,  Final  Arbitration  Award,  Docket  Nos.  20226,  20272  at  86-  87.  The  xDSL 


 cost  study  for  loop  conditioning  was  due  on  March  31,  2000  and  for  loop  make-  up  information  was  due  on  May  30, 
 2000. 


 678  Covad  Texas  I  Comments,  Tab  5,  Final  Arbitration  Award,  Docket  Nos.  20226,  20272,  at  86-  88. 


 679  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  64,  n.  62. 
 680  Applications  of  Ameritech  Corp.  and  SBC  Communications  Inc.  for  Consent  to  Transfer  Control  of 
 Corporations  Holding  Commission  Licenses  and  Lines  Pursuant  to  Sections  214  and  310(  d)  of  the 
 Communications  Act,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  141,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  14712,  14874  at 
 paras.  390-  391  (1999)  (SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order). 


 681  Id.  at  14915-  15,  para.  494. 


 682  Id.  at  14916  at  para.  497. 
 683  At  the  time  SWBT  filed  its  application,  SWBT  offered  competing  carriers  a  second  voice  grade  loop  for  the 
 provision  of  advanced  services  at  50  percent  of  its  lowest  rate  for  a  voice  grade  loop.  Because  the  Commission 
 found  that  this  was  a  reasonable  approach  until  the  line  sharing  requirements  took  effect,  we  reject  AT&  Ts 
 arguments  otherwise.  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  14987-  92,  App.  C.,  paras.  8,  14;  SWBT 
 (continued.) 
126
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 127 
 C.  Checklist  Item  3    Poles,  Ducts,  Conduits  and  Rights  of  Way 
 1.  Background 
 243.  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.  684  In  the  Local  Competition 
 First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  interpreted  section  251(  b)(  4)  as  requiring 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  LEC  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way  for  competing 
 providers  of  telecommunications  services  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  224.  685 
 In  addition,  we  interpreted  the  revised  requirements  of  section  224  governing  rates,  terms,  and 
 conditions  for  telecommunications  carriers  attachments  to  utility  poles  in  the  Pole  Attachment 
 Telecommunications  Rate  Order.  686  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.  687  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.  688 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Texas  II  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  5;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  21;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para. 
 13. 


 684  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. 


 685  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  16073,  para.  1156. 


 686  Implementation  of  Section  703(  e)  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Amendment  of  the  Commissions 
 Rules  and  Policies  Governing  Pole  Attachments,  CS  Docket  No.  97-  151,  13  FCC  Rcd  6777  (1998)  (Pole 
 Attachment  Telecommunications  Rate  Order),  vacated  in  part,  Gulf  Power  Company  v.  FCC,  208  F.  3d  1263  (11th 
 Cir.  2000). 


 687  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). 


 688  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. 
127
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 128 
 244.  Section  224  also  contains  two  separate  provisions  governing  the  maximum  rates 
 that  a  utility  may  charge  for  pole  attachments.  689  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.  690  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.  691  As  of  1992,  nineteen  states  had  certified  to  the  Commission 
 that  they  regulated  the  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  for  pole  attachments.  692  However,  none  of  the 
 five  states  in  which  SWBT  is  a  LEC,  including  Texas,  has  elected  to  regulate  poles,  ducts, 
 conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way.  693 


 2.  Discussion 
 245.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  provides 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way  at  just  and  reasonable 
 rates  in  compliance  with  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iii),  and  thus  satisfies  the  requirements  of  checklist 
 item  3.  694  The  Texas  Commission  concludes  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to 


 689  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). 


 690  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  b)(  1). 


 691  47  U.  S.  C.    224(  c)(  1).  Texas  does  not  regulate  the  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  for  pole  attachments.  See  In 
 re  Marcus  Cable  Associates,  L.  P.  v.  Texas  Utilities  Electric  Company,  P.  A.  No.  96-  002,  12  FCC  Rcd  10362, 
 10365,  para.  10  (1997);  see  also  States  That  Have  Certified  That  They  Regulate  Pole  Attachments,  Public  Notice, 
 7  FCC  Rcd  1498  (1992).  The  1996  Act  extended  the  Commissions  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. 


 692  See  States  That  Have  Certified  That  They  Regulate  Pole  Attachments,  Public  Notice,  7  FCC  Rcd  1498  (1992); 


 47  U.  S.  C.    224(  f). 
 693  SWBT  Hearst  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  32. 


 694  SWBT  states  that,  pursuant  to  section  224  of  the  Act,  it  has  negotiated  agreements  with  cable  providers  for 
 access  to  poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way.  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  92.  The  product  of  these 
 negotiations  is  contained  in  SWBTs  Master  Agreement,  which  has  been  incorporated  in  interconnection 
 agreements  approved  by  the  Texas  Commission.  Id.  at  92.  SWBT  states  that  the  Master  Agreement  is  available  to 
 any  competitive  LEC,  and  that  it  will  negotiate  modifications  to  the  Master  Agreement  upon  request.  Id.  at  92-  93. 
 SWBT  states  that  its  Master  Agreement  and  its  state-  approved  interconnection  agreements  incorporate  rates  that 
 were  negotiated  with  cable  operators  and  comply  with  the  methodology  set  out  in  section  224(  d)(  1)  of  the  Act,  as 
 well  as  the  cost  formula  and  methodology  specified  by  the  Commission.  Id.  at  93;  see  also  SWBT  Hearst  Texas  I 
 (continued.) 
128
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 129 
 poles,  ducts,  conduits,  and  rights-  of-  way  at  just  and  reasonable  rates  that  comply  with  the  Act  and 
 Commission  rules.  695  No  commenter  raised  allegations  challenging  SWBTs  compliance  with  this 
 checklist  item. 


 D.  Checklist  Item  4    Unbundled  Local  Loops 
 1.  Background 
 246.  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  customers  premises, 
 unbundled  from  local  switching  or  other  services.  696  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.  697  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.  698 


 247.  In  order  to  establish  that  it  is  providing  unbundled  local  loops  in  compliance  with 
 section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv),  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.  699 


 248.  A  BOC  must  also  demonstrate  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 unbundled  loops.  700  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 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Aff.  at  para.  32;  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  App.  C,  Tab  1233  at  57  (Final  Staff  Status  Report  on  Collaborative 
 Process,  Investigation  of  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Companys  Entry  into  the  Texas  InterLATA 
 Telecommunications  Market,  TX  PUC  Nov.  18,  1998). 


 695  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  48-  50. 


 696  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  iv). 
 697  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). 


 698  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. 
 699  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4095,  para.  269;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20637,  para.  54. 
 700  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4095,  para.  269;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20712-  13,  para.  185. 
129
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 130 
 to  support  the  particular  functionality  requested.  701  In  order  to  provide  the  requested  loop 
 functionality,  such  as  the  ability  to  deliver  ISDN  or  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,  with  the  competing  carrier  bearing  the  cost  of 
 such  conditioning.  702  The  BOC  must  provide  competitors  with  access  to  unbundled  loops 
 regardless  of  whether  the  BOC  uses  integrated  digital  loop  carrier  (IDLC)  technology  703  or  similar 
 remote  concentration  devices  for  the  particular  loops  sought  by  the  competitor.  Again,  the  costs 
 associated  with  providing  access  to  such  facilities  may  be  recovered  from  competing  carriers.  704 


 249.  SWBT  states  that  through  February  2000,  it  provisioned  to  competing  carriers 
 more  than  54,000  loops  on  a  stand-  alone  basis  and  over  203,000  loops  as  part  of  pre-  assembled 
 loop/  port  combinations.  705  In  order  to  demonstrate  that  it  provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 these  loops,  SWBT  submitted  performance  data  relating  to  its  loop  provisioning  and  maintenance 
 and  repair  functions  for  competing  carriers.  These  data  are  disaggregated  by  loop  type  into 
 several  categories  for  both  voice  grade  loops  and  loops  capable  of  transmitting  the  digital  signals 
 necessary  to  support  high-  speed  data  services.  In  light  of  the  variety  of  SWBT  performance  data, 
 our  analysis  of  checklist  item  4  does  not  focus  on  any  single  performance  measurement  or  any 
 single  type  of  loop.  Instead,  we  examine  the  data  for  all  the  various  loop  performance 
 measurements,  as  well  as  the  factors  surrounding  the  development  of  these  performance 
 measurements,  in  order  to  evaluate  in  the  aggregate  whether  SWBT  provides  local  loops  in 
 accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4. 


 250.  The  focus  of  our  analysis  in  this  section  is  on  the  provisioning  and  maintenance  and 
 repair  of  stand-  alone  loops.  In  particular,  we  address  voice  grade  loops  provisioned  both  as  hot 
 cut  loops  and  as  new  stand-  alone  loops.  We  also  address  xDSL-  capable  loops  and  high  capacity 
 loops  (e.  g.,  DS1  loops).  Because  provisioning  and  maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  pre-assembled 
 loop/  port  combinations  are  more  similar  to  processes  used  to  provide  resale  than 


 701  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4095-  96,  para.  271;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20713,  para.  187. 
 702  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4095-  96,  para.  271. 


 703  IDLC  technology  permits  a  carrier  to  multiplex  and  demultiplex  loop  traffic  at  a  remote  concentration  point 
 and  to  deliver  that  combined  traffic  directly  to  the  switch  without  first  separating  the  individual  loops.  Local 
 Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15692,  para.  383;  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3793, 
 para.  217. 


 704  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15692-  93,  para.  384. 


 705  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Habeeb  Aff.  at  para.  5,  Attach.  A;  but  see  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  8-  9 
 (alleging  that  SWBT  overstates  its  facilities-  based  estimates);  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  2;  Allegiance  Texas 
 I  Howland  Decl.  at  paras.  1-  2  (alleging  SWBT  overstates  competing  carrier  volumes);  SWBT  Texas  I  Habeeb 
 Reply  at  paras.  3-  10  (refuting  Department  of  Justice  and  competing  carrier  allegations  regarding  SWBTs 
 estimations  of  the  volume  of  competition  in  Texas). 
130
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 131 
 those  used  to  provide  unbundled  loops,  we  address  loop/  port  combination  issues  in  our  discussion 
 of  checklist  item  2. 


 2.  Discussion 
 251.  Like  the  Department  of  Justice  and  Texas  Commission,  706  we  conclude  that  SWBT 
 demonstrates  that  it  provides  unbundled  local  loops  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 
 section  271.  707  Specifically,  we  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  voice  grade 
 unbundled  loops  through  hot  cut  conversions  708  in  a  manner  that  offers  an  efficient  competitor  a 
 meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  Similarly,  we  find  that  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers 
 with  voice  grade  unbundled  loops  through  new  stand-  alone  loops  in  substantially  the  same  time 
 and  manner  as  it  does  for  its  own  retail  service.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that 
 it  provides  xDSL-  capable  loops  and  high  capacity  loops  to  competing  carriers  in  a 
 nondiscriminatory  manner. 


 252.  To  reach  these  conclusions,  we  evaluate  a  variety  of  SWBT  performance 
 measurement  data  disaggregated  by  loop  type.  From  these  data,  709  we  calculate  that  in  February, 


 706  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  1;  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  11-  36. 
 707  As  a  preliminary  matter,  we  note  that  SWBT  also  demonstrates  that  it  has  a  concrete  and  specific  legal 
 obligation  to  provide  unbundled  local  loops  to  competing  carriers.  Through  various  interconnection  agreements, 
 SWBT  provisions  a  full  range  of  unbundled  loops,  including  2-  wire  analog  loops  with  8.0  dB  or  5.0  dB  loss,  4-  wire 
 analog  loops,  2-  wire  ISDN  digital-  grade  lines,  4-  wire  DS1  digital  grade  lines,  and  various  2-  and  4-  wire  loops 
 capable  of  offering  xDSL  services.  In  addition,  competing  carriers  may  request  loops  capable  of  carrying  DS3 
 signals.  SWBT  provides  access  to  stand-  alone  loops  through  cross-  connects  that  run  from  the  SWBT  distribution 
 frame  to  competing  carriers  collocation  space.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  at  paras.  86-  88,  151-  165;  see  also 
 Interim  Award,  petitions  of  IP  Communications  Corp.  to  Establish  Expedited  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Texas 
 Oversight  Concerning  Line  Sharing  Issues,  and  Covad  Communications  Co.,  and  Rhythms  Links,  Inc.  against 
 SWBT  and  GTE  for  Post-  Interconnection  Dispute  Resolution  and  Arbitration  Under  the  Telecommunications  Act 
 of  1996  Regarding  Rates,  Terms,  Conditions,  and  Related  Arrangements  for  Line  Sharing,  Docket  Nos.  22168, 
 22469  (Texas  PUC  June  6,  2000)  (setting  forth  interim  interconnection  terms  and  conditions  for  the  high 
 frequency  portion  of  the  loop). 


 708  A  hot  cut  entails  manually  disconnecting  the  customers  loop  in  the  SWBT  central  office  and  reconnecting  the 


 same  loop  at  the  competing  carriers  collocation  space.  It  also  involves  coordinated  switch  software  changes  at 
 both  SWBTs  switch  and  the  competing  carriers  switch  and  the  implementation  of  local  number  portability.  The 
 customer  is  taken  out  of  service  while  the  hot  cut  is  in  progress,  thereby  making  the  cut  hot,  although  if  the  cut  is 
 successful,  the  service  disruption  will  last  no  more  than  a  few  minutes.  Thus,  ensuring  that  a  hot  cut  is  provisioned 
 correctly  with  coordination  between  SWBT  and  the  competing  carrier  is  critical  because  problems  with  the  cutover 
 could  result  in  extended  service  disruption  for  the  customer.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4104- 
 05,  para.  291  n.  925. 


 709  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N,  T,  C  Orders 


 within  30  days)  (8.0  dB  Loop,  5.0  dB  Loop,  BRI  Loop,  DS1  Loop,  DSL)  at  271-  No.  59a-  c  (calculated  from  total 
 volumes  listed  on  a  per  loop  basis,  combining  8.  0  dB  and  5.  0  dB  loop  performance  data  to  calculate  mass  market 
 voice  grade  loops  which  may  be  provisioned  by  hot  cuts  or  through  new  stand-  alone  loops,  and  BRI  and  DSL  loop 
 performance  data  to  calculate  xDSL-  capable  loops);  Letter  from  Frank  S.  Simone,  Government  Affairs  Director, 
 AT&  T,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  04  (filed 
 (continued.) 
131
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 132 
 March,  and  April  2000,  mass  market  voice  grade  loops,  which  may  be  provisioned  by  hot  cuts  or 
 through  new  stand-  alone  loops,  710  were  77,  74,  and  71  percent  of  all  unbundled  stand-  alone  loops 
 ordered  by  competing  carriers.  During  the  same  period,  xDSL-  capable  loops  increased  from  19 
 percent  of  all  unbundled  stand-  alone  loops  ordered  by  competing  carriers  in  February  2000  to  23 
 and  27  percent  of  all  unbundled  stand-  alone  loops  ordered  by  competing  carriers  in  March  and 
 April  2000.  At  the  same  time,  DS1  high  capacity  loops  have  remained  between  1  and  4  percent  of 
 all  unbundled  loops  ordered  by  competing  carriers  in  Texas.  Although  we  examine  unbundled 
 loops  in  this  disaggregated  way,  we  base  our  conclusion  on  SWBTs  unbundled  stand-  alone  loop 
 provisioning  overall.  Thus,  even  if  SWBTs  performance  appears  lacking  in  a  particular  area,  we 
 examine  the  circumstances  surrounding  any  shortfall,  as  well  as  SWBTs  performance  in 
 aggregate,  to  reach  our  conclusion  that  checklist  item  4  is  met. 


 253.  As  described  above,  the  Texas  Commission  developed  SWBTs  performance 
 measurements  and  standards  in  a  collaborative  state  proceeding  with  substantial  input  from 
 competing  carriers.  711  When  possible,  the  Texas  Commission  elected  to  compare  SWBTs  service 
 to  competing  carriers  using  unbundled  loops  directly  to  the  level  of  service  provided  to  SWBTs 
 retail  operations.  712  Thus,  where  the  Texas  Commission  determined  that  a  retail  analogue  is 
 appropriate  and  uses  this  analogue  in  its  evaluation,  we  examine  SWBTs  performance  by 
 determining  whether  it  provides  unbundled  local  loops  to  competing  carriers  in  substantially  the 
 same  time  and  manner  as  it  does  to  its  retail  customers.  713  Where,  however,  the  Texas 
 Commission  determined  that  no  comparable  retail  function  exists,  the  level  of  SWBT  service 
 provided  to  competing  carriers  is  tested  against  benchmarks  developed  in  the  collaborative  state 
 proceeding.  714  In  these  instances,  we  examine  SWBTs  service  to  competing  carriers  in  terms  of 
 whether  its  performance  affords  efficient  competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  715 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Mar.  27,  2000)  (AT&  T  Mar.  27  Ex  Parte  Letter)  (indicating  that  Performance  Measurement  No.  59  is  reported  on 
 a  per  loop  basis  for  all  loop  types,  including  8.  0  dB  loops). 


 710  Well  over  50  percent  of  the  stand-  alone  loops  competing  carriers  purchase  from  SWBT  are  hot  cut  loops. 


 Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  9.  Compare  volumes  in  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30  Days)  (8.0  dB  Loop,  5.0  dB  Loop 
 (combined))  at  271-  No.  59a-  c  with  Measurement  No.  114.1  (  Loop  Disconnect/  Cross  Connect  Interval)  (Local 
 Number  Portability  with  Loop-  CHC,  Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop-  FDT)  at  271-  No.  114.1a-  b. 


 711  See  supra  Part  III.  D.  2;  see  also  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  1-  2. 


 712  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  15. 
 713  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20655,  para.  87;  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15 
 FCC  Rcd  at  4098,  para.  279. 
 714  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  15.  See  generally  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4098,  para. 


 279. 
 715  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4095,  para.  269;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd 


 at  20619,  para.  141. 
132
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 133 
 254.  In  determining  that  SWBT  satisfies  checklist  item  4,  we  rely,  among  other  factors, 
 on  performance  data  collected  and  submitted  by  SWBT.  Several  commenters  challenge  the 
 validity  of  SWBTs  performance  data  generally,  and  loop  performance  data  in  particular.  716  As 
 described  above,  717  we  reject  this  general  contention  because  the  data  submitted  by  SWBT  in  this 
 proceeding  have  been  subject  to  substantial  scrutiny  and  review  by  interested  parties.  Where 
 commenters  dispute  specific  data,  we  discuss  these  challenges  in  our  analysis.  In  such  instances, 
 we  look  to  the  availability  of  data  reconciled  under  the  auspices  of  the  Texas  Commission, 
 specific  evidence  presented  by  commenters,  and  the  record  as  a  whole,  in  order  to  determine  the 
 appropriate  weight  to  accord  the  challenged  data. 


 a.  Voice  Grade  Stand-  Alone  Loops 
 255.  SWBT  provisions  unbundled  voice  grade  local  loops  to  competing  carriers  in  three 
 distinct  forms.  First,  SWBT  provisions  stand-  alone  loops  to  competing  carriers  through 
 conversions  of  active  loops  to  the  carriers  collocation  space.  These  loop  cutovers,  or  hot  cuts, 
 make  it  possible  to  transfer  an  active  SWBT  customers  service  to  a  competing  carrier.  Second,  if 
 SWBT  does  not  presently  service  the  customer  on  the  lines  in  question,  a  competing  carrier  may 
 obtain  a  new  loop  from  SWBT.  In  this  case,  the  customer  receives  service  on  a  second  loop 
 from  a  competitive  carrier  and  not  from  SWBT,  while  it  may  choose  to  retain  SWBT  on  the 
 original  line.  For  both  new  loops  and  conversions  of  existing  customers,  when  loops  are 
 provisioned  on  a  stand-  alone  basis,  the  competing  carrier  obtains  only  the  transmission  facility 
 between  SWBTs  central  office  and  the  customers  premises.  Third,  SWBT  provisions  loops  as 
 part  of  a  platform  of  network  elements.  What  follows  below  is  a  discussion  of  the  provisioning 
 and  maintenance  and  repair  of  hot  cut  loops  and  new  stand-  alone  loops.  Because  provisioning 
 and  maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  loops  provisioned  as  part  of  a  platform  are  more  similar 
 to  processes  used  to  provide  resale  than  those  used  to  provide  unbundled  loops,  we  address  them 
 in  checklist  item  2. 


 (i)  Hot  Cut  Loop  Provisioning 
 256.  Like  the  Department  of  Justice,  we  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides 
 unbundled  hot  cut  loops  through  the  conversion  of  active  customers  from  SWBT  to  competing 
 carriers,  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4.  718  The  ability  of  a  BOC  to 
 provision  working,  trouble-  free  loops  through  hot  cuts  is  critically  important  in  light  of  the 
 substantial  risk  that  a  defective  hot  cut  will  result  in  competing  carrier  customers  experiencing 
 service  outages  for  more  than  a  brief  period.  719  Moreover,  the  failure  to  provision  hot  cut  loops 


 716  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  37-  39;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  15,  23-  36;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Pfau/  De  Young  Decl. 
 at  paras.  15,  25,  56-  58;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  34. 
 717  See  supra  III.  D.  2. 


 718  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  1,  11. 
 719  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4109,  para.  299. 
133
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 134 
 effectively  has  a  particularly  significant  adverse  impact  on  mass  market  competition  because  they 
 are  a  critical  component  of  competing  carriers  efforts  to  provide  service  to  the  small-  and 
 medium-  sized  business  markets.  720 


 257.  At  the  outset,  we  reject  the  argument  made  by  some  commenters  that  SWBT  fails 
 to  meet  the  standards  we  developed  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order.  721  With  each 
 application  we  are  presented  with  a  different  set  of  circumstances:  new  and  differently  defined 
 performance  measurements,  state  proceedings  with  different  histories,  new  processes  by  which 
 BOCs  perform  necessary  functions  for  competing  carriers,  and  new  competing  carrier  concerns. 
 Although  the  hot  cut  timeliness  and  quality  issues  we  assess  remain  consistent,  the  evidence 
 presented  will  vary  from  one  application  to  the  next.  For  instance,  unlike  Bell  Atlantic,  SWBTs 
 hot  cut  processes  are  divided  into  two  methods,  and  these  two  methods  are  reflected  in  separate 
 performance  measurements.  As  described  in  more  detail  below,  some  of  SWBTs  performance 
 measurements  are  reported  on  a  per  loop  basis,  rather  than  the  per  order  basis  used  by  Bell 
 Atlantic  with  some  of  its  performance  measurements.  In  many  cases,  such  differences  are  the 
 product  of  state  proceedings  where  provisioning  processes  and  performance  measurements  were 
 developed  and  refined  with  input  from  both  the  BOC  and  competing  carriers.  These  differences 
 can  make  direct  comparison  with  the  performance  discussed  in  prior  orders  difficult,  if  not 
 impossible.  As  a  result,  although  our  hot  cut  inquiry  here  examines  the  same  criteria  as  our 
 inquiry  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  necessarily  base  our  conclusion  on  the  evidence 
 presented  in  this  application.  In  particular,  we  evaluate  SWBTs  hot  cut  process,  and  the 
 timeliness  and  quality  of  the  hot  cuts  it  provides  to  competing  carriers. 


 258.  The  Texas  Commission  reasonably  determined  that  there  is  no  retail  equivalent  to 
 a  hot  cut,  and  no  commenter  contends  otherwise.  Thus,  as  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order, 
 the  appropriate  standard  is  whether  the  BOC  provides  unbundled  loops  through  hot  cuts  in  a 
 manner  that  offers  an  efficient  competitor  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  722  In  a  footnote 
 in  one  of  its  comments,  AT&  T  proposes  an  ostensibly  different  standard,  under  which  a  BOC 
 would  be  required  to  demonstrate  that  it  has  provided  the  fewest  number  of  outages  and  best  on-time 
 performance  that  it  is  technically  feasible  and  commercially  reasonable  for  the  BOC  to 
 achieve.  723  Because  AT&  T  does  not  explain  how  such  a  test  would  operate  in  practice  or  how,  if 
 at  all,  it  would  differ  from  our  traditional  standard  for  BOC  activities  that  lack  a  retail  analogue, 


 720  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  9;  Connect!  Texas  II  Comments  at  6;  AT&  T  Texas  II 
 Depkiewicz  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  16-  21,  Attach.  1-  3;  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  27;  Allegiance 
 Texas  I  Comments  at  5;  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Decl.  Vol.  IIIA  at  paras.  11,  99-  102,  Attach.  14-  16;  Letter  from 
 Mark  E.  Haddad,  Counsel,  AT&  T,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC 
 Docket  No.  00-  65  at  10  (filed  June  8,  2000)  (AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 721  @Link  Texas  II  Comments  at  3-  4,  6;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  26-  27,  29;  Connect!  Texas  II  Comments  at 


 4-  5;  RCN  Texas  II  Comments  at  5,  7;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at  paras.  13-  25;  51;  ALTS 
 Texas  II  Reply  at  10-  11;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  19,  33,  35;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Decl. 
 at  para.  9;  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  33. 


 722  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  4104,  para.  291. 


 723  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  28  n.  34. 
134
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 135 
 we  conclude  that  AT&  Ts  passing  reference  to  this  issue  provides  no  basis  for  departing  from  our 
 traditional  approach.  724 


 259.  Hot  Cut  Process.  SWBT  makes  available  two  hot  cut  processes:  the  fully 
 coordinated  hot  cut  (CHC)  process  and  the  frame  due  time  (FDT)  hot  cut  process.  CHC  orders 
 are  manually  handled  in  SWBTs  order  processing  center  and  require  intensive  coordination  and 
 communication  between  SWBT  and  the  competing  carrier  during  the  actual  cutover  from  SWBT 
 to  the  competing  carrier.  725  FDT  hot  cuts  require  both  SWBT  and  the  competing  carrier  to 
 perform  necessary  work  at  pre-  arranged  times,  with  no  communication  required  at  the  time  of  the 
 hot  cut.  726  Unlike  CHC  orders,  FDT  orders  are  capable  of  flowing  through  SWBTs  order 
 processing  center  without  manual  work  by  SWBTs  representatives.  727  Although  in  the  past 
 SWBT  has  represented  that  the  CHC  process  is  too  resource-  intensive  to  support  commercial 
 levels  of  demand  for  lower  volume  loop  orders,  728  SWBT  now  states  that  it  has  sufficient 
 resources  to  process  competing  carriers  orders  in  a  timely  and  efficient  manner,  regardless  of 
 which  method  they  choose.  729  Thus,  competing  carriers  have  their  choice  of  two  alternative 
 processes  in  every  case,  allowing  them  to  pick  the  process  that  best  fits  their  resources  and 
 priorities.  730  At  present,  slightly  more  than  half  of  all  hot  cuts  are  performed  with  the  FDT 
 process;  the  remainder  are  performed  with  the  CHC  process.  731 


 724  Indeed,  AT&  T  appears  to  overlook  the  significance  of  the  lack  of  a  retail  analogue  in  this  context.  It  appears 
 to  rely,  for  example,  on  the  language  of  section  51.311(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  which  requires  an  incumbent 
 LEC,  to  the  extent  technically  feasible,  to  afford  new  entrants  with  a  quality  of  access  to  network  elements  that 
 is  at  least  equal  in  quality  to  that  which  the  incumbent  LEC  provides  to  itself.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.311(  b).  But  the 
 equality  standard  of  this  rule,  which  varies  in  application  from  incumbent  to  incumbent,  applies  in  contexts 
 where  (unlike  here)  there  is  some  retail  analogue.  The  rule  does  not  impose  a  general  standard  of  performance. 


 725  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  134;  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  paras.  78-  79. 


 726  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  at  para.  76. 
 727  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  27. 
 728  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  79;  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Decl.  IIIA  at  paras.  44-  47  (citing  SWBT 
 letters,  e-  mails,  and  statements  presented  to  the  Texas  Commission  and  Nov.  2,  1999  Texas  Commission  Hearing 
 Tr.  at  267  (Gwen  Rowling  of  ICG  Communications  testified  before  the  Texas  Commission  that  Frame  due  time, 
 we  have  been  asked  by  Southwestern  Bell  to  start  using  it.  We  didnt  come  to  Bell  to  do  it.  They  asked  us  to  start 
 doing  it  .  .  .  .)).  See  also  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  23;  @Link  et  al.  Texas  II  Reply  at  5;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte 
 Letter  at  6-  7. 


 729  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  at  10;  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  54;  SWBT  June  23  Ex 


 Parte  Letter  at  3. 
 730  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  at  8;  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  54. 


 731  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  performed  1890,  1998,  and  1500  CHCs  and  2296,  2119,  and 
 1637  FDT  hot  cuts.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  114.1  (  Loop  Disconnect/  Cross 
 Connect  Interval)  (Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop  CHC,  Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop  FDT)  at 
 271-  No.  114.1a-  b. 
135
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 136 
 260.  Upon  review  of  SWBTs  present  representations  regarding  CHC  availability  and 
 the  lack  of  recent  competing  carrier  evidence  suggesting  otherwise,  we  conclude  that  competing 
 carriers  may  freely  choose  between  the  CHC  and  FDT  hot  cut  processes.  732  Although  some 
 commenters  maintain  that  SWBT  cannot  handle  high  volumes  of  CHC  orders,  they  offer  little  or 
 no  current  evidence  to  demonstrate  that  this  continues  to  be  true.  733  With  respect  to  the  more 
 recent  evidence  that  AT&  T  offers  to  support  this  conclusion,  namely  AT&  Ts  experience  with 
 erroneous  CHC  order  rejections  for  invalid  due  dates,  we  conclude  that  it  is  insufficient  to 
 warrant  a  determination  that  the  CHC  process  is  not  capable  of  handling  current  demand.  The 
 only  evidence  AT&  T  provides  is  a  statement  by  SWBT  in  an  e-  mail  regarding  CHC  rejections  that 
 SWBT  cannot  provide  a  limitless  number  of  CHC  orders.  734  In  light  of  its  stated  commitment  in 
 the  same  e-  mail  to  make[]  every  effort  to  accommodate  all  requested  dates  and  times  for  CHC 
 orders,  this  is  not,  by  itself,  substantial  evidence  that  SWBTs  process  cannot  manage  competing 
 carrier  demand  for  CHCs.  735  Moreover,  the  e-  mail  indicates  that  SWBT  actively  is  working  with 
 AT&  T  to  resolve  its  CHC  rejection  problem.  In  any  event,  should  future  SWBT  hot  cut  capacity 
 constraints  limit  competing  carrier  access  to  unbundled  voice  grade  loops,  we  shall  take 
 appropriate  enforcement  action  at  that  time. 


 261.  We  emphasize  that  competing  carriers  can  now  choose  freely  between  the  CHC 
 and  FDT  hot  cut  processes,  because  we  conclude  that  the  evidence  in  this  proceeding  indicates 
 that  it  is  only  through  the  CHC  process  that  SWBT  is  able  to  provision  unbundled  hot  cut  loops  in 
 accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4.  In  the  discussion  that  follows,  we  find  that 
 SWBT  demonstrates  it  provisions  CHCs  in  a  timely  manner  and  at  an  acceptable  level  of  quality, 
 with  a  minimal  service  disruption  and  a  minimum  number  of  troubles  following  installation.  We 
 also  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provisions  FDT  hot  cuts  in  a  timely  manner  and  with  a 
 minimum  number  of  troubles  following  installation.  Problems,  however,  remain  with  respect  to 
 FDT  hot  cut  service  disruptions,  and  therefore  we  do  not  find  that  SWBT  provisions  hot  cut 
 loops  through  the  FDT  process  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4.  Yet, 
 because  the  FDT  process  is  still  chosen  by  competing  carriers  in  significant  numbers,  we  discuss 
 the  FDT  process  in  conjunction  with  the  CHC  process  below. 


 262.  Hot  Cut  Timeliness.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  can  complete  a 
 substantial  percentage  of  CHCs  and  FDT  hot  cuts  it  provisions  within  a  reasonable  time 


 732  We  note  that  the  Department  of  Justice  requested  that  the  Commission  make  this  determination.  See 
 Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  14.  See  also  Texas  Commission  June  19  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3  n.  7; 
 SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3.. 


 733  @Link  Texas  II  Comments  at  5;  Connect!  Texas  II  Comments  at  7;  RCN  Texas  II  Comments  at  8;  AT&  T 


 Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  24;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  6  (citing  SWBT  statements  from  September  and 
 November  1999  regarding  the  availability  of  the  FDT  hot  cut  process  and/  or  the  limits  of  the  CHC  process). 


 734  See  generally  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  7,  Attach.  8  (e-  mail  from  Bob  Bannecker,  SWBT,  to  Sarah 


 DeYoung,  AT&  T  (sent  May  26,  2000)). 
 735  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Attach.  8  (e-  mail  from  Bob  Bannecker,  SWBT,  to  Sarah  DeYoung,  AT&  T 


 (sent  May  26,  2000)). 
136
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 137 
 interval.  736  Under  the  performance  measurement  developed  by  the  Texas  Commission,  and 
 approved  at  its  December  16,  1999  open  meeting,  SWBT  hot  cut  performance  is  measured 
 according  to  the  percentage  of  hot  cut  loops  in  orders  of  less  than  25  lines  that  SWBT  completes 
 within  a  specified  time  window.  737  The  Texas  Commission  adopted  an  interim  benchmark,  under 
 which  100  percent  of  these  cutovers  must  be  completed  within  2  hours  of  the  scheduled  start 
 time.  738  This  standard  applies  to  both  CHC  and  FDT  hot  cuts.  739  The  performance  data  SWBT 
 submitted  with  its  application  indicate  that  SWBT  completed  between  98  and  99  percent  of  all 
 CHCs  within  2  hours  from  February  through  April  2000.  740  During  the  same  time  period,  these 
 data  indicate  that  SWBT  completed  between  92  and  99  percent  of  FDT  hot  cuts  within  2  hours.  741 


 263.  In  response  to  criticism  regarding  the  accuracy  of  SWBTs  hot  cut  data,  the  Texas 
 Commission  issued  orders  requesting  SWBT  and  competing  carrier  reconciliation  of  various 
 SWBT  self-  reported  hot  cut  performance  measurement  data.  742  Because  we  believe  data 
 reconciled  under  the  auspices  of  a  state  commission,  with  the  participation  of  both  competing 
 carriers  and  the  BOC,  to  be  reliable  evidence  of  a  BOCs  performance,  we  accord  these  data 
 substantial  weight.  743  Moreover,  the  reconciled  data  include  information  on  SWBTs  ability  to 
 perform  both  CHCs  and  FDT  hot  cuts  within  a  1  hour  interval.  744  In  addition  to  these  reconciled 


 736  See,  e.  g.,  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4114-  15,  para.  309  (finding  that  Bell  Atlantic  was 
 able  to  complete  at  least  90  percent  of  competing  carrier  hot  cut  orders  of  fewer  than  10  lines  within  a  one-  hour 
 interval). 


 737  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  13. 


 738  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  13. 
 739  See,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  114.1  (  Loop  Disconnect/  Cross  Connect 
 Interval)  (Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop-  CHC,  Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop-  FDT)  at  271-  No. 
 114.1a-  b. 


 740  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  114.1  (  Loop  Disconnect/  Cross  Connect  Interval) 


 (Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop-  CHC)  at  271-  No.  114.1a. 
 741  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  114.1  (  Loop  Disconnect/  Cross  Connect  Interval) 


 (Local  Number  Portability  with  Loop-  FDT)  at  271-  No.  114.1b. 
 742  Order  No.  4,  Section  271  Compliance  Monitoring  of  Southwestern  Bell  Tel.  Co.  of  Texas,  Project  No.  20400 


 (Texas  PUC  Mar.  28,  2000)  (Texas  Commission  Mar.  28  Order);  Order  No.  9,  Section  271  Compliance 
 Monitoring  of  Southwestern  Bell  Tel.  Co.  of  Texas,  Project  No.  20400  (Texas  PUC  May  5,  2000)  (Texas 
 Commission  May  5  Order). 


 743  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4106-  07,  paras.  294-  95.  See  also  SWBT  Texas  II 


 Application  at  31;  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  19.  But  see  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van 
 de  Water  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  15;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  15  (alleging  that  SWBT  overstates  the  Texas 
 Commissions  involvement  in  fact  finding). 


 744  AT&  T  has  criticized  the  2  hour  interval  as  overly  generous.  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  35-  36;  AT&  T 


 Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  at  paras.  60,  105-  109.  The  Texas  Commission  is  revising  its  hot  cut  interval 
 measurement.  Loops  in  orders  with  less  than  11  lines  will  be  assessed  using  a  1  hour  interval  and  loops  in  larger 
 orders  will  be  tracked  against  a  longer  time.  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  45. 
137
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 138 
 data,  SWBT  presented  data  from  competing  carriers  that  were  reconciled,  combined  with  SWBT 
 data  from  competing  carriers  that  did  not  participate  in  the  reconciliation.  Because  we  find  that 
 this  aggregated  presentation  is  the  most  accurate  overall  picture  of  SWBT  performance  in  Texas, 
 we  use  it  to  evaluate  SWBTs  hot  cut  loop  timeliness. 


 264.  We  find  that  the  aggregated  data  demonstrate  that  SWBT  can  provision  a 
 substantial  percentage  of  competing  carrier  CHC  and  FDT  hot  cut  loops  within  a  1  hour  interval. 
 These  aggregated  data  indicate  that  during  December  1999,  and  January  and  February  2000, 
 SWBT  completed  an  average  of  90  percent  of  all  CHC  loops  from  orders  with  less  than  11  lines 
 within  1  hour  and  an  average  of  94  percent  of  all  FDT  hot  cut  loops  from  orders  with  less  than  11 
 lines  within  1  hour.  745  Moreover,  in  its  reply  comments,  SWBT  developed  similar  data  for  March 
 and  April  2000,  that  demonstrate  that  during  these  two  months,  SWBT  completed  an  average  of 
 93  percent  of  all  CHC  loops  from  orders  with  less  than  11  lines  within  1  hour  and  an  average  of 
 96  percent  of  all  FDT  hot  cut  loops  from  orders  with  less  than  11  lines  within  1  hour.  746  We  find 
 this  evidence  sufficient  to  overcome  the  claims  of  competing  carriers  that  SWBTs  hot  cut 
 provisioning  is  not  performed  in  a  timely  manner  and  therefore  affects  their  ability  to  obtain  and 
 retain  customers.  747 


 265.  We  acknowledge  that  some  commenters  raise  concerns  with  respect  to  the  way 
 SWBT  measures  the  interval  for  its  completion  of  hot  cut  loops.  First,  some  competing  carriers 
 criticize  SWBT  and  the  Texas  Commission  for  using  a  measurement  based  on  individual  loops, 
 rather  than  orders.  748  Although  these  commenters  insist  that  a  loop-  based  measurement  749  is  a 
 more  charitable  representation  of  SWBTs  performance  than  a  measurement  based  on  orders,  we 
 do  not  find  their  arguments  persuasive.  A  measurement  based  on  loops  and  not  orders  is  not 
 systematically  more  generous  to  the  BOC,  because  it  is  possible  for  the  percentage  of  loops 
 completed  within  an  interval  to  be  lower  than  the  percentage  of  orders  completed  within  the  same 
 interval.  As  SWBT  points  out,  whether  one  approach  is  stricter  than  the  other  depends  upon  the 


 745  SWBT  Apr.  25  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Attach.  2  (  PM  114.1  Reconciled/  Reported  Results  Summary). 
 746  These  data  were  developed  pursuant  to  a  May  5,  2000  Texas  Commission  order  requesting  reconciliation  of 
 certain  SWBT  March  and  April  2000  hot  cut  data.  We  acknowledge,  however,  they  do  not  reflect  the  final 
 reconciliation.  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  15,  Attach.  B  (  PM  114.1 
 Reconciled/  Reported  Results  Summary)  (averaging  together  March  and  April  2000  data).  See  also  Texas 
 Commission  May  5  Order;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  1-  2  (criticizing  SWBTs  unilateral  presentation  of  hot 
 cut  timeliness  data  for  March  and  April  2000). 


 747  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  41-  42;  RCN  Texas  II  Comments  at  11;  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  33; 


 AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Vol.  IIIA  Decl.  at  paras.  75-  81,  128-  130. 
 748  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  34;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at  paras.  22,  31,  52;  AT&  T 


 Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  72-  81;  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  32  n.  85; 
 Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  5-  7;  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  33;  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Vol.  IIIA  Decl.  at 
 paras.  14,  55,  131-  159. 


 749  By  loop-  based  measurement,  we  mean  data  reported  on  an  individual  line  basis. 
138
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 139 
 extent  to  which  delays  occur  on  multiple  lines  in  the  same  order.  750  Moreover,  we  agree  with  the 
 Texas  Commission  that  performance  measurements  are  not  necessarily  one  size  fits  all,  and 
 conclude  that  it  is  the  more  prudent  course  for  this  Commission  to  recognize  reasonable 
 measurements  adopted  by  state  commissions  as  a  part  of  a  state  proceeding  that  included  both 
 BOC  and  competing  carrier  input.  751 


 266.  Finally,  some  commenters  criticize  SWBTs  interim  hot  cut  timeliness  performance 
 measurement  because  the  business  rules  indicate  that  the  interval  ends  when  the  SWBT  technician 
 completes  the  hot  cut,  excluding  the  time  it  takes  for  the  SWBT  technician  to  call  the  competing 
 carrier  to  indicate  that  SWBT  completed  work  on  the  CHC  cutover.  752  At  the  outset,  we  note 
 that  this  criticism  does  not  apply  to  FDT  hot  cuts,  because  no  such  call  is  required  when  this 
 process  is  used.  With  respect  to  CHCs,  we  find  that  this  concern  is  misplaced,  because 
 communication  between  SWBT  and  the  competing  carrier  is  already  required  at  the  time  of  the 
 CHC.  753  Although  beyond  the  scope  of  this  order,  we  note  that  SWBT  and  competing  carriers 
 recently  agreed  to  revise  the  business  rules  so  that  the  conversion  interval  will  end  after  the 
 SWBT  technician  has  notified  the  competing  carrier  that  the  cutover  is  complete.  754 


 267.  Hot  Cut  Quality.  We  further  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provisions 
 CHCs  at  a  level  of  quality  that  offers  efficient  competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 
 Upon  review  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  regarding  hot  cut  installation  quality,  and  specifically 
 the  outage  rate  associated  with  failed  SWBT  CHCs,  and  the  trouble  rate  following  CHC 
 installation,  we  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provisions  CHCs  to  competitors  in  a  manner 
 that  meets  the  requirements  of  the  checklist.  Although  we  find  that  SWBTs  performance  with 
 respect  to  troubles  following  FDT  hot  cut  installation  meets  the  requirements  of  the  checklist,  we 
 find  that  the  outage  rate  associated  with  failed  SWBT  FDT  hot  cuts  does  not. 


 268.  Outages.  We  conclude  that  the  record  demonstrates  that  the  CHC  process  SWBT 
 makes  available  to  competing  carriers  minimizes  service  disruptions  that  may  significantly  affect 


 750  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  34;  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  47  (demonstrating  that 
 changing  from  reporting  a  measurement  in  loops  to  reporting  a  measurement  in  orders  has  no  consistent  impact), 
 Attach.  K  (comparing  SWBT  hot  cut  timeliness  data  for  December  1999  through  March  2000,  finding  that  of  the 
 eight  reported  results  (CHC  and  FDT  for  the  four  months),  two  showed  no  change  when  recalculated  on  a  per  order 
 basis,  three  showed  improvement,  and  three  showed  deterioration  in  SWBT  performance). 


 751  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  3. 


 752  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  39;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at  paras.  54,  102;  AT&  T 
 Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  92;  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  31-  32  n.  84; 
 Department  of  Justice  Mar.  9  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  9;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  at  11-  13. 


 753  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  84. 


 754  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  33;  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  11-  13;  Department  of  Justice 
 Texas  II  Evaluation  at  10  n.  26;  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  31-  32  n.  84.  AT&  T  also  contends  that 
 SWBTs  interim  performance  measurement  fails  to  capture  certain  delays  in  switch  activation.  AT&  T,  however, 
 presents  no  data  to  indicate  that  this  is  a  recurrent  problem.  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  13. 
139
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 140 
 competing  carriers  end-  user  customers.  As  a  result,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that 
 the  level  of  outages  competing  carriers  may  experience  as  a  result  of  failed  SWBT  CHCs  is 
 sufficiently  small  to  provide  an  efficient  competitor  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 269.  A  comprehensive  reconciliation  of  AT&  Ts  hot  cut  outage  data  conducted  under 
 the  auspices  of  the  Texas  Commission  demonstrates  that  SWBTs  CHC  process  minimizes  service 
 disruptions  experienced  by  competing  carrier  customers  who  are  provisioned  service  via  hot  cut 
 loops.  Because  no  performance  measurement  exists  to  capture  all  SWBT-  caused  hot  cut  outages, 
 the  Texas  Commission  developed  the  Provisioning  Process  Improvement  Group  (PPIG)  to 
 reconcile  SWBT  and  competing  carrier  data  relating  to  unexpected  hot  cut  service  outages.  755  As 
 a  result  of  PPIG  efforts,  a  joint  affidavit  was  filed  with  the  Texas  Commission  by  SWBT  and 
 AT&  T  with  reconciled  outage  data  for  December  1999,  and  January  and  February  2000.  756  In 
 addition,  SWBT  filed  an  affidavit  with  the  Texas  Commission  reflecting  the  PPIG  reconciliation 
 for  March  2000  that  is  consistent  with  AT&  Ts  representation  of  the  March  2000  PPIG  data  in  its 
 reply  comments.  757  Furthermore,  the  Texas  Commission  filed  an  ex  parte  letter  with  this 
 Commission  indicating  the  results  of  the  April  2000  PPIG  data  reconciliation.  758  As  with  our 
 discussion  of  SWBTs  hot  cut  timeliness  data,  we  review  these  reconciled  data  on  a  per  loop 
 basis.  759 


 270.  Because  the  PPIG  data  reveal  that  during  the  period  from  December  1999  through 
 April  2000,  an  average  of  less  than  5  percent  of  all  CHC  loops  that  SWBT  provisioned  to  AT&  T 
 resulted  in  end-  user  service  outages  caused  by  SWBT  provisioning  failures,  we  conclude  that 
 SWBT  makes  available  a  hot  cut  process  that  provides  efficient  competitors  with  a  meaningful 


 755  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  16;  SWBT  Texas  II  Conway/  Dysart  Aff.  at  para.  25;  SWBT  Apr.  25 
 Ex  Parte  Letter  at  Attach.  3  (Joint  Affidavit  of  Mark  Van  de  Water  and  Robert  Royer,  Investigation  of 
 Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Co.  s  Entry  Into  the  Texas  InterLATA  Telecommunications  Market,  Section  271 
 Compliance  Monitoring  of  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Co.,  Project  Nos.  16251,  20400  at  2  (filed  with  Texas 
 PUC  Apr.  21,  2000)  (PPIG  Van  de  Water/  Royer  Aff.)). 


 756  PPIG  Van  de  Water/  Royer  Aff.  at  Attach.  (CHC  and  FDT  December  1999,  and  January  and  February  2000 


 outage  data  charts). 
 757  Affidavit  of  Terry  R.  Hoeven,  Section  271  Compliance  Monitoring  of  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Co., 


 Project  No.  20400  (filed  with  Texas  PUC  May  18,  2000)  (PPIG  Hoeven  Aff.)  (SWBT  filing  listing  PPIG  data  from 
 March  2000  reconciliation);  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  Attach.  C;  AT&  T  Texas  II  De 
 Young/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Decl.  at  Attach.  1  (March  2000  PPIG  data  summary). 


 758  We  note  that  the  Department  of  Justice  requested  that  the  Commission  confirm  the  accuracy  of  the  April  2000 


 CHC  outage  data.  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  14.  We  find  the  Texas  Commissions 
 endorsement  of  these  data,  as  described  in  its  June  9,  2000  ex  parte  letter,  and  as  filed  by  SWBT  with  the  Texas 
 Commission  in  a  June  15,  2000  affidavit,  is  substantial  evidence  of  its  accuracy.  Texas  Commission  June  19  Ex 
 Parte  Letter  at  3. 


 759  As  described  above  with  respect  to  hot  cut  timeliness  data,  we  reject  the  argument  of  commenters  who  contend 


 that  a  measurement  based  on  loops  rather  than  orders  is  systematically  more  generous  to  the  incumbent  than  a 
 measurement  based  on  orders.  See  supra  para.  266. 
140
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 141 
 opportunity  to  compete.  760  We  find  this  outage  rate  low  enough  to  reject  competing  carrier 
 arguments  that  high  CHC  outage  rates  caused  by  SWBT  provisioning  failures  make  it  difficult  for 
 them  to  obtain  and  retain  customers.  761  We  acknowledge,  however,  that  this  average  excludes 
 outages  directly  related  to  a  one-  time  Telcordia  software  problem  (SOAC)  that  affected  outage 
 rates  in  February  2000.  Although  some  commenters  criticize  this  exclusion,  762  we  find  that  these 
 outages  were  an  unusual  one-  time  problem  based  on  a  vendors  software  defect.  763  The  Texas 
 Commission  concludes  that  this  problem  has  been  rectified  and  will  not  affect  SWBTs  future 
 performance.  764  Furthermore,  AT&  T  acknowledged  the  scope  of  the  SOAC  outage  problem  and 
 its  impact  on  the  PPIG  data  in  the  joint  affidavit.  765 


 271.  We  acknowledge  that  the  reconciled  PPIG  data  demonstrate  a  higher  outage  rate 
 associated  with  the  FDT  hot  cut  process  than  the  CHC  process.  766  Furthermore,  we  acknowledge 
 that  in  the  past  SWBT  has  encouraged  competing  carriers  to  use  the  FDT  process  for  all  but  large 
 volume  loop  orders,  or  orders  provisioned  outside  of  normal  business  hours.  767  At  present, 
 however,  SWBT  makes  both  the  CHC  and  FDT  hot  cut  processes  equally  available  to  competing 
 carriers.  768  Moreover,  SWBT  provides  the  FDT  process  to  competing  carriers  free  of  charge, 
 despite  the  fact  that  FDT  conversions  require  most  of  the  same  SWBT  labor  as  CHC  conversions.  769  In  addition,  the  mechanized  nature  of  the  FDT  process  makes  it  a  less  labor-intensive 


 option  for  competing  carriers  than  the  CHC  process.  770  If,  despite  these  conveniences, 
 any  competing  carrier  finds  FDT  outage  rates  too  high,  they  are  free  to  use  the  alternative  CHC 


 760  PPIG  Van  de  Water/  Royer  Aff.  at  Attach.  (CHC  and  FDT  December  1999,  and  January  and  February  2000 
 PPIG  outage  charts);  PPIG  Hoeven  Aff.  (CHC  and  FDT  March  2000  outage  charts);  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van 
 de  Water  Reply  Decl.  at  Attach.  1  (outages  summary,  March  2000  data);  Texas  Commission  June  19  Ex  Parte 
 Letter  at  3  (CHC  outages  from  PPIG  April  2000  data). 


 761  See  SWBT  Texas  II  Conway/  Dysart  Aff.  at  paras.  10-  11;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at 


 paras.  23,  55-  59  n.  11.  See  generally  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4110-  11,  paras.  302-  03. 
 762  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  31  n.  38;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  28-  29. 


 763  SWBT  Texas  II  Conway/  Dysart  at  paras.  10-  11  (SWBT  performance  results  for  February  irreversibly  affected 
 by  Telcordia  software  defect);  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  23-  24  (describing  SWBT  testing 
 procedures  to  ensure  this  sort  of  software  problem  does  not  happen  in  the  future). 


 764  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  18;  SWBT  Texas  II  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  34. 


 765  PPIG  Van  de  Water/  Royer  Aff.  at  Attach.  (CHC  and  FDT  February  2000  outage  charts). 
 766  PPIG  Van  de  Water/  Royer  Aff.  at  Attach.  (FDT  December  1999,  and  January  and  February  2000  outage 
 charts). 
 767  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Conway  Aff.  at  paras.  79,  86.  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  23;  @Link  et  al.  Texas  II  Reply  at 


 5;  See  also  AT&  T  Texas  I  DeYoung  Decl.  Vol.  IIIA  at  paras.  44-  47;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  6-  7. 
 768  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  at  8-  10;  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3. 


 769  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  36-  37. 
 770  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  36-  37. 
141
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 142 
 process. 
 272.  Because  we  find  that  the  CHC  process  affords  efficient  competitors  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete,  and  that  this  process  is  now  widely  available  to  all  competing  carriers, 
 we  do  not  find  the  fact  that  SWBT  has  developed  an  alternative,  mechanized  process  with  a 
 higher  incidence  of  competing  carrier  end-  user  customer  outages  to  be  fatal  to  this  application. 
 The  record  reflects  that  SWBT  is  working  to  further  refine  the  FDT  process  so  that  it  becomes  a 
 viable  option  for  more  competing  carriers  in  the  near  future.  771  We  do  not  wish  to  discourage 
 SWBT,  or  any  other  incumbent,  from  developing  new  processes  to  provision  unbundled  loops. 
 As  the  Texas  Commission  points  out,  no  one  is  benefited  if  this  Commission  discourages 
 incumbents  from  developing  potentially  more  efficient  systems  or  processes,  just  before  or  during 
 the  pendency  of  their  section  271  application.  772 


 273.  Finally,  we  commend  the  Texas  Commission  for  developing  a  new  outages  on 
 conversion  performance  measurement  in  its  April  2000  work  sessions  with  SWBT  and 
 competing  carriers.  773  This  measurement  will  capture  the  percentage  of  CHC  and  FDT  circuits  for 
 which  competing  carriers  submit  a  provisioning  trouble  report  on  the  day  of  the  conversion,  or  by 
 noon  on  the  following  day.  774  The  Texas  Commissions  action  effectively  provides  an  outage 
 measure  that  AT&  T  and  other  competing  carriers  have  indicated  is  important  to  them.  775  This 
 addition  to  the  Texas  performance  measurements  also  will  render  it  unnecessary  to  perform  the 
 sort  of  manual,  time-  consuming  review  and  assessments  that  have  been  performed  under  the 
 auspices  of  the  PPIG  and  are  described  above.  776  We  believe  this  measurement  will  be  a  useful, 
 standardized  way  for  competing  carriers  to  assess  FDT  and  CHC  outage  rates  in  the  future  and 
 will  enable  competing  carriers  to  determine  which  method  better  suits  their  business  plans. 


 274.  Installation  Troubles.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  competing 
 carrier  end  users  experience  only  very  low  rates  of  installation  troubles  on  lines  provisioned  by 
 CHCs  and  FDT  hot  cuts.  From  December  1999  through  March  2000,  competing  carriers 


 771  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  26  (describing  considerable  effort  SWBT  has  devoted  to 
 improving  its  FDT  hot  cut  performance). 
 772  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  14;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2  (acknowledging  that  FDT  hot 


 cuts  require  less  coordination  than  CHCs,  with  fewer  steps  and  fewer  time  consuming  hand-  offs). 
 773  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  45,  Attach.  J. 


 774  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  45,  Attach.  J. 
 775  See  ALTS/  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  II  Comments  at  3-  5;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  32-  33;  AT&  T  Texas  II 
 DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at  para.  26;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Decl.  at  paras.  86-  90; 
 see  also  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  8-  9  (expressing  concern  about  the  exclusion  of  outages  captured  as 
 trouble  reports  following  installation);  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  at  20;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl. 
 at  para.  96  (expressing  concern  that  defective  cuts  are  not  captured  in  existing  performance  measurements). 


 776  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at  para.  77  (characterizing  the  manual  reconciliation 


 process  as  extraordinarily  resource-  intensive). 
142
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 143 
 experienced  troubles  within  7  days  after  installation  on  an  average  of  only  1.5  percent  of  CHCs 
 and  2.3  percent  of  FDT  hot  cuts.  777  When  the  CHC  and  FDT  processes  are  combined,  competing 
 carriers  experienced  troubles  within  7  days  following  installation  on  an  average  of  only  1.9 
 percent  of  all  hot  cut  loops.  778  As  a  result,  we  find  that  SWBT  installs  hot  cuts  of  quality 
 sufficient  to  provide  an  efficient  competitor  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  779 


 275.  Other  Hot  Cut  Issues.  We  reject  AT&  Ts  allegation  that  SWBT  fails  checklist  4 
 because  of  problems  with  the  pricing  of  the  CHC  hot  cut  process.  780  The  Department  of  Justice 
 concludes  that  SWBT  passes  this  checklist  item.  781  It  states,  however,  that  it  has  continuing 
 concern  regarding  SWBTs  CHC  charges  because  they  are  significant  in  amount  and  notes  that 
 the  record  does  not  contain  any  justification  of  them  as  appropriately  cost-  based.  782  AT&  T 
 asserts  that:  (1)  SWBT  fails  to  identify  relevant  time  and  materials  charges  imposed  during  the 
 CHC  process;  (2)  fails  to  identify  its  cost  studies  to  support  these  charges;  (3)  fails  to  prove  that 
 the  Texas  Commission  considered  or  approved  these  charges;  and  (4)  does  not  impose  these 
 charges  for  all  hot  cuts,  which  proves  that  the  CHC  charges  are  actually  penalties.  783 


 276.  SWBT  disputes  each  of  AT&  Ts  allegations.  First,  SWBT  asserts  that  it  has 
 adequately  identified  its  time  and  material  charges  imposed  during  the  CHC  process,  and  that  the 
 terms  of  these  charges  are  contained  in  both  the  UNE  price  schedule  of  AT&  Ts  interconnection 
 contract  and  in  the  T2A  agreement.  784  SWBT  also  responds  that  these  rates  are  cost-  based  and 


 777  We  note  that  SWBT  presents  these  data  only  for  December  1999  through  March  2000,  and  as  in  the  Bell 
 Atlantic  New  York  Order,  they  are  loop-  based  data  (rather  than  order-  based  data).  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart 
 Reply  Aff.  at  Attach.  I.  The  Texas  Commission  established  a  performance  measurement  to  assess  the  quality  of  a 
 variety  of  loops  provisioned  by  SWBT  to  competing  carriers  that  captures  the  percentage  of  troubles  within  30  days 
 after  installation.  Because  this  is  a  much  longer  period  than  the  7  day  period  we  used  to  evaluate  hot  cut  quality  in 
 our  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  and  because  the  data  for  this  performance  measurement  also  includes  new  loops 
 that  are  not  provisioned  by  hot  cuts,  SWBT  reviewed  the  underlying  data  for  these  measurements  and  submitted 
 data  specifically  for  hot  cut  loops  within  10  days  after  installation.  In  response  to  AT&  T  criticism  questioning 
 SWBTs  decision  to  use  a  10  day  measurement  period,  SWBT  submitted  trouble  data  for  the  7  day  period  following 
 installation  identical  to  the  standard  discussed  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order.  See  SWBT  Texas  II 
 Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  41-  44,  Attach.  I;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  37;  AT&  T  Texas  II 
 DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Decl.  at  para.  70. 


 778  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  Attach.  I. 


 779  See  generally  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4109,  para.  301. 
 780  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  24-  25;  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  27- 
 28;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  4-  6. 
 781  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  14-  15. 


 782  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  15  n.  42. 
 783  AT&  T  Texas  II  DeYoung/  Van  de  Water  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  27-  28;  AT&  T  June  8  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  5. 
 784  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  50;  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3. 
143
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 144 
 were  arbitrated  by  the  Texas  Commission  as  part  of  its  Mega-  Arbitration.  785  Additionally,  SWBT 
 asserts  that  as  part  of  its  rate  case,  the  Texas  Commission  considered  SWBTs  cost  studies 
 relating  to  the  CHC  process.  786  SWBT  also  disputes  AT&  Ts  allegation  that  the  CHC  rates  are 
 imposed  in  a  punitive  manner.  SWBT  states  that  it  has  waived  the  Texas  Commission-  approved 
 charges  for  its  alternative  hot  cut  method,  FDT,  in  order  to  make  that  process  an  attractive 
 optional  offering  for  competitive  LECs.  787  SWBT  contends,  however,  that  offering  one  hot  cut 
 method  free  does  not  make  the  alternative  method  punitive,  as  both  options  are  equally  available.  788 


 277.  Because  of  its  demonstrated  commitment  to  our  pricing  rules,  the  Texas 
 Commissions  determinations  are  entitled  to  a  presumption  of  legitimacy.  789  AT&  T  provides  no 
 basis  for  disputing  SWBTs  observation  that  the  CHC  charges  were  arbitrated  by  the  Texas 
 Commission  as  part  of  its  Mega-  Arbitration  proceeding.  Thus,  AT&  Ts  challenge  to  the  cost 
 basis  of  these  charges  (and  there  could  be  no  other  legally  relevant  type  of  challenge)  is  in  reality  a 
 challenge  to  the  pricing  determinations  of  the  Texas  Commission.  AT&  T  has  altogether  failed  to 
 establish  a  record  for  challenging  the  Texas  Commissions  rulings  on  this  point  or  to  explain  with 
 particularity  how  it  believes  the  Texas  Commission  may  have  erred.  In  short,  AT&  T  has  not  laid 
 a  proper  foundation  that  would  justify  this  Commission  in  second-  guessing  the  Texas 
 Commissions  exercise  of  its  pricing  jurisdiction. 


 (ii)  New  Stand-  Alone  Loop  Provisioning 
 278.  We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provisions  new  unbundled  stand-  alone 
 voice  grade  loops  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4.  As  described  above, 
 when  SWBT  does  not  presently  service  the  customer  on  the  line  in  question,  a  hot  cut  loop  is  not 
 required.  Instead,  a  competing  carrier  may  obtain  a  new  loop  from  SWBT,  which  requires  that  a 
 technician  be  dispatched  to  the  customers  premises  in  order  to  complete  the  installation. 


 279.  First,  we  find  that  SWBT  systems  afford  competing  carriers  access  to  appointment 
 dates  that  is  equivalent  to  the  access  provided  to  SWBT  representatives  serving  retail  customers. 
 SWBT  represents  that  SORD  provides  competing  carriers  with  the  same  access  to  available  due 
 dates  as  that  afforded  to  SWBTs  retail  operations.  790  SWBT  also  represents  that  the  same  due 
 date  database  is  used  for  both  competing  carrier  and  SWBT  retail  orders.  791  No  commenters 


 785  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  50;  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3. 
 786  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3. 
 787  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  50. 
 788  SWBT  Texas  II  Noland/  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  51;  SWBT  June  23  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  3. 
 789  See  section  V.  A.  2. 
 790  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  186. 
 791  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  187. 
144
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 145 
 claim  otherwise. 
 280.  We  also  conclude  that  SWBT  provisions  new  unbundled  stand-  alone  loops  to 
 competing  carriers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  does  for  its  own  retail  service. 
 From  February  through  April  2000,  SWBT  missed  a  lower  percentage  of  8.0  dB  loop  installation 
 due  dates  requiring  field  work  for  competing  carriers  than  it  did  for  its  own  retail  service.  792  With 
 respect  to  loop  quality,  during  the  same  period  of  time,  the  8.0  dB  loops  that  SWBT  installed  for 
 competing  carriers  experienced  a  comparable  percentage  of  trouble  reports  as  SWBTs  own  8.0 
 dB  loops.  793  Although  these  performance  data  do  not  exclusively  address  the  provisioning  of  new 
 stand-  alone  8.0  dB  loops,  they  do  include  the  provisioning  of  such  loops.  Moreover,  we  note  that 
 no  commenter  has  criticized  this  aspect  of  SWBTs  performance.  Therefore,  we  find  that  SWBT 
 provisions  new  voice  grade  loops  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4. 


 (iii)  Maintenance  and  Repair  of  Voice  Grade  Loops 
 281.  Like  the  Department  of  Justice,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  unbundled  local  loops  provisioned  to  competing 
 carriers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  does  for  its  own  retail  customers.  794 
 During  the  period  from  December  1999  through  April  2000,  SWBT  met  a  greater  percentage  of 
 unbundled  loop  repair  due  dates  for  customers  of  competing  carriers  than  for  its  own  retail 
 customers.  795  In  addition,  during  the  same  period,  the  average  time  to  repair  unbundled  loops  for 


 792  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  missed  3.4,  5.8,  and  9.9  percent  of  competing  carrier  8.0  dB  loop 
 installation  due  dates  involving  field  work.  During  the  same  time  period,  SWBT  missed  11.  3,  11.  4,  and  12.  0  of 
 the  same  installation  due  dates  for  its  retail  service.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  58 
 (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  (8.0  dB  Loop-  Field  Work)  at  271-  No.  58a. 


 793  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  competing  carriers  experienced  troubles  within  30  days  following 


 installation  on  5.  6,  5.  3,  and  4.  9  of  their  8.  0  dB  loops.  During  the  same  period  SWBT  retail  customers  experienced 
 troubles  within  30  days  following  installation  on  3.  1,  3.  3,  and  3.  5  percent  of  their  8.  0  dB  loops.  We  acknowledge 
 that  while  the  trouble  rates  are  comparable,  the  competing  carrier  rate  is  marginally  higher.  In  light  of  SWBTs 
 unbundled  voice  grade  loop  provisioning  overall,  and  the  fact  that  no  commenter  criticizes  this  aspect  of  SWBTs 
 performance,  we  do  not  find  this  small  difference  competitively  significant.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30  Days)  (8.0  dB  Loop)  at  271-  No.  59a. 


 794  In  this  section,  we  discuss  maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  unbundled  hot  cut  and  new  stand-  alone  loops, 


 but  not  xDSL-  capable  loops  and  high  capacity  loops,  which  are  separately  addressed  in  discussions  specific  to  those 
 loop  types.  See  infra  at  paras.  303-  06,  319-  20. 


 795  In  December  1999  and  January  and  February  2000,  SWBT  missed  only  2.6,  0.8,  and  1.7  percent  of  competing 


 carrier  repair  due  dates,  but  8.  3,  7.  3,  and  6.  8  percent  of  such  appointments  for  its  own  retail  customers.  Although 
 in  March  2000,  SWBT  missed  11.1  percent  of  repair  due  dates  for  competing  carriers,  and  only  7.7  percent  of  such 
 appointments  for  its  own  retail  customers,  this  proved  to  be  an  aberration,  because  in  April  2000,  SWBT  missed 
 only  3.  3  percent  of  competing  carrier  repair  due  dates  and  7.  1  percent  of  such  due  dates  for  its  own  retail 
 customers.  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  66  (  Missed  Repair  Commitments)  (2  Wire 
 Analog-  8.0  dB  Loop)  at  271-  No.  65d-  66.  SWBT  does  not  measure  missed  repair  due  dates  for  5.0  dB  loops,  which 
 are  used  much  less  frequently  than  8.0  dB  loops.  For  instance,  in  April  2000,  competing  carriers  were  provisioned 
 5783  8.0  dB  loops  and  only  228  5.0  dB  loops.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  59 
 (continued.) 
145
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 146 
 competing  carriers  was  consistently  and  significantly  lower  than  the  time  that  SWBT  took  to 
 repair  such  loops  for  its  own  customers.  796  Furthermore,  during  the  same  period,  competing 
 carriers  and  SWBT  experienced  a  comparable  percentage  of  repeat  trouble  reports  for  unbundled 
 loops.  797  Thus,  we  find  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  maintenance  and  repair  services 
 for  the  unbundled  loops  that  it  provides  to  competing  carriers.  798 


 b.  xDSL-  Capable  Loops 
 282.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  unbundled  local  loops  for 
 the  provision  of  xDSL  services  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  At  the  outset,  we  note  that  xDSL-capable 
 loops  are  a  substantial  and  growing  portion  of  all  unbundled  loops  provisioned  by  SWBT 
 to  competing  carriers.  799  We  also  note  that  in  our  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  stated  that 
 we  would  find  it  most  persuasive  if  future  applicants  under  section  271  .  .  .  make  a  separate  and 
 comprehensive  evidentiary  showing  with  respect  to  the  provision  of  xDSL-  capable  loops.  800  In 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30  Days)  (8.0  dB  Loop,  5.0  dB  Loop)  at  271-  No.  59a 
 (reporting  total  volumes  on  a  per  loop  basis). 


 796  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  the  average  time  to  repair  competing  carrier  unbundled  8.0  dB  loops 


 requiring  dispatch  was  5.  95,  14.  02,  and  5.  47  hours,  respectively.  During  the  same  period,  the  average  time  to 
 repair  SWBT  retail  8.  0  dB  loops  requiring  dispatch  was  24.  03,  27.  26,  and  30.  48  hours,  respectively.  SWBT 
 Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  67  (  Mean  Time  to  Restore  (Hours)-  Dispatch)  (8.  0  dB  Loop 
 with  Test  Access)  at  271-  No.  67a.  During  the  same  period,  SWBT  took  a  nearly  comparable  amount  of  time  to 
 repair  the  less  frequently  used  5.0  dB  loops  requiring  dispatch  for  competing  carriers  as  it  did  to  repair  5.0  dB 
 loops  requiring  dispatch  for  its  own  retail  customers.  For  instance,  in  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT 
 repaired  competing  carrier  5.0  dB  loops  in  5.72,  9.39,  and  4.08  hours,  respectively.  During  the  same  period, 
 SWBT  repaired  its  own  retail  5.  0  dB  loops  in  4.  68,  5.  34,  and  6.  14  hours,  respectively.  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  67  (  Mean  Time  to  Restore  (Hours)-  Dispatch)  (5.  0  dB  loops  with  Test 
 Access)  at  271-  No.  67a. 


 797  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  competing  carriers  experienced  repeat  troubles  on  13.3,  10.3,  and  7.9 


 percent  of  their  8.0  dB  loops,  while  SWBT  experienced  repeat  troubles  during  the  same  period  on  12.0,  12.2,  and 
 12.  9  percent  of  its  own  retail  8.  0  dB  loops.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  69  (  Repeat 
 Reports  (%))  (8.0  dB  Loop  with  Test  Access)  at  271-  No.  68-  69a.  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  competing 
 carriers  experienced  repeat  troubles  on  16.1,  9.3,  and  5.9  percent  of  their  5.0  dB  loops,  while  SWBT  experienced 
 repeat  troubles  during  the  same  period  on  13.  2,  13.  3,  and  13.  0  percent  of  their  retail  5.  0  dB  loops.  SWBT 
 Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  69  (  Repeat  Reports  (%))  (5.0  dB  Loops  with  Test  Access)  at 
 271-  No.  68-  69a.  We  note  that  for  both  8.0  dB  and  5.0  dB  loops,  in  the  last  two  months  competing  carriers  have 
 experienced  fewer  repeat  troubles  on  their  loops  than  SWBT  has  experienced  on  its  own  retail  loops. 


 798  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  50,  54  (reviewing  missed  repair  appointments). 


 799  In  February  2000,  xDSL-  capable  loops  were  only  19  percent  of  all  unbundled  stand-  alone  loops  ordered  by 
 competing  carriers.  By  April  2000,  xDSL  capable  loops  were  27  percent  of  all  such  loops.  See  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Trouble  Reports  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30  Days)  (8.  0  dB 
 Loop,  5.0  dB  Loop,  BRI  Loop,  DS1  Loop,  DSL)  at  27-  No.  59a-  c  (calculated  from  total  volumes  listed  on  a  per  loop 
 basis  and  combining  BRI  and  DSL  loop  performance  data  to  calculate  xDSL-  capable  loops). 


 800  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4122,  para.  330.  We  did  not  require  such  a  showing  in  New 


 York  because  of  the  unique  circumstances  associated  with  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  application,  including  the 
 fact  that  the  Commissions  previous  section  271  orders  did  not  address  the  ordering  or  provisioning  of  xDSL-( 
 continued.) 
146
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 147 
 doing  so,  we  set  forth  the  evidence  that  an  applicant  may  use  to  demonstrate  that  it  provides 
 xDSL-  capable  loops  to  competing  carriers  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  First,  the  Commission 
 stated  that  271  applicants  could  demonstrate  that  they  are  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 xDSL-  capable  loops  through  comprehensive  and  accurate  reports  of  performance  measures.  801  As 
 we  noted  in  our  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order: 


 we  emphasize  our  strong  preference  for  a  record  that  contains  data  measuring  a 
 BOCs  performance  pursuant  to  state-  adopted  standards  that  were  developed  with 
 input  from  the  relevant  carriers  and  that  include  clearly-  defined  guidelines  and 
 methodology  .  .  .  Accordingly,  we  encourage  state  commissions  to  adopt  specific 
 xDSL  loop  performance  standards  measuring,  for  instance,  the  average  completion 
 interval,  the  percent  of  installation  due  dates  missed  as  a  result  of  the  BOCs 
 provisioning  error,  the  timeliness  of  order  processing,  the  installation  quality  of 
 xDSL  loops  provisioned,  and  the  timeliness  and  quality  of  the  BOCs  xDSL 
 maintenance  and  repair  functions.  802 


 Second,  the  Commission  indicated  that  the  establishment  of  a  fully  operational  separate 
 affiliate  for  advanced  services  may  provide  significant  evidence  of  nondiscrimination.  803 


 283.  We  commend  the  Texas  Commission  for  its  extensive  consideration  of  xDSL-capable 
 loop  issues  and  development  of  specific  xDSL-  capable  loop  performance  standards  before 
 SWBT  filed  its  application.  We  also  commend  the  Texas  Commission  for  its  efforts  to  include 
 competing  carriers  in  this  process.  As  a  result,  we  have  for  the  first  time  in  a  section  271 
 application  a  complete  record  of  a  BOCs  xDSL-  capable  loop  performance  from  which  to  assess 
 the  provisioning  of  nondiscriminatory  access  to  xDSL-  capable  loops. 


 (i)  xDSL-  Capable  Loop  Performance 
 284.  Like  the  Department  of  Justice,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  nondiscriminatory  access  to  xDSL-  capable  loops  through  its  existing  performance 
 measurement  data  and  other  evidence  it  presents  in  its  application.  804  Consistent  with  our 
 statements  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  analyze  competing  carrier  access  to  SWBT 
 xDSL-  capable  loops  on  the  basis  of  performance  measurements  and  standards  adopted  by  the 
 Texas  Commission  in  a  state  proceeding.  Specifically,  we  review  SWBTs  xDSL-  capable  loop 
 order  processing  timeliness,  the  timeliness  of  SWBTs  xDSL  capable  loop  installation  and 
 percentage  of  SWBT-  caused  missed  due  dates,  the  quality  of  the  xDSL-  capable  loops  SWBT 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 capable  loops.  SWBT  has  not  argued  that  such  unique  circumstances  exist  in  Texas.  See  also  Department  of 
 Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  10  n.  19. 


 801  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4123-  24,  paras.  333-  35. 


 802  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4123-  24,  para.  334. 
 803  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4122,  para.  331. 
 804  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  1. 
147
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 148 
 installs,  and  the  timeliness  and  quality  of  the  maintenance  and  repair  functions  SWBT  provides  to 
 competing  carrier  xDSL-  capable  loops.  In  nearly  all  areas,  recent  performance  data  indicate  that 
 SWBT  offers  competing  carrier  nondiscriminatory  access  to  xDSL-  capable  loops.  Viewed  as  a 
 whole,  the  recent  performance  data  confirm  that  SWBT,  although  it  has  not  yet  achieved 
 perfection,  has  met  its  general  obligation  to  provide  competing  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory 
 access  to  xDSL-  capable  loops  and  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  the  checklist.  If  in  the  future, 
 however,  SWBT  performance  deteriorates  and  restricts  competing  carrier  access  to  unbundled 
 xDSL-  capable  loops  in  a  discriminatory  manner,  we  note  that  we  may  take  appropriate 
 enforcement  action  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6). 


 285.  As  a  preliminary  matter,  we  note  that  competing  carriers  in  Texas  rely  principally 
 on  two  types  of  unbundled  xDSL-  capable  loops:  the  xDSL  loop  and  the  BRI  ISDN  loop.  805  The 
 Texas  Commission  developed  separate  loop-  type  performance  measurement  categories  for  xDSL 
 loops  (including,  but  not  limited  to,  loops  provisioned  for  ADSL,  HDSL,  and  SDSL  services)  and 
 BRI  ISDN  loops,  which  are  used  by  competing  carriers  to  provide  IDSL  services.  For  the 
 discussion  of  SWBT  performance  that  follows,  we  refer  to  xDSL  loops  and  BRI  ISDN  loops 
 collectively  as  xDSL-  capable  loops.  When  discussing  the  separate  categories  of  performance 
 measurements,  we  refer  to  xDSL  loops  and  BRI  loops. 


 286.  Order  Processing  Timeliness.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  order  processing  for  xDSL-  capable  loops  in  a  timely  manner  that  provides  an  efficient 
 competitor  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  We  reach  this  conclusion  on  the  basis  of 
 the  nondiscriminatory  access  to  loop  qualification  information  that  SWBT  provides  competing 
 carriers,  SWBTs  ability  to  process  competing  carrier  FOCs  in  a  timely  manner,  and  SWBTs 
 substantial  implementation  of  xDSL-  capable  loop  processing  changes  required  by  the  Texas 
 Commission. 


 287.  First,  we  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  offers  nondiscriminatory  access  to 
 OSS  pre-  ordering  functions  associated  with  determining  whether  a  loop  is  capable  of  supporting 
 xDSL  technologies.  806  As  described  in  greater  detail  in  our  discussion  of  checklist  item  2,  we  find 
 that  the  mechanized  and  manual  processes  in  place  at  the  time  SWBT  filed  its  application  enable 
 requesting  carriers  to  access  loop  qualification  information  in  substantially  the  same  time  an 


 805  An  xDSL  loop  is  a  continuous  copper  line  from  the  collocation  site  in  SWBTs  central  office  to  the  end  user, 
 which  is  not  equipped  with  repeaters,  the  equipment  used  to  increase  the  transmitted  signal.  The  ISDN  BRI  loop 
 may  include  a  section  of  fiber  optic  cable  and  should  include  ISDN  repeaters  for  long  loops.  BRI  loops  are 
 sometimes  used  by  competing  carriers  to  provide  a  slower  speed  IDSL  service  where  xDSL  loops  are  not  available. 
 Covad  Texas  II  Rosenstein  Decl.  at  para.  30.  In  April  2000,  SWBT  installed  1445  xDSL  loops  and  923  BRI  loops. 
 SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  58  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  (DSL, 
 BRI  Loop)  at  271-  No.  58b-  c. 


 806  Because  characteristics  of  a  loop,  such  as  it  length  and  the  presence  of  various  impediments  to  digital 


 transmission  can  hinder  certain  advanced  services  technologies,  carriers  often  seek  to  access  basic  loop  make-  up 
 information  that  will  assist  carriers  in  ascertaining  whether  the  loop,  without  the  removal  of  impediments,  can 
 support  a  particular  advanced  service.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4021,  para.  140;  UNE 
 Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3884-  85,  paras.  426-  27. 
148
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 149 
 manner  as  SWBTs  retail  operations.  In  fact,  in  the  period  from  February  through  April  2000,  the 
 average  time  for  SWBT  to  return  competing  carrier  loop  qualification  requests  was  consistently 
 lower  than  the  average  time  for  SWBT  to  return  such  requests  to  its  own  retail  operations.  807 


 288.  Second,  we  find  that  performance  data  demonstrate  that  SWBT  processes 
 competing  carrier  LSRs  for  xDSL-  capable  loops  in  a  timely  manner  that  provides  efficient 
 competitors  with  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  For  instance,  in  both  March  and  April 
 2000,  SWBT  returned  94  percent  of  competing  carrier  FOCs  within  24  hours  for  xDSL-  capable 
 loops  ordered  via  LEX  and  96  percent  of  competing  carrier  FOCs  within  24  hours  for  xDSL-capable 
 loops  ordered  via  EDI.  808 


 289.  In  large  part,  our  finding  that  SWBT  processes  competing  carrier  xDSL-  capable 
 loop  orders  in  a  timely  fashion  is  the  product  of  the  Texas  Commissions  comprehensive  review  of 
 SWBTs  methods  and  procedures  for  offering  xDSL-  capable  loops  in  the  Covad/  Rhythms 
 arbitration.  809  The  Covad/  Rhythms  arbitration  award  culminated  a  year-  long  effort  to  resolve 
 interconnection  disputes  related  to  SWBTs  xDSL-  capable  loop  ordering  practices  for  competing 
 carriers,  consolidated  by  the  Texas  Commission  under  section  252(  g)  of  the  Act.  810  In  the  course 
 of  this  arbitration,  the  Texas  Commission  ordered  SWBT  to  implement  substantial  changes  to  its 


 807  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT,  on  average,  SWBT  returned  competing  carrier  loop  makeup 
 requests  in  4.  34,  2.  63,  and  1.  72  days,  while  returning  similar  requests  for  its  own  retail  operations  in  3.  99,  5.  39, 
 and  2.  15  days.  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  57  (  Average  Time  for  Loop  Make-  Up 
 Information)  at  271-  No.  57.  We  also  note  that  in  January  2000,  the  performance  measurement  was  redefined  in 
 response  to  Department  of  Justice  criticism,  to  include  the  entire  time  between  SWBTs  receipt  from  the  competing 
 carrier  of  a  request  for  information  relating  to  loop  qualification  and  the  time  that  such  information  is  returned  to 
 the  competing  carrier.  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  at  12;  SWBT  Texas  II  Chapman/  Dysart  Aff.  at  para.  28. 


 808  SWBT  Aggregate  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  5.  1  (  Percent  Firm  Order  Confirmations  (FOCs) 


 Relating  to  xDSL-  capable  Loops  Returned  within  X  Hours)  (Mechanized  LSRs-  LEX  (1-  20  Loops),  Mechanized 
 LSRs-  EDI  (1-  20  Loops)  at  271-  No.  5.1a.  This  performance  measurement  is  relatively  new,  and  not  yet  approved 
 by  the  Texas  Commission,  so  only  March  and  April  2000  data  are  available.  See  SWBT  Chapman/  Dysart  Texas  II 
 Aff.  at  Attach.  A;  Covad  Goodpastor  Texas  II  Decl.  at  para.  30.  The  Department  of  Justice  characterizes  SWBTs 
 present  measuring  and  reporting  of  competing  carrier  FOCs  as  a  significant  improvement  over  SWBTs  first 
 Texas  application.  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  2. 


 809  Arbitration  Award,  petitions  of  Rhythms  Links,  Inc.  and  Dieca  Communications,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Covad 


 Communications  Company  for  Arbitration  of  Interconnection  Rates,  Terms,  Conditions  and  Related  Arrangements 
 with  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  Docket  Nos.  20226  and  20272  (Texas  PUC  Nov.  30,  1999) 
 (Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award);  Texas  Commission  January  27,  2000  Open  Meeting  Transcript  at  63-  67 
 (Jan.  27  Open  Meeting  Tr.)  (affirming  November  30,  1999  decision  of  Texas  Commission  arbitrator). 


 810  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  g);  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award  at  1.  The  Texas  Commission  affirmed  its  decision  on 


 January  27,  2000  and  on  February  4,  2000,  approved  both  Covad  and  Rhythms  interconnection  agreements  with 
 SWBT  based  on  the  principles  established  in  the  arbitration.  Order  Approving  Interconnection  Agreements, 
 petitions  of  Rhythms  Links,  Inc.  and  Dieca  Communications,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Covad  Communications  Company  for 
 Arbitration  of  Interconnection  Rates,  Terms,  Conditions  and  Related  Arrangements  with  Southwestern  Bell 
 Telephone  Company,  Docket  No.  20272  (Texas  PUC  Feb.  4,  2000);  Jan.  27  Open  Meeting  Tr.  at  63-  67. 
149
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 150 
 xDSL-  capable  loop  ordering  process.  811  In  addition,  at  the  Texas  Commissions  December  16, 
 1999  open  meeting,  SWBT  made  a  series  of  related  commitments  to  implement  xDSL-  capable 


 811  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award  11-  17,  34-  36,  40,  42-  52,  56-  65,  78-  80  (ordered  changes  include  requiring 
 SWBT  to  provide  xDSL-  capable  loops  on  demand  for  xDSL  services  of  the  competing  carriers  own  choosing;  drop 
 arbitrary  length  and  transmission  speed  restrictions  on  competing  carriers  xDSL-  capable  loops;  provide  competing 
 carriers  equivalent  access  to  the  loop  qualification  information  available  to  SWBT  retail  personnel;  and  eliminate 
 its  efforts  to  segregate  and  reserve  the  best  loops  for  SWBT  retail  customers  with  its  Selective  Feeder  System 
 binder  group  management). 
150
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 151 
 loop  ordering  process  changes  in  order  to  secure  the  support  of  the  Texas  Commission  for  its 
 section  271  application.  812 


 290.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  performance  data  demonstrate  that  in  recent  months, 
 with  the  substantial  implementation  of  these  changes,  competing  carriers  can  order  xDSL-  capable 
 loops  in  a  timely  manner.  813  Through  numerous  affidavits  and  supporting  attachments,  SWBT 
 demonstrates  step-  by-  step  how  it  complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  arbitration  and  put  in 
 place  the  terms  and  conditions  the  Texas  Commission  found  necessary  to  provide  competing 
 carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  xDSL-  capable  loops.  814  Notably,  SWBT  describes  how 
 it  has  dismantled  the  binder  group  management  system  it  had  developed  to  mechanically  segregate 
 ADSL-  based  services  from  other  data  services.  815  Although  some  commenters  contend  that  more 
 work  needs  to  be  done  by  SWBT  before  the  Commission  can  find  that  it  has  fully  complied  with 
 its  legal  obligations,  we  find  that  these  allegations  are  insufficient 


 812  Dec.  16  Open  Meeting  Tr.  at  12-  14,  16-  17  (changes  committed  to  include  eliminating  rejection  of  competing 
 carrier  xDSL-  capable  loop  orders  lacking  information  categorizing  the  request  in  one  of  seven  SWBT  Power 
 Spectral  Density  masks;  taking  requests  for  loop  qualification  information  via  e-  mail  or  fax;  developing 
 streamlined  two-  step  ordering  process  for  xDSL-  capable  loops;  making  available  acceptance  testing  after 
 provisioning;  offering  xDSL-  capable  loops  as  is  to  competing  carriers  who  do  not  wish  to  have  performed  the 
 conditioning  SWBT  recommends;  offering  loops  of  less  than  12,000  feet  without  requiring  competing  carriers  to 
 go  through  the  loop  qualification  process;  and  reaffirming  commitment  to  eliminate  the  Selective  Feeder  System). 


 813  We  acknowledge  that  a  recent  Texas  Commission  order  required  a  limited  modification  to  the  firewall  plan 


 developed  to  ensure  competing  carriers  equivalent  access  to  the  loop  qualification  information  available  to  SWBT 
 retail  personnel.  Order  No.  13,  Order  Granting  Covads  Motion  to  Reconsider  Order  No.  10;  requiring  Further 
 Modification  to  SWBTs  Modified  Plan  to  Ensure  Competitive  Neutrality;  Requesting  Comment;  Requesting 
 Additional  Information  Regarding  TP  76869  Tx;  and  Notice  of  Workshop,  Docket  Nos.  20226,  20272  (  Texas  PUC 
 June  21,  2000);  Letter  from  Thomas  M.  Koutsky,  Vice  President  Regulatory  Affairs,  Covad,  to  Magalie  Roman 
 Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission  (filed  June  23,  2000).  Because  these  modifications  involve 
 further  safeguards  to  ensure  the  competitive  neutrality  required  by  the  Covad/  Rhythms  Arbitration  Award,  and  do 
 not  reflect  a  determination  by  the  Texas  Commission  that  SWBT  is  presently  discriminating  against  competing 
 carriers  by  restricting  access  to  loop  qualification  information,  we  conclude  that  the  Texas  Commissions  recent 
 action  does  not  in  any  way  undermine  our  conclusions  in  this  section. 


 814  See  generally  SWBT  Meierhoff  Texas  II  Aff.  at  paras.  8-  30  (describing  dismantling  of  selective  feeder  system 


 binder  group  management  designed  to  reserve  binder  groups  for  ADSL);  SWBT  Chapman/  Dysart  Texas  II  Aff.  at 
 paras.  71-  91,  SWBT  Chapman  Texas  I  Aff.  at  Attach.  F  (Jan.  4,  2000  Accessible  Letter)  (describing  modifications 
 to  ordering  process,  including,  no  longer  requiring  manual  loop  qualification  for  xDSL-  capable  loops  under  12,  000 
 feet,  allowing  competing  carriers  to  request  loop  make-  up  information  prior  to  the  submission  of  an  LSR,  allowing 
 competing  carriers  to  order  a  loop  before  the  loop  qualification  process  is  complete,  allowing  competing  carriers  to 
 provision  xDSL  services  that  do  not  comply  with  industry  standards,  removing  xDSL  transmission  speed 
 limitations  for  competing  carriers,  and  removing  requirement  that  competing  carriers  provide  a  PSD  number 
 when  requesting  loop  qualification). 


 815  SWBT  Meierhoff  Texas  II  Aff.  at  paras.  8-  30. 
151
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 152 
 to  rebut  the  strong  combination  of  performance  data  and  affidavit  evidence  that  SWBT  presents 
 to  demonstrate  its  order  processing  timeliness.  816 


 291.  Average  Installation  Interval.  We  find  that  SWBT  installation  interval  data 
 demonstrate  that  it  provisions  xDSL  loop  orders  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it 
 does  for  its  own  retail  service.  We  also  find  that  SWBT  installation  interval  data  demonstrate  that 
 it  provisions  BRI  loop  orders  in  a  sufficiently  timely  manner  for  an  efficient  competitor  to  have  a 
 meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 292.  xDSL  Loops.  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  generally  provisioned 
 competing  carrier  orders  for  xDSL  loops  in  less  time  than  it  did  for  its  own  retail  customers, 
 regardless  of  whether  or  not  loop  conditioning  was  required.  817  Covad,  however,  questions  the 
 accuracy  of  these  performance  data,  claiming  that  many  of  its  loop  orders  are  missing  from  this 
 performance  measurement.  818  Yet,  Covad  fails  to  acknowledge  that  the  business  rules  associated 
 with  this  measurement  expressly  permit  the  exclusion  of  competing  carrier  loop  orders  requesting 
 an  installation  interval  longer  than  the  standard  offered  interval.  819  In  addition,  earlier  problems 
 with  the  accuracy  of  the  data  in  this  performance  measurement  were  corrected  after  SWBT 
 discovered  a  minor  processing  error  resulting  in  accidental  exclusions.  820  Finally,  we  find 
 further  confirmation  of  the  timeliness  of  SWBT  xDSL  loop  provisioning  in  other  performance 
 data  demonstrating  a  low  rate  of  missed  installation  due  dates  for  competing  carrier  xDSL  loops.  821 


 816  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  3,  10-  18;  NorthPoint  Texas  II  Comments  at  6,  9-  12;  Rhythms  Texas  II 
 Comments  at  14;  Sprint  Texas  II  Comments  at  23-  25;  Covad  Texas  II  Goodpastor  Decl.  at  paras.  21-  63;  Covad 
 Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  6-  10. 


 817  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  provisioned  competing  carrier  orders  for  xDSL  loops  that  did  not 


 require  conditioning  in  an  average  of  6.  65,  6.  02,  and  4.  98  days,  respectively.  During  the  same  period,  SWBT 
 provisioned  orders  for  xDSL  loops  that  did  not  require  conditioning  for  its  own  retail  service  in  an  average  of  7.  63, 
 7.78,  and  11.36  days,  respectively.  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  provisioned  competing  carrier 
 orders  for  xDSL  loops  that  required  conditioning  in  an  average  of  16.  34,  10.  19,  and  10.  27  days.  During  the  same 
 period,  SWBT  provisioned  orders  for  xDSL  loops  that  required  conditioning  for  its  own  retail  service  in  an  average 
 of  14.  40,  10.  67,  and  31.  50  days.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  55.  1  (  Average 
 Installation  Interval-  DSL)  (Requires  No  Conditioning,  Requires  Conditioning)  at  271-  No.  55.1. 


 818  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  20. 


 819  See  SWBT  Performance  Measurement  Business  Rules,  Measurement  No.  55.  1  (  Average  Installation  Interval-DSL). 
 See  also  SWBT  Texas  II  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  25-  26  (refuting  Covads  claims  of  measurement 
 inaccuracy);  Covad  Texas  I  Comments  at  31  (alleging  that  SWBT  systems  force  Covad  to  adjust  installation  dates 
 on  its  xDSL-  capable  loop  order  to  extend  beyond  the  average  interval  in  order  to  avoid  automatic  rejections  on 
 orders  requiring  supplements);  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  24-  25  (denying  Covad  allegations). 


 820  SWBT  Texas  II  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  18,  22-  35  (correction  of  exclusion  of  NorthPoint  and  Covad  data); 


 Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  3. 
 821  See  generally  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  58  (  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due 


 Dates)  (DSL)  at  271-  No.  58c. 
152
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 153 
 293.  BRI  Loops.  With  respect  to  BRI  loops,  the  Texas  Commission  did  not  establish  a 
 retail  analogue,  but  instead  established  a  3  day  target  interval  for  order  installation.  822 
 Accordingly,  we  assess  SWBTs  performance  on  the  basis  of  whether  or  not  it  offers  efficient 
 competitors  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete.  As  the  Department  of  Justice  notes,  in  recent 
 months,  SWBT  has  provisioned  competing  carrier  BRI  loop  orders  in  progressively  fewer  and 
 fewer  days.  823  In  fact,  in  April  2000,  when  volumes  of  BRI  loop  orders  were  more  than  twice  as 
 high  than  in  any  previous  month,  SWBT  was  able  to  provision  such  orders  in  an  average  of  2.8 
 days,  within  the  3  day  target  established  by  the  Texas  Commission.  824  This  represents  substantial 
 improvement  from  January  2000,  when  the  average  was  6.7  days.  825  Furthermore,  we  note  that 
 the  shortest  installation  interval  offered  to  SWBTs  retail  for  BRI  loops  is  5  days  and  may  be  as 
 long  as  10  days  if  loop  conditioning  is  required.  826  This  is  substantially  longer  than  the  3  day 
 interval  that  applies  for  competing  carriers.  Thus,  we  conclude  that  recent  performance  indicates 
 that  efficient  competitors  have  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  compete. 


 294.  Covad,  however,  urges  the  Commission  to  recognize  that  it  has  a  contractual  right 
 to  a  3  day  installation  period  and  that  historically  SWBT  has  not  met  this  interval.  827  Our  inquiry, 
 for  purposes  of  this  application,  is  whether  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  SWBTs  failure  to  meet  this  3  day  interval  with  Covad  does  not 
 preclude  a  finding  of  overall  compliance  with  item  4  of  the  checklist,  in  light  of  SWBTs 
 improving  performance  in  this  area  and  the  longer  installation  interval  SWBT  provides  for  its  own 
 retail  service. 


 295.  Percentage  of  Installation  Due  Dates  Missed  Due  to  BOC  Provisioning  Error. 
 We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  with  its  missed  due  date  performance  data  that  it  installs  xDSL-capable 
 loops  for  competing  carriers  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  that  it  installs 
 xDSL-  capable  loops  for  its  own  retail  service.  This  finding  further  buttresses  our  conclusion 
 regarding  SWBT  installation  intervals  that  is  described  above. 


 296.  xDSL  Loops.  As  a  preliminary  matter,  although  the  Texas  Commission  originally 
 established  SWBT  DS1  loops  as  the  appropriate  retail  analogue  for  competing  carrier  xDSL  loops 


 822  SWBT  Chapman/  Dysart  Texas  II  Aff.  at  para.  44.  See  generally  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  55  (  Average  Installation  Interval  (Days))  (BRI  Loop)  at  271-  No.  55a. 
 823  See  generally  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  55  (  Average  Installation  Interval 


 (Days))  (BRI  Loop)  at  271-  No.  55a;  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  5-  6  (characterizing  recent 
 SWBT  BRI  loop  performance  as  demonstrating  impressive  progress). 


 824  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  55  (  Average  Installation  Interval  (Days))  (BRI 


 Loop)  at  271-  No.  55a. 
 825  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  55  (  Average  Installation  Interval  (Days))  (BRI 


 Loop)  at  271-  No.  55a. 
 826  SWBT  Texas  II  Dysart  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  47. 


 827  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  25. 
153
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 154 
 in  this  performance  measurement,  neither  the  Texas  Commission,  nor  any  carriers  participating  in 
 this  proceeding  encourage  us  to  use  the  DS1  analogue.  828  Accordingly,  we  confine  our  review  to 
 the  standard  presented  in  SWBTs  performance  data:  a  straightforward  comparison  between 
 xDSL  loops  provisioned  to  competing  carriers  and  xDSL  loops  provisioned  to  SWBTs  own 
 retail  service.  We  note  that  this  is  the  comparison  used  in  the  Texas  Commissions  evaluation, 
 and  addressed  by  the  commenters. 


 297.  Although  in  the  past  SWBT  had  some  difficulty  meeting  competing  carrier  xDSL 
 loop  due  dates,  829  more  recent  data  indicate  that  SWBT  has  since  remedied  this  problem.  In 
 March  2000,  SWBT  missed  a  comparable  percentage  of  xDSL  loop  due  dates  for  competing 
 carriers  as  it  did  for  its  own  retail  services,  and  in  April  2000,  SWBT  missed  less  than  3  percent  of 
 competing  carrier  due  dates,  and  11  percent  of  the  due  dates  for  its  own  retail  service.  830  Thus, 
 we  find  that  SWBT  now  meets  installation  due  dates  for  competing  carriers  in  a  nondiscriminatory 
 manner. 


 298.  BRI  Loops.  Although  in  the  past  SWBT  had  some  difficulty  meeting  competing 
 carrier  BRI  loop  due  dates,  831  more  recent  data  indicate  that  SWBT  has  since  remedied  this 
 problem.  In  both  March  and  April  2000,  SWBT  missed  fewer  competing  carrier  BRI  loop  due 
 dates  for  competing  carriers  than  for  its  own  retail  service.  832  Notably,  in  April  2000,  SWBT 
 missed  20  percent  of  its  own  retail  service  BRI  loop  due  dates  and  only  9  percent  of  such  due 
 dates  for  competing  carrier  BRI  loops.  833 


 299.  Loop  Quality.  We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provisions  xDSL-  capable 
 loops  to  competing  in  a  manner  sufficient  to  meet  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4.  As  the 
 Commission  has  noted  in  the  past,  trouble  reports  within  30  days  are  indicative  of  the  quality  of 
 network  components  supplied  by  the  incumbent  LEC.  834  Moreover,  advanced  services 
 customers  that  experience  substantial  troubles  in  the  period  following  installation  of  a  xDSL- 


 828  We  note  also  that  in  a  recent  workshop  before  the  Texas  Commission  carriers  agreed  the  DS1  analogue  was 
 not  appropriate.  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  29;  SWBT  Performance  Measurement  Business  Rules, 
 Measurement  No.  58  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  (listing  retail  analogues). 


 829  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  21  (describing  problems  with  xDSL  loop  missed  installation  due  dates). 


 830  In  March  2000,  SWBT  missed  7.7  percent  of  xDSL  loop  installation  due  dates  for  competing  carriers  and  6.5 
 percent  of  xDSL  loop  installation  due  dates  for  its  own  retail  service.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  58  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  (DSL)  at  271-  No.  58c. 


 831  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  23  (describing  problems  with  BRI  loop  missed  installation  due  dates). 


 832  In  March  2000,  SWBT  missed  15.9  percent  of  competing  carrier  BRI  loop  installation  due  dates  and  16.7 
 percent  of  BRI  loop  installation  due  dates  for  its  own  retail  service.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data, 
 Measurement  No.  58  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  (BRI  Loop)  at  271-  No.  58b. 


 833  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  58  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates) 


 (BRI  Loop)  at  271-  No.  58b. 
 834  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4073-  74,  para.  222  n.  711. 
154
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 155 
 capable  loop  are  unlikely  to  remain  with  a  competing  carrier. 
 300.  xDSL  Loops.  For  reasons  described  above  with  respect  to  missed  installation  due 
 dates,  we  confine  our  review  of  xDSL  loop  quality  to  the  standard  presented  in  SWBTs 
 performance  data:  a  straightforward  comparison  between  xDSL  loops  provisioned  to  competing 
 carriers  and  xDSL  loops  provisioned  to  SWBTs  own  retail  service.  835  Although  in  the  past 
 SWBT  has  had  some  difficulty  provisioning  xDSL  loops  without  more  troubles  following 
 installation  that  their  own  retail  xDSL  loops,  836  more  recent  data  indicate  that  SWBT  has  since 
 remedied  this  problem.  In  both  March  and  April  2000,  SWBT  provisioned  xDSL  loops  to 
 competing  carriers  with  comparable  trouble  rates  in  the  30  days  following  installation.  837  For 
 instance,  in  April  2000,  just  over  4  percent  of  both  SWBT  and  competing  carrier  xDSL  loops 
 experienced  troubles  in  the  30  day  period  after  installation.  838 


 301.  BRI  Loops.  Like  the  Department  of  Justice,  we  acknowledge  that  some 
 performance  issues  remain  with  respect  to  troubles  following  the  installation  of  competing  carrier 
 BRI  loops.  839  We  find  that  these  issues  arise  from  the  fact  that  competing  carriers  use  BRI  loops 
 for  IDSL  service,  840  which  makes  provisioning  work  more  difficult  than  that  required  for  the 
 ISDN  service  that  SWBT  provisions  using  BRI  loops.  841  SWBT  maintains  that  these  technical 
 difficulties  associated  with  supporting  IDSL,  combined  with  the  short  3  day  installation  interval, 
 are  responsible  for  trouble  rates  greater  than  those  SWBT  experiences  with  its  retail  ISDN 
 service.  842  We  also  find  that  SWBT  is  working  with  competing  carriers  and  equipment  vendors  to 


 835  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  29;  SWBT  Performance  Measurement  Business  Rules, 
 Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Troubles  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30  Days)  (citing  to  list  of  retail  analogues  in 
 Measurement  No.  58). 


 836  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  21  (describing  problems  with  xDSL  loop  troubles  within  30  days  after 


 installation). 
 837  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Troubles  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30 


 Days)  (DSL)  at  271-  No.  59c. 
 838  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  59  (  Percent  Troubles  on  N,  T,  C  Orders  within  30 


 Days)  (DSL)  at  271-  No.  59c. 
 839  See  generally  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  4-  6. 


 840  IDSL  modems  combine  the  three  ISDN  circuits  into  a  single  144  kbs  data  stream,  and  in  order  to  support  this 
 use  of  BRI  loops,  SWBT  central  office  technicians  must  avoid  using  some  incompatible  slots  with  certain  digital 
 loop  carriers.  SWBT  Chapman  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  31. 


 841  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  59-  60. 


 842  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  59. 
155
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 156 
 solve  this  problem.  843  As  suggested  by  Rhythms,  SWBT  is  testing  a  new  card  for  its  digital  loop 
 carriers  that  will  support  IDSL  service.  844 


 302.  Under  these  circumstances,  we  find  that  the  differences  reported  in  SWBT 
 performance  data  between  the  way  BRI  loops  are  provisioned  for  SWBTs  ISDN  service  and 
 competing  carrier  IDSL  service  do  not  demonstrate  discriminatory  treatment.  We  note  that  the 
 Department  of  Justice  reaches  the  same  conclusion.  845  In  light  of  SWBTs  efforts  to  remedy  this 
 problem,  reasonable  questions  regarding  the  appropriateness  of  a  straightforward  comparison 
 between  troubles  following  installation  for  IDSL  and  ISDN  service,  and  SWBTs  competing 
 carrier  xDSL-  capable  loop  record  overall,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provisions  BRI  loops  of  a  quality  sufficient  to  meet  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4. 


 303.  Maintenance  and  Repair.  We  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides 
 maintenance  and  repair  functions  for  competing  carrier  xDSL-  capable  loops  in  a  manner  sufficient 
 to  meet  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4. 


 304.  xDSL  Loops.  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides  maintenance  and  repair  for 
 competing  carrier  xDSL  loops  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  it  does  for  its  own 
 retail  customers.  With  respect  to  timeliness  of  maintenance  and  repair,  in  both  February  and  April 
 2000,  the  average  time  to  repair  competing  carrier  xDSL  loops  was  substantially  less  than  the 
 average  time  SWBT  took  to  repair  its  own  retail  xDSL  loops.  846  SWBT  also  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  the  same  quality  of  xDSL  loop  repair  service  to  competing  carriers  as  it  does  for  its  own 
 retail  service.  In  the  period  from  February  through  April,  2000,  SWBT  and  competing  carrier 
 xDSL  loops  have  experienced  a  comparable  repeat  trouble  rate.  847 


 305.  BRI  Loops.  Like  the  Department  of  Justice,  we  acknowledge  that  some 
 performance  issues  remain  with  respect  to  the  timelines  of  BRI  loop  maintenance  and  repair.  As 


 843  SWBT  Chapman  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  31-  32;  Letter  from  Austin  C.  Schlick,  Counsel,  SBC,  to  Magalie 
 Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65  at  3  (filed  June  6,  2000) 
 (SWBT  June  6  Ex  Parte  Letter)  (describing  xDSL-  capable  loop  workshops  addressing  BRI  loop  performance 
 issues,  attended  by  SWBT,  Covad,  Rhythms,  NorthPoint,  and  IP  Communications). 


 844  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  6;  Rhythms  Texas  II  Comments  at  14;  Rhythms  Texas  II  Lopez 


 Aff.  at  para  6;  SWBT  Texas  II  Chapman  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  31,  33. 
 845  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  6. 


 846  In  February  and  April  2000,  competing  carrier  xDSL  loops  were  repaired  in  an  average  of  10.51  and  3.22 
 hours,  while  during  the  same  months  SWBT  repaired  its  own  retail  loops  in  an  average  of  28.  65  and  24.  08  hours. 
 In  March  2000,  competing  carrier  xDSL  loops  were  repaired  in  an  average  of  14.37  hours,  only  marginally  higher 
 than  the  11.  17  hours  it  took  SWBT,  on  average,  to  repair  its  own  retail  xDSL  loops.  SWBT  Aggregated 
 Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  67  (  Mean  Time  to  Restore  (Hours)-  Dispatch)  (DSL)  at  271-  No.  67c. 


 847  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  competing  carriers  experienced  repeat  troubles  on  11.7,  9.2,  and  10.0 


 percent  of  their  xDSL  loops,  while  during  the  same  period,  SWBT  retail  experienced  repeat  troubles  on  13.  8,  11.  1 
 and  8.  9  percent  of  their  xDSL  loops.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  69  (  Repeat  Reports 
 (%))  (DSL)  at  271-  No.  69c. 
156
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 157 
 discussed  above  with  respect  to  BRI  loop  trouble  rates,  SWBT  maintains  that  technical  difficulties 
 associated  with  supporting  IDSL  are  responsible  for  the  longer  average  repair  times  for 
 competing  carrier  BRI  loops.  848  If  SWBT  discovers  that  a  competing  carrier  intends  to  use  a 
 particular  BRI  loop  to  deliver  IDSL  services,  the  loop  may  need  to  be  redesigned  or  reassigned  to 
 avoid  using  equipment  and  facilities  that  support  ISDN  services  but  are  not  compatible  with  IDSL 
 technology.  849  This  can  adversely  impact  the  repair  time  for  competing  carrier  BRI  loops  used  for 
 IDSL  service,  and  it  draws  into  question  the  reasonableness  of  comparing  average  IDSL  repair 
 time  with  the  average  time  in  which  SWBT  repairs  its  own  retail  BRI  loops.  850  At  the  same  time, 
 SWBT  is  working  with  competing  carriers  to  improve  its  BRI  loop  performance.  851  Under  these 
 circumstances,  we  find  that  the  differences  reported  in  SWBT  performance  data  between  the 
 average  time  to  repair  competing  carrier  BRI  loops  and  SWBT  retail  BRI  loops  do  not 
 demonstrate  discriminatory  treatment. 


 306.  At  the  same  time,  we  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  now  provides  the  same 
 quality  of  BRI  loop  repair  service  to  competing  carriers  as  it  does  for  its  own  retail  service. 
 Although  in  the  past  SWBT  has  had  some  difficulty  provisioning  BRI  loops  without  more  repeat 
 troubles  than  SWBT  retail  BRI  loops,  more  recent  data  indicate  that  SWBT  has  since  remedied 
 this  problem.  In  both  March  and  April  2000,  competing  carrier  BRI  loops  had  fewer  repeat 
 troubles  than  did  SWBTs  own  retail  BRI  loops.  852  In  light  of  these  performance  data  and 
 SWBTs  ongoing  efforts  to  improve  its  BRI  loop  performance,  as  well  as  reasonable  questions 
 regarding  the  appropriateness  of  a  straightforward  comparison  between  time  to  repair  IDSL  and 
 ISDN  service,  and  SWBTs  competing  carrier  xDSL-  capable  loop  performance  overall,  we 
 conclude  that  SWBT  provides  maintenance  and  repair  for  BRI  loops  provisioned  to  competing 
 carriers  in  a  manner  sufficient  to  meet  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  4. 


 (ii)  Separate  Subsidiary 
 307.  SWBTs  implementation  of  a  separate  subsidiary  for  advanced  services  in  Texas  is 
 not  a  decisional  factor  regarding  compliance  with  section  271  because,  for  reasons  described  in 
 the  xDSL  section  supra,  SWBT  has  carried  its  burden  of  demonstrating  nondiscrimination  with  an 
 evidentiary  showing  of  performance  to  its  wholesale  xDSL  customers.  In  this  section,  however, 
 we  address  commenters  allegations  that  SWBTs  relationship  with  its  separate  subsidiary  for 


 848  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  57,  59-  60. 
 849  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  60. 
 850  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  60. 
 851  SWBT  Chapman  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  31-  32;  SWBT  June  6  Ex  Parte  Letter  (describing  xDSL-  capable 
 loop  workshops  addressing  BRI  loop  performance  issues,  attended  by  SWBT,  Covad,  Rhythms,  NorthPoint,  and  IP 
 Communications). 


 852  In  March  and  April  2000,  competing  carriers  experienced  repeat  troubles  on  13.5  and  15.7  percent  of  their 


 BRI  loops,  while  SWBT  experienced  troubles  on  15.  6  and  16.  9  percent  of  their  own  retail  BRI  loops.  SWBT 
 Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  69  (  Repeat  Reports  (%))  (BRI  Loop  with  Test  Access)  at  271- 
 No.  69b. 
157
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 158 
 advanced  services  violates  its  nondiscrimination  obligations  under  the  Act.  We  disagree  that  these 
 allegations  constitute  grounds  either  for  finding  noncompliance  with  checklist  item  4  or  for 
 denying  SWBTs  section  271  application. 


 (a)  Background 
 308.  SWBTs  parent  company,  SBC,  is  required  as  a  result  of  the  SBC/  Ameritech 
 Merger  Order  to  set  up  a  separate  affiliate  for  advanced  services  throughout  its  13-  state  region.  853 
 The  purpose  of  the  separate  affiliate  structure  is  to  ensure  nondiscriminatory  provisioning  of  key 
 inputs  for  advanced  services.  854  In  order  to  comply  with  the  merger  conditions,  SBC  has 
 established  SBC  Advanced  Solutions  Inc.  (ASI)  to  provide  retail  and  wholesale  advanced  services 
 in  Texas  and  other  SBC  states  (Arkansas,  California,  Connecticut,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Nevada  and 
 Oklahoma).  855 


 309.  In  order  to  minimize  any  disruption  to  the  efficient  and  timely  delivery  of  advanced 
 services  to  customers,  SWBT  was  permitted  a  reasonable  period  to  transition  to  steady  state 
 provisioning  of  advanced  services  through  ASI.  856  ASIs  interconnection  agreement  with  SWBT 
 in  Texas,  which  is  modeled  after  the  T2A,  became  effective  January  7,  2000.  On  March  13,  2000, 
 ASI  began  processing  all  new  requests  for  frame  relay  and  cell  relay  services  in  Texas.  857 
 Approximately  10  percent  of  these  new  requests  require  a  UNE  loop  (4-  wire  digital  or  DS-  1 


 853  See  Applications  of  Ameritech  Corp.,  Transferor,  and  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Transferee,  for  Consent  to 
 Transfer  Control  of  Corporations  Holding  Commission  Licenses  and  Lines  Pursuant  to  Sections  214  and  310(  d)  of 
 the  Communications  Act  and  Parts  5,  22,  24,  25,  63,  90,  95  and  101  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No. 
 98-  141,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  14712,  14859-  67,  14969-  99  (1999)  (SBC/  Ameritech 
 Merger  Order),  appeal  docketed,  No.  99-  1441  (D.  C.  Cir.  Nov.  8,  1999). 


 854  The  merger  conditions  define  advanced  services  as  wireline  services  (e.  g.,  ADSL,  IDSL,  xDSL,  Frame  Relay) 


 that  rely  on  packetized  technology  and  have  the  capability  of  supporting  transmission  speeds  of  at  least  56  kilobits 
 per  second  in  both  directions.  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  App.  C  at  para.  2.  Circuit-  switched  services  are  not 
 included,  regardless  of  the  technology,  protocols  or  speed  used  for  the  transmission  of  such  services.  Id.  ISDN 
 also  is  not  included  because  it  is  not  primarily  based  on  packetized  technology.  Id. 


 855  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  App.  A-  3,  Vol.  5,  Tab  2,  Affidavit  of  Lincoln  Brown  (SWBT  Texas  I  Brown  Aff.) 


 at  paras.  1,  3.  SBC  has  in  place  another  affiliate,  Ameritech  Advanced  Data  Services  (AADS),  to  offer  advanced 
 services  in  Ameritechs  service  areas  in  Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Ohio  and  Wisconsin.  Id.  at  para.  6. 


 856  Steady  state  provisioning  refers  to  provisioning  in  accordance  with  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order 


 conditions  and  after  the  expiration  of  an  applicable  transition  period.  See  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  App.  C 
 at  para.  4.  During  this  transition  period,  SBC  may  perform  certain  activities  such  as  line  sharing  and  network 
 planning,  engineering,  design  &  assignment  services  on  an  exclusive  basis  with  ASI.  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger 
 Order,  App.  C  at  paras.  3(  c),  4(  n)(  1),  4(  n)(  4). 


 857  SWBT  Texas  II  Application  App.  Vol.  D,  Tab  2,  Affidavit  of  Lincoln  Brown  (SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.)  at 


 para.  21.  ASI  provides  the  following  advanced  services  (in  addition  to  ADSL):  Frame  Relay,  Cell  Relay,  Virtual 
 Point  of  Presence  Dial  Access  Service  (VPOP/  DAS)  and  Native  LAN  Plus.  SWBT  Texas  I  Brown  Aff.,  Attach.  A 
 at  1,  3;  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  App.  A,  Vol.  A-  3,  Tab  5,  Reply  Affidavit  of  Lincoln  E.  Brown  (SWBT  Texas  I 
 Brown  Reply  Aff.)  at  para.  5. 
158
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 159 
 loop)  to  connect  the  customer  premises  to  the  frame  relay/  cell  relay  switch  port.  858  ASI  has  been 
 processing  LSRs  in  Texas  to  order  these  loops  from  SWBT  using  the  same  EDI  interface  that  is 
 available  to  competitive  LECs  to  order  unbundled  loops.  859  ASI  submits  an  Access  Service 
 Request  (ASR)  for  special  access  for  the  other  90  percent  of  orders  where  the  4-  wire  digital  loop 
 or  DS-  1  is  used  to  connect  the  customer  premises  to  a  frame/  cell  switch  port  outside  the  wire 
 center  for  the  customers  local  exchange  service.  860  ASI  submits  the  ASR  to  SWBT  utilizing  the 
 same  processes,  procedures,  and  interfaces  as  unaffiliated  frame  relay  and  ATM  service  providers.  861 


 310.  As  for  ASIs  ADSL  services,  ASI  stated  that  it  would  continue  to  engage  in 
 interim  line  sharing  until  May  29,  2000,  at  which  time  SWBT  would  make  line  sharing  generally 
 available.  862  In  order  to  address  criticism  in  the  Texas  I  record  that  ASI  was  not  ordering  xDSL-capable 
 loops  as  its  competitors  were  doing,  ASI  pledges  in  SWBTs  Texas  II  application  to 
 order  280  unbundled  loops  per  month  that  are  capable  of  providing  ADSL  service.  863  ASI  stated 
 that  it  would  begin  to  order  xDSL-  capable  loops  on  April  6,  2000  and  would  continue  to  do  so 
 until  line  sharing  was  made  generally  available,  submitting  LSRs  to  SWBT  for  processing  in  the 
 same  manner  that  SWBT  provisions  unbundled  loops  to  competitive  LECs.  864  Furthermore,  ASI 


 858  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  21. 
 859  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  19.  As  of  April  5,  2000,  ASI  had  received  more  than  200  requests  for 
 new  frame  relay  and  cell  relay  services,  and  had  processed  approximately  20  LSRs  to  order  UNE  loops  from 
 SWBT.  Id.  at  para.  21.  ASI  noted  in  reply  comments  dated  May  19,  2000,  that  none  of  these  orders  had  yet  been 
 provisioned,  and  that  the  circumstances  under  which  such  a  service  arrangement  would  be  applicable  are  very 
 limited.  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  App.  A,  Vol.  A-  1,  Tab  3,  Reply  Affidavit  of  Lincoln  E.  Brown  (SWBT  Texas  II 
 Brown  Reply  Aff.)  at  n.  6.  While  ASI  uses  EDI,  an  application-  to-  application  interface,  to  order  4-  wire  digital  and 
 DS-  1  loops,  xDSL  providers  generally  use  LEX,  a  graphical  user  interface,  to  order  xDSL-  capable  and  BRI  loops. 


 860  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  20. 


 861  Id. 
 862  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  23.  The  term  interim  line  sharing  refers  to  the  fact  that  under  the 
 SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  ASI  is  permitted  to  engage  in  line  sharing  with  SWBT  on  an  exclusive  basis  until 
 line  sharing  is  provided  to  unaffiliated  providers  of  advanced  services  within  the  same  geographic  area. 
 SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  App.  C  at  para.  3(  d).  Where  SWBT  engages  in  interim  line  sharing,  it  is  required 
 to  provide  unaffiliated  providers  of  advanced  services  within  the  same  area  discounted  Line  Sharing  Surrogate 
 Charges  equal  to  50  percent  of  the  cost  of  a  second  loop.  See  id.  at  para.  8(  b). 


 863  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  22. 


 864  Id.  In  reply  comments,  ASI  noted  that  it  had  ordered  282  unbundled  loops  in  April  for  the  purpose  of 
 providing  ADSL  services  in  Texas,  and  that  as  of  May  19,  2000,  ASI  had  ordered  an  additional  187  unbundled 
 loops.  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  7.  ASI  stated  that  ASI  ordered  the  loops  from  SWBT  utilizing 
 the  same  interfaces  and  processes  as  are  available  to  and  used  by  unaffiliated  providers.  Id.  at  para.  8.  For 
 instance,  ASI  performed  the  pre-  order  function  of  obtaining  loop  qualification  information  for  the  282  loops  in 
 April  from  the  Complex  Products  Service  Order  System  (CPSOS),  which  was  made  available  to  competitive  LECs 
 beginning  April  5,  2000,  and  ASI  performed  the  ordering  function  of  submitting  manual  LSRs  to  SWBTs  Local 
 Service  Center.  Id. 
159
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 160 
 asserts  that  when  line  sharing  became  available,  ASI  began  ordering  the  HFPL  UNE  (high 
 frequency  portion  of  the  loop)  from  SWBT  utilizing  the  same  interfaces  and  paying  an  equivalent 
 price  as  competitive  LECs.  865 


 (b)  Discussion 
 311.  AT&  T  and  other  commenters  assert  that  SWBT  has  engaged  in  discrimination 
 favoring  its  advanced  services  separate  affiliate  in  a  number  of  ways.  These  assertions  fall  into 
 two  broad  categories:  (1)  those  attacking  the  separate  affiliate  structure  permitted  under  the 
 merger  conditions;  866  and  (2)  those  alleging  that  SWBT  has  improperly  implemented  the  merger 
 conditions,  resulting  in  preferential  treatment  for  ASI.  867 


 312.  As  an  initial  matter,  we  reject  AT&  T  and  TRAs  assertions  that  ASI  must  be 
 deemed  a  successor  or  assign  of  SWBT.  868  In  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  we 
 established  a  rebuttable  presumption  that  SWBTs  separate  subsidiary  for  advanced  services 
 would  not  be  considered  a  successor  or  assign  of  the  incumbent  LEC  provided  that  the  incumbent 
 and  its  separate  affiliate  do  not  deviate  from  the  requirements  of  section  272(  b),  (c),  (e),  and  (g) 
 other  than  in  the  manner  explicitly  provided  for  in  the  merger  conditions.  869  We  incorporate  by 
 reference  our  legal  reasoning  in  reaching  this  conclusion.  870  As  discussed  below,  there  is  no 
 evidence  in  the  record  that  SWBT  is  operating  outside  the  strictures  of  the  merger  conditions. 
 Accordingly,  no  commenters  have  rebutted  the  presumption  we  set  forth  in  the  SBC/  Ameritech 
 Merger  Order.  Moreover,  we  find  it  would  be  unfair  to  fault  SWBT  in  the  context  of  the  instant 
 proceeding  for  its  adherence  to  the  conditions  with  which  it  is  obligated  to  comply  under  the 
 terms  of  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order. 


 865  Id.  at  para.  9.  ASI  anticipated  that  its  initial  ordering  volume  would  be  approximately  450  HFPL  UNEs  per 
 day  in  Texas  (or  9,000  per  month  based  on  20  working  days).  Id. 
 866  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  17  ([  t]  he  merger  conditions  pursuant  to  which  ASI  was  created 


 include  numerous  provisions  that  allow  SBC  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  its  affiliate.);  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments 
 at  64-  70;  IP  Communications  Texas  II  Minter  Decl.  at  paras.  8-  11;  Sprint  Texas  II  Comments  at  19-  22;  @Link 
 Texas  II  Comments  at  10. 


 867  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  84;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  17;  IP  Communications 


 Texas  II  Minter  Decl.  at  para.  9. 
 868  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  64-  70;  TRA  Texas  I  Comments  at  24-  30.  We  note  that  TRA  filed  an  appeal  of 


 the  Commissions  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  in  the  D.  C.  Circuit  (Docket  No.  99-  1441)  challenging  the 
 determination  that  the  separate  advanced  services  affiliate  required  by  merger  conditions  is  not  a  successor  or 
 assign  of  the  incumbent  LEC  for  purposes  of  applying  the  resale  obligation  of  section  251(  c)(  4).  AT&  T  has 
 intervened  in  the  pending  suit. 


 869  See  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  b),  (c),  (e),  and  (g);  see  also  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  at  para.  460,  App.  C.  at  para. 


 3. 
 870  See  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  at  paras.  446-  76.  Moreover,  we  note  that  AT&  T  has  not  explained  how 


 failure  to  treat  ASI  as  an  incumbent  LEC  has  disadvantaged  AT&  T.  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  65. 
160
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 161 
 313.  Because  we  find  that  ASI  is  not  subject  to  the  obligations  of  section  251(  c),  we 
 reject  TRAs  argument  that  SWBT  violates  its  statutory  obligation  to  make  xDSL  services 
 available  at  wholesale  rates  to  resellers  by  providing  the  service  through  ASI,  its  wholly-  owned 
 subsidiary.  871  As  an  incumbent  LEC,  SWBT  only  has  an  obligation  to  offer  for  resale  at  wholesale 
 rates  those  services  that  it  provides  to  subscribers  at  retail.  872  SWBT  does  not  provide  xDSL 
 services  at  retail,  so  it  is  not  obligated  to  provide  these  services  at  wholesale  rates. 


 314.  We  also  reject  allegations  that  the  structure  of  the  separate  affiliate  permits  SWBT 
 to  discriminate  on  behalf  of  ASI.  For  example,  AT&  T  asserts  that  SWBTs  provision  of  network 
 planning  and  engineering  functions,  including  use  of  SWBT  employees  to  arrange  for  requested 
 collocation  space  for  ASI,  allows  SWBT  to  unlawfully  favor  its  affiliate  over  competitors.  873 
 SWBT  is  permitted,  pursuant  to  the  merger  conditions,  to  engage  in  certain  activities  for  a  limited 
 transition  period.  The  Commission  found  in  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  that  because 
 SBC/  Ameritech  had  previously  been  performing  these  activities  on  an  integrated  basis,  it  [would] 
 take  some  time,  both  logistically  and  technically,  to  remove  these  functions  from  the  incumbent.  874  Specifically,  we  concluded  that  a  short  transition  period  would  minimize  any 


 disruption  to  the  efficient  and  timely  delivery  of  [a]  dvanced  [s]  ervices  to  customers.  875  We  also 
 note  that  any  differences  in  treatment  between  ASI  and  competitors  that  may  occur  during  this 
 transition  period  would  be  inherent  in  the  integrated  provision  of  advanced  services.  Moreover, 
 at  the  end  of  the  transition  period,  competitors  will  have  greater  protection  against  discrimination 
 than  they  otherwise  would  be  entitled  to  if  SWBT  had  continued  to  provide  advanced  services  on 
 an  integrated  basis.  We  find  no  basis,  therefore,  for  altering  our  conclusion  that  SWBT  complies 
 with  the  collocation  requirements  of  checklist  item  1. 


 315.  Similarly,  we  also  reject  commenters  objections  to  ASIs  access  to  non-transitional 
 services  such  as  OI&  M,  joint  marketing  and  customer  care  services,  exclusive  access 
 to  line  sharing  for  a  limited  period,  and  to  our  decision  to  permit  the  terms  of  an  interconnection 
 agreement  to  suffice  for  certain  transaction  disclosure  requirements.  876  These  activities,  like  the 


 871  TRA  Texas  I  Comments  at  24-  30.  See  also  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  64-  70. 
 872  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  4)(  A). 
 873  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  84. 
 874  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  at  para.  475. 
 875  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  App.  C  at  para.  4(  n).  Recognizing  SWBT's  section  251  nondiscrimination 
 obligations  regarding  unbundled  network  elements  and  collocation,  the  merger  conditions  provide  that  even  during 
 the  transition  period,  SWBT  and  ASI  were  required  to  operate  in  a  manner  that  was  the  "functional  equivalent"  of 
 provisioning  advanced  services  through  a  fully  operational  separate  affiliate.  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  App. 
 C  at  para.  6(  g).  For  example,  ASI  was  required  to  order  from  SWBT  "facilities  and/  or  services  needed  to  provide 
 [advanced  services]"  rather  than  having  SWBT  continue  to  operate  on  an  integrated  basis.  Id.  at  para  6(  g)(  3). 


 876  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  69-  70;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  paras.  83-  89;  AT&  T  Texas  II 


 Reply  Comments  at  17-  18;  @Link  Texas  II  Comments  at  10;  IP  Communications  Texas  II  Minter  Decl.  at  para. 
 10;  Sprint  Texas  II  Comments  at  20. 
161
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 162 
 transitional  network  planning  activities  described  above,  were  explicitly  permitted  under  the 
 merger  conditions. 


 316.  We  concluded  in  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  that  the  advanced  services 
 separate  affiliate  will  not  derive  unfair  advantages  from  any  of  the  activities  that  it  is  permitted  to 
 engage  in  with  the  incumbent  LEC.  877  We  disagree,  therefore,  that  SWBTs  engaging  in  these 
 activities  with  ASI  constitutes  a  violation  of  section  271.  In  any  event,  even  if  these  commenters 
 had  presented  a  plausible  claim  of  discrimination,  which  they  have  not,  they  have  alleged  no  form 
 of  discrimination  substantial  enough  to  draw  into  question  SWBTs  overall  compliance  with  the 
 relevant  checklist  items. 


 317.  Finally,  we  also  reject  allegations  that  SWBT,  in  implementing  the  merger 
 conditions,  has  conducted  activities  outside  the  strictures  of  these  conditions,  resulting  in 
 preferential  treatment  of  ASI.  878  These  claims  generally  appear  to  describe  activity  that  is,  in  fact, 
 contemplated  by  the  merger  conditions.  For  example,  AT&  T  is  troubled  by  a  SWBT  statement 
 that  it  provides  certain  customer  care  functions  after  the  sale  of  ASIs  services.  879  As  stated 
 above,  however,  we  explicitly  found  that  the  sharing  of  customer  care  services  on  an  exclusive 
 basis  is  a  permitted  activity  pursuant  to  the  SBC/  Ameritech  merger  conditions.  880  Similary,  IP 
 Communications  alleges  that  SWBT  has  only  recently  made  its  Premis  database  available  to 
 competitive  LECs  because  ASI  needs  access  to  it.  Under  the  nondiscrimination  requirement  of 
 section  272(  c)(  1),  SWBTs  obligation  is  to  give  all  unaffiliated  entities  the  same  goods,  services, 
 facilities,  and  information  that  it  gives  to  its  affiliate.  881  Instead  of  showing  potential 
 discrimination,  these  facts  indicate  that  SWBT  is  abiding  by  the  relevant  nondiscrimination 
 obligations. 


 318.  In  addition,  we  note  that  even  if  this  allegedly  discriminatory  activity  were 
 outside  the  strictures  of  the  merger  conditions,  commenters  do  not  describe  how  such  activity 
 violates  any  provision  of  the  competitive  checklist.  It  seems  that,  at  best,  such  allegations  could 
 be  relevant,  if  at  all,  only  to  the  Commissions  predictive  judgment  whether  SWBT  will  comply 
 with  the  section  272  requirements  with  respect  to  its  long  distance  separate  affiliate.  882  Because 
 we  find  no  evidence  on  this  record  that  SWBT  is  acting  outside  the  confines  of  the  merger 
 conditions,  however,  there  is  no  need  to  evaluate  these  claims  in  the  context  of  our  section  272 
 analysis  below. 


 877  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  at  paras.  467-  76. 
 878  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  84;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  17;  IP 
 Communications  Texas  II  Minter  Decl.  at  para.  9. 
 879  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  84  (citing  SWBT  Texas  II  Brown  Aff.  at  para.  14). 


 880  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  at  para.  469,  App.  C.  at  para.  3(  a). 
 881  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  c)(  1). 
 882  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  C);  see  section  272  section  below. 
162
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 163 
 c.  High  Capacity  Loop  Performance 
 319.  We  find,  based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  high  capacity  loops  to  competing  carriers  in  a  nondiscriminatory  manner.  With  respect  to 
 average  installation  interval,  the  Texas  Commission  did  not  establish  a  retail  analogue,  but  instead 
 established  a  3  day  target  for  average  order  installation.  Accordingly,  we  assess  SWBTs 
 performance  on  the  basis  of  whether  or  not  it  offers  efficient  competitors  a  meaningful 
 opportunity  to  compete.  Although  SWBT  has  had  difficulty  with  meeting  this  target  in  the  past, 
 during  March  and  April  2000,  SWBT  installed  competing  carrier  DS1  loops  in  about  3  days,  on 
 average.  883  Furthermore,  with  respect  to  missed  installation  due  dates,  in  the  period  from 
 February  through  April  2000,  SWBT  missed  only  slightly  more  due  dates  for  competing  carrier 
 DS1  loops  than  it  did  for  its  own  retail  DS1  service.  884  In  addition,  during  the  same  period,  the 
 average  time  to  repair  competing  carrier  DS1  loops  was  only  slightly  higher  for  competing 
 carriers  than  it  was  for  SWBT.  885  In  light  of  the  lack  of  commenting  parties  on  these  slight 
 performance  disparities,  we  do  not  find  these  differences  competitively  significant.  Finally,  during 
 the  period  from  February  through  April  2000,  competing  carriers  DS1  loops  experienced 
 comparable  or  lesser  repeat  trouble  report  rates  than  did  SWBTs  own  retail  DS1  loops.  886  Thus, 
 we  find  that  SWBT  provides  nondiscriminatory  maintenance  and  repair  services  for  the  high 
 capacity  loops  it  provides  to  competing  carriers. 


 320.  WorldCom  alleges  that  SWBT  will  not  provide  unbundled  access  to  high  capacity 
 loops,  such  as  OC-  3  or  OC-  12  level  facilities.  887  SWBT,  however,  offers  an  optional  amendment 
 to  the  T2A  that  redefines  the  loop  network  element  to  include  DS1,  DS3,  fiber,  and  other  high 
 capacity  loops  to  the  extent  required  by  applicable  law.  888  Because  this  language  indicates  that 


 883  In  March  and  April  2000,  SWBT  installed  competing  carrier  DS1  loops  in  an  average  of  3.0  and  3.5  days. 
 SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  55  (  Average  Installation  Interval  (Days))  (DS1  Loop) 
 at  271-  No.  55a. 


 884  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  missed  5.8,  13.8,  and  12.8  percent  of  competing  carrier  DS1 


 installation  due  dates.  During  the  same  period,  SWBT  missed  4.  9,  9.  0,  and  7.  7  of  the  installation  due  dates  for  its 
 own  retail  DS1  service.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  58  (  Percent  SWBT  Caused 
 Missed  Due  Dates)  (DS1  Loop)  at  271-  No.  58b. 


 885  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  SWBT  repaired  competing  carrier  DS1  loops  in  an  average  of  5.24,  7.01, 


 and  3.  96  hours.  During  the  same  period,  SWBT  repaired  its  own  retail  DS1  loops  in  an  average  of  3.  01,  2.  96,  and 
 3.  45  hours.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  67  (  Mean  Time  to  Restore  (Hours)  -Dispatch) 
 (DS1  Loop  with  Test  Access)  at  271-  No.  67b. 


 886  In  February,  March,  and  April  2000,  competing  carrier  DS1  loops  experienced  repeat  trouble  rates  of  12.9, 


 22.  2,  and  8.  5  percent,  while  SWBTs  own  retail  DS1  loops  experienced  repeat  trouble  rates  of  19.  4,  17.  9,  and  21.  8 
 percent.  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data,  Measurement  No.  69  (  Repeat  Reports  (%))  (DS1  Loop  with  Test 
 Access)  at  271-  No.  69b. 


 887  WorldCom  Texas  II  Comments  at  41-  43. 


 888  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  II  Aff.  at  Attach.  C  (Amendment  6  to  T2A  at  para.  4.  1). 
163
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 164 
 SWBT  has  a  concrete  and  specific  legal  obligation  to  make  available  as  broad  a  variety  of  high 
 capacity  loops  as  the  law  requires,  and  we  reject  WorldComs  arguments. 


 d.  Line  Sharing  and  Other  Loop  Related  Issues 
 321.  Line  Sharing.  For  the  purpose  of  evaluating  whether  this  application  satisfies 
 section  271,  we  do  not  require  SWBT  to  prove  that  it  has  implemented  the  loop  facility  and  OSS 
 modifications  necessary  to  accommodate  requests  for  access  to  the  line  sharing  unbundled 
 network  element  as  required  by  our  December  9,  1999  Line  Sharing  Order.  889  Although  that 
 order  became  technically  effective  on  February  9,  2000,  we  acknowledged  that  it  could  take  as 
 long  as  180  days  from  release  of  our  order  for  incumbent  LECs  to  develop  and  deploy  the 
 modifications  necessary  to  implement  the  new  obligations.  890  This  180  day  period  concluded  on 
 June  6,  2000,  well  after  SWBT  filed  its  application.  891  As  with  the  aspects  of  the  UNE  Remand 
 Orders  revised  rule  319  that  were  not  yet  in  effect  at  the  time  SWBT  filed  its  application,  we 
 conclude  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  require  SWBT  to  demonstrate  full  compliance  with  the 
 requirements  of  the  Line  Sharing  Order  in  its  initial  application,  at  a  time  well  in  advance  of  the 
 implementation  deadline  established  in  the  Order.  Finally,  requiring  SWBT  to  supplement  the 
 record  with  new  evidence  demonstrating  its  compliance  with  its  line  sharing  obligations  on  or 
 after  June  6,  2000,  would  necessitate  an  11th  hour  review  of  fresh  evidence  and  dispose  of  our 
 well-  established  procedural  framework.  892 


 322.  Although  we  set  June  6,  2000  as  an  outside  deadline  for  accommodating  requests 
 for  access  to  this  new  line  sharing  network  element,  we  also  established  that  an  incumbent  LEC 
 had  clear  obligations  to  work  towards  satisfying  the  line  sharing  requirements  in  the  weeks  leading 
 up  to  this  deadline.  893  We  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  significant  development  and  operational 
 resources  devoted  to  planning  for  competing  carrier  access  to  the  high  frequency  portion  of  the 
 loop.  894  We  find  the  depth  and  scope  of  this  evidence  sufficient  to  overcome  the  speculative 
 concerns  of  some  competing  carriers  regarding  SWBTs  line  sharing  readiness,  895  and  reject 
 competing  carrier  arguments  that  the  Commission  should  deny  SWBTs  section  271 


 889  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20912. 
 890  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  20982-  83,  para.  161. 
 891  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  20982-  83,  21016,  paras.  161,  230;  65  Fed.  Reg.  1331  (Jan.  10,  2000). 
 892  See  section  III.  C.  1,  supra. 
 893  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  20982-  85,  paras.  161-  170. 
 894  SWBT  Texas  II  Cruz  Aff.  at  paras.  5-  55;  SWBT  Texas  II  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  3-  9;  SWBT  Texas  II 
 Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  4-  6;  SWBT  Texas  II  Chapman  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  41-  43. 
 895  NorthPoint  Texas  II  Comments  at  7-  12;  Rhythms  Texas  II  Comments  at  3-  10;  Covad  Goodpastor  Texas  II 


 Decl.  at  paras.  14-  20;  NorthPoint  Lewandowski  Texas  II  Aff.  at  paras.  23-  29;  Rhythms  Lopez  Texas  II  Aff.  at 
 paras.  2-  25. 
164
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 165 
 application  on  the  basis  of  its  alleged  failure  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Line  Sharing 
 Order.  896 


 323.  Line  Splitting.  Some  commenters  contend  that  SWBT  has  unlawfully  hindered  the 
 ability  of  competing  carriers  to  use  the  UNE-  P  to  provide  both  xDSL  and  voice  services.  897  For 
 instance,  AT&  T  argues  that  SWBT  has  unlawfully  denied  AT&  T  access  to  SWBTs  splitter  and 
 has  thereby  made  it  more  difficult  for  AT&  T  to  use  the  UNE-  P  to  provide  advanced  services.  898 
 The  Department  of  Justice  also  noted  this  issue  in  passing,  but  it  did  not  suggest  that  the  issue 
 casts  doubt  on  the  merits  of  this  application.  899 


 324.  As  a  preliminary  matter,  we  note  that  under  the  Line  Sharing  Order,  the  obligation 
 of  an  incumbent  LEC  to  make  the  high  frequency  portion  of  the  loop  separately  available  is 
 limited  to  those  instances  in  which  the  incumbent  LEC  is  providing,  and  continues  to  provide, 
 voice  service  on  the  particular  loop  to  which  the  requesting  carrier  seeks  access.  900  Thus,  the 
 situation  that  these  commenters  describe  is  not  technically  line  sharing,  because  both  the  voice  and 
 data  service  will  be  provided  by  competing  carrier(  s)  over  a  single  loop,  rather  than  SWBT.  To 
 avoid  confusion,  we  characterize  this  type  of  request  as  line  splitting,  rather  than  line  sharing. 


 325.  The  Commissions  rules  require  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  requesting  carriers 
 with  access  to  unbundled  loops  in  a  manner  that  allows  the  requesting  carrier  to  provide  any 
 telecommunications  service  that  can  be  offered  by  means  of  that  network  element.  901  As  a  result, 
 incumbent  LECs  have  an  obligation  to  permit  competing  carriers  to  engage  in  line  splitting  over 
 the  UNE-  P  where  the  competing  carrier  purchases  the  entire  loop  and  provides  its  own  splitter.  902 
 The  record  reflects  that  SWBT  allows  competing  carriers  to  provide  both  voice  and  data  services 
 over  the  UNE-  P.  903  For  instance,  if  a  competing  carrier  is  providing  voice  service  over  the  UNE-P, 
 it  can  order  an  unbundled  xDSL-  capable  loop  terminated  to  a  collocated  splitter  and  DSLAM 
 equipment  and  unbundled  switching  combined  with  shared  transport  to  replace  its  UNE-  P  with  a 


 896  Covad  Texas  II  Comments  at  2-  3,  7-  8;  Covad  Texas  II  Goodpastor  Decl.  at  paras.  14-  20;  IP  Texas  II 
 Comments  at  2-  4;  NorthPoint  Texas  II  Comments  at  7-  12;  NorthPoint  Texas  II  Lewandowski  Aff.  at  paras.  23-  29; 
 Rhythms  Texas  II  Lopez  Aff.  at  paras.  4-  15. 


 897  AT&  T  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  8-  9;  IP  Communications  Texas  II  Comments  at  14;  AT&  T  Texas  II 


 Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  paras.  40-  42;  IP  Communications  Texas  I  Comments  at  5. 
 898  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  paras.  29-  42. 


 899  Department  of  Justice  Texas  II  Evaluation  at  7  n.  17. 
 900  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  20941,  para.  13;  47  C.  F.  R.    51.319(  h)(  3). 
 901  47  C.  F.  R.    51.307(  c). 
 902  We  note,  however,  that  nothing  in  our  rules  prohibits  an  incumbent  LEC  from  voluntarily  providing  the 
 splitter  in  this  line  splitting  situation. 
 903  SWBT  June  6  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2. 
165
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 166 
 configuration  that  allows  provisioning  of  both  data  and  voice  service.  904  SWBT  provides  the  loop 
 that  was  part  of  the  existing  UNE-  P  as  the  unbundled  xDSL-  capable  loop,  unless  the  loop  that 
 was  used  for  the  UNE-  P  is  not  capable  of  providing  xDSL  service.  905 


 326.  AT&  T  also  argues  that  it  has  a  right  to  line  splitting  capability  over  the  UNE-  P 
 with  SWBT  furnishing  the  line  splitter.  906  AT&  T  alleges  that  this  is  the  only  way  to  allow  the 
 addition  of  xDSL  service  onto  UNE-  P  loops  in  a  manner  that  is  efficient,  timely,  and  minimally 
 disruptive.  907  Furthermore,  AT&  T  contends  that  competing  carriers  have  an  obligation  to 
 provide  access  to  all  the  functionalities  and  capabilities  of  the  loop,  including  electronics  attached 
 to  the  loop.  908  AT&  T  contends  that  the  splitter  is  an  example  of  such  electronics  and  that  it  is 
 included  within  the  loop  element.  909 


 327.  We  reject  AT&  Ts  argument  that  SWBT  has  a  present  obligation  to  furnish  the 
 splitter  when  AT&  T  engages  in  line  splitting  over  the  UNE-  P.  The  Commission  has  never 
 exercised  its  legislative  rulemaking  authority  under  section  251(  d)(  2)  to  require  incumbent  LECs 
 to  provide  access  to  the  splitter,  and  incumbent  LECs  therefore  have  no  current  obligation  to 
 make  the  splitter  available.  910  As  we  stated  in  the  UNE  Remand  Order,  with  the  exception  of 
 Digital  Subscriber  Line  Access  Multiplexers  (DSLAMs),  the  loop  includes  attached  electronics, 
 including  multiplexing  equipment  used  to  derive  the  loop  transmission  capacity.  911  We  separately 
 determined  that  the  DSLAM  is  a  component  of  the  packet  switching  unbundled  network  element.  912  We  observed  that  DSLAM  equipment  sometimes  includes  a  splitter  and  that,  [  i]  f 


 not,  a  separate  splitter  device  separates  voice  and  data  traffic.  913  We  did  not  identify  any 
 circumstances  in  which  the  splitter  would  be  treated  as  part  of  the  loop,  as  distinguished  from 


 904  SWBT  June  6  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2. 
 905  For  instance,  when  the  UNE  platform  is  part  of  a  DLC  or  exceeds  distance  limitations  for  xDSL  service,  such 
 loops  would  not  be  xDSL-  capable  and  could  not  be  provisioned  as  an  xDSL-  capable  unbundled  loop.  In  these 
 circumstances,  modifications  to  the  existing  loop  or  other  alternatives  would  need  to  provided.  SWBT  June  6  Ex 
 Parte  Letter  at  2.  In  light  of  SWBTs  representations,  we  find  moot  concerns  expressed  by  commenters  regarding 
 an  earlier  SWBT  proposal  to  require  competing  carriers  using  the  UNE-  P  to  order  a  new  loop  in  addition  to  the 
 existing  UNE-  P  loop  in  order  to  ultimately  engage  in  line  splitting  over  the  UNE-  P.  AT&  T  Pfau/  Chambers  Texas 
 II  Decl.  at  paras.  29-  36;  IP  Communications  Texas  I  Comments  at  5. 


 906  See  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  paras.  40-  42;  see  also  IP  Communications  at  12,  14. 


 907  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  41. 
 908  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  paras.  40-  42. 
 909  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  40. 
 910  See  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  d)(  2);  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  119  S.  Ct.  721,  736  (1999). 
 911  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3776,  para.  175. 
 912  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3833,  paras.  302-  303. 
 913  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3833,  para.  303. 
166
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 167 
 being  part  of  the  packet  switching  element.  That  distinction  is  critical,  because  we  declined  to 
 exercise  our  rulemaking  authority  under  section  251(  d)(  2)  to  require  incumbent  LECs  to  provide 
 access  to  the  packet  switching  element,  and  our  decision  on  that  point  is  not  disputed  in  this 
 proceeding. 


 328.  The  UNE  Remand  Order  cannot  fairly  be  read  to  impose  on  incumbent  LECs  an 
 obligation  to  provide  access  to  their  splitters.  Indeed,  the  only  discussion  of  the  splitter  appeared 
 in  a  discussion  of  a  network  element  (the  packet  switching  element)  that  we  decided  not  to 
 unbundle,  and  that  discussion  at  least  suggested  that  the  splitter,  because  it  is  often  part  of  the 
 DSLAM,  might  properly  be  considered  part  of  that  element  as  a  general  matter.  In  response  to 
 petitions  for  reconsideration  of  the  UNE  Remand  Order,  we  have  been  asked  to  consider  whether 
 to  impose  on  incumbent  LECs  a  new  obligation  to  provide  access  to  the  splitter,  just  as  we  are 
 often  asked  to  adjust  our  unbundling  rules  in  light  of  industry  developments.  In  this  regard,  we 
 believe  AT&  Ts  arguments  merit  prompt  and  thorough  consideration  by  the  Commission,  and  we 
 commit  to  resolving  them  expeditiously  in  our  reconsideration  of  the  UNE  Remand  Order.  The 
 fact  remains,  however,  that  SWBT  had  no  such  obligation  during  the  period  covered  by  this 
 application  and  therefore,  any  SWBT  failure  to  provide  access  to  the  splitter  can  provide  no  basis 
 for  denying  this  application. 


 329.  Finally,  AT&  T  suggests  in  passing  that  SWBT  voluntarily  provides  the  line 
 splitter  functionality  to  competing  carriers  engaging  in  line  sharing  with  SWBT  voice  services  and 
 that  it  has  for  that  reason  incurred  an  obligation  to  provide  all  UNE-  P  carriers  with  the  same 
 option.  914  Even  if  AT&  T  had  fully  developed  this  issue,  this  argument  would  lack  merit  and 
 would  in  any  event  be  unripe  for  our  review  here.  What  AT&  T  requests  is  not  line  sharing,  but 
 access  to  the  entire  loop  and  the  splitter  in  order  to  provide  both  voice  and  advanced  services. 
 Line  sharing  and  line  splitting  present  two  different  scenarios  under  our  rules.  With  respect  to  line 
 sharing,  we  stated  in  the  Line  Sharing  Order  that  incumbent  LECs  have  discretion  to  maintain 
 control  over  the  splitter.  915  With  respect  to  line  splitting,  as  described  above,  we  have  not 
 imposed  any  obligation  on  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  access  to  their  splitters.  AT&  T  presents 
 no  evidentiary  or  conceptual  basis  for  concluding  that  SWBTs  practices  in  these  two  different 
 contexts  somehow  amount  to  discrimination  against  AT&  T.  In  any  event,  the  parties  entire 
 dispute  on  the  question  of  line  splitting  is  a  recent  development  and  is  subject  to  further 
 negotiation  and,  if  necessary,  arbitration  before  the  Texas  Commission.  916  In  light  of  SWBTs 
 overall  compliance  with  the  relevant  checklist  items,  this  newly  arising  dispute  provides  no  basis 
 for  rejecting  SWBTs  application  here. 


 330.  Other  Issues.  We  reject  AT&  Ts  argument  that  we  should  deny  this  application  on 
 the  basis  of  SWBTs  decision  to  deny  its  xDSL  service  to  customers  who  choose  to  obtain  their 


 914  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  42. 
 915  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  20940,  para.  76. 
 916  SWBT  recently  affirmed  that  it  is  interested  in  exploring  the  use  of  SWBTs  splitters  in  line  splitting 
 arrangements  and  that  it  views  this  as  a  potential  business  opportunity.  SWBT  June  6  Ex  Parte  Letter  at  2. 
167
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 168 
 voice  service  from  a  competitor  that  is  using  the  UNE-  P.  917  Under  our  rules,  the  incumbent  LEC 
 has  no  obligation  to  provide  xDSL  service  over  this  UNE-  P  carrier  loop.  In  the  Line  Sharing 
 Order,  the  Commission  unbundled  the  high  frequency  portion  of  the  loop  when  the  incumbent 
 LEC  provides  voice  service,  but  did  not  unbundle  the  low  frequency  portion  of  the  loop  and  did 
 not  obligate  incumbent  LECs  to  provide  xDSL  service  under  the  circumstances  AT&  T  describes. 
 Furthermore,  as  described  above,  the  UNE-  P  carrier  has  the  right  to  engage  in  line  splitting  on  its 
 loop.  As  a  result,  a  UNE-  P  carrier  can  compete  with  SWBTs  combined  voice  and  data  offering 
 on  the  same  loop  by  providing  a  customer  with  line  splitting  voice  and  data  service  over  the  UNE-P 
 in  the  same  manner.  In  sum,  we  do  not  find  this  conduct  discriminatory. 


 E.  Checklist  Item  5    Unbundled  Local  Transport 
 1.  Background 
 331.  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.  918  The  Commission  has  required  that  BOCs  provide  both  dedicated 
 and  shared  transport  to  requesting  carriers.  919  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.  920  Shared  transport  consists  of 
 transmission  facilities  shared  by  more  than  one  carrier,  including  the  BOC,  between  end  office 


 917  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  17-  18;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  12-  13;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl. 
 at  paras.  27-  46.  AT&  T  specifically  points  out  that  when  a  SWBT  customer  who  had  been  using  SWBTs  local 
 voice  service  and  xDSL  service  combined  over  a  single  copper  loop  chose  to  switch  voice  service  to  AT&  T,  SWBT 
 informed  the  customer  that  its  xDSL  service  would  be  disconnected  unless  the  customer  switched  voice  service 
 back  to  SWBT.  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  12;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  para.  29. 


 918  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  v). 


 919  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20719,  para.  201. 
 920  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  (e.  g.,  OC-  3/  12/  48/  96) 
 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
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 169 
 switches,  between  end  office  switches  and  tandem  switches,  and  between  tandem  switches,  in  the 
 BOCs  network.  921 


 2.  Discussion 
 332.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  provides  both 
 shared  and  dedicated  transport  in  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  this  checklist  item.  922  The 
 Texas  Commission  also  finds  that  SWBT  is  in  compliance  with  this  checklist  item.  923 


 333.  We  are  persuaded  that  SWBTs  data  concerning  missed  due  dates  for  interoffice 
 facilities  shows  that  its  provisioning  of  transport  to  competitive  LECs  is  nondiscriminatory.  924  We 
 note  that  no  commenters  challenge  SWBTs  showing  concerning  the  provision  of  dedicated  or 
 shared  transport,  except  insofar  as  the  commenters  address  OSS  issues  and  matters  concerning 
 the  provisioning  of  the  UNE  platform,  which  we  address  elsewhere.  925 


 921  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  BOCs  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. 


 922  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  111-  128;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  98-  104. 


 923  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  65-  69. 
 924  The  relevant  state  performance  measures  (disaggregated  into  various  submeasures)  indicate  very  few  months 
 and  regions  where  more  than  10  data  points  were  recorded.  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  102,  SWBT  Dysart 
 Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  336,  345,  356,  359-  360.  Performance  data  for  January  through  April  generally  indicate  fewer 
 than  10  data  points.  See  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Data  January  through  April  Measurement  No.  58 
 (  Percent  SWBT  Caused  Missed  Due  Dates)  at  271-  No.  58a.  Under  the  performance  remedy  plan,  SWBT  is 
 required  to  pay  damages  and  assessments  under  Tier  2  for  any  substandard  performance  of  this  measure  even  if 
 there  are  fewer  than  ten  data  points.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  68.  For  PM  58  (percentage  of 
 missed  due  dates)  a  parity  measure,  the  results  for  submeasure  58-  07(  DS1  dedicated  transport)  indicate  a  greater 
 percentage  of  misses  for  competitive  LECs  than  for  SWBT  for  the  months  of  January,  February  and  March.  For 
 submeasure  58-  14  (analog  line  ports)  the  data  indicate  a  greater  percentage  of  misses  for  competitive  LECs  than 
 for  SWBT  for  the  months  of  February  and  April.  SWBT  states  that  competitive  LECs  may  request  dedicated 
 transport  with  levels  of  capacity  higher  than  OC-  48  through  the  Special  Request  Process.  SWBT  Application  at 
 100.  As  we  noted  in  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  incumbent  LECs  must  provide  all  technically  feasible  transmission 
 capabilities,  such  as  Optical  Carrier  levels  (e.  g.  OC-  3/  12/  48/  96)  that  the  competing  provider  could  use  to  provide 
 telecommunications  service.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  337  n.  1041.  See  also  Texas  Commission 
 Texas  I  Comments  at  16. 


 925  See  part  V.  B.  1,  infra.  MFNS  asserts  that  SWBT  failed  to  unbundle  loops  and  interoffice  transport  with  the 


 provision  of  MFNS  dark  fiber  product.  MFNS  Comments  at  12-  15.  See  part  V.  A.  1,  infra,  where  we  address 
 MFNS  comments.  Z-  Tel  and  Connect  raised  issues  regarding  SWBTs  policies  for  adopting  interconnection 
 agreements  pursuant  to  section  252(  i)  of  the  Act.  SWBT  disallowed  both  parties  from  opting  into  interconnection 
 agreements  on  the  basis  that  the  relevant  agreements  were  no  longer  available  for  adoption  because  they  had 
 (continued.) 
169
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 170 
 334.  We  disagree  with  Global  Crossings  assertion  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide 
 unbundled  local  transport.  926  Global  Crossing  states  that  in  Houston  it  has  an  Optical  Carrier 
 Level-  3  (OC-  3)  927  from  SWBT  that  it  uses  to  carry  access  traffic  to  its  point  of  presence.  Global 
 Crossing  alleges  that  SWBT  refused  to  process  orders  to  carry  local  exchange  traffic  over  the 
 OC-  3,  but  required  Global  Crossing  instead  to  acquire  a  separate  transport  facility  to  carry  purely 
 local  traffic.  Global  Crossing  claims  that  this  was  an  illegal  use  restriction  that  constituted  a 
 refusal  by  SWBT  to  provide  unbundled  local  transport. 


 335.  As  we  found  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  we  do  not  consider  the 
 provision  of  special  access  services  pursuant  to  a  tariff  for  purposes  of  determining  checklist 
 compliance.  928  We  do  not  believe  that  checklist  compliance  is  intended  to  encompass  the 
 provision  of  tariffed  interstate  access  services  simply  because  these  services  use  some  form  of  the 
 same  physical  facilities  as  a  checklist  item.  929  The  fact  that  the  competitive  LECs  can  use 
 interstate  special  access  service  in  lieu  of  the  EEL,  a  combination  of  unbundled  loops  and 
 transport,  and  can  convert  special  access  service  to  EELs,  does  not  persuade  us  that  we  should 
 alter  our  approach  and  consider  the  provision  of  special  access  for  purposes  of  checklist 
 compliance.  930  Nevertheless,  to  the  extent  that  parties  are  experiencing  problems  in  the 
 provisioning  of  special  access  services  ordered  from  SWBTs  federal  tariffs,  we  note  that  these 
 issues  are  appropriately  addressed  in  the  Commissions  section  208  complaint  process.  931 


 F.  Checklist  Item  6    Unbundled  Local  Switching 
 1.  Background 
 336.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vi)  of  the  1996  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide  [  l]  ocal 
 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 expired  or  were  in  the  notice  period  for  renegotiation.  Connect  Texas  I  Comments  at  2-  6;  Connect  Texas  II 
 Comments  at  2;  Z-  Tel  Texas  I  Comments  at  2-  9;  Z-  Tel  Texas  II  Comments  at  5-  6;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I  Reply 
 Aff.  at  paras.  16-  18.  Z-  Tel  alleged  that  the  policies  affect  Z-  Tels  ability  to  purchase  shared  transport.  While  Z-Tels 
 allegation  is  not  directly  applicable  to  this  checklist  item,  we  caution  SWBT  that  if  it  fails  to  recognize  the 
 rights  of  a  carrier  seeking  to  opt-  in,  that  carrier,  in  addition  to  available  state  remedies,  may  seek  expedited  relief 
 from  this  Commission  pursuant  to  section  208.  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd.  at  16141,  para.  1321;  47 
 U.  S.  C.    208. 


 926  Global  Crossing  Texas  I  Comments  at  6-  7,  Global  Crossing  Laurie  Larson  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  12. 


 927  An  Optical  Carrier  level  is  a  SONET  optical  signal.  OC-  1  is  51.840  million  bits  per  second.  OC-  3  equals 
 three  times  OC-  1.  NEWTONS  TELECOM  DICTIONARY  534  (14  th  ed.  1998). 
 928  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4126-  27,  para.  340. 


 929  Id.  at  para.  340.  To  the  extent  that  Global  Crossing  is  seeking  to  use  combinations  of  unbundled  network 
 elements  in  lieu  of  tariffed  special  access  services,  we  have  addressed  the  requirements  associated  with  such  use  in 
 several  orders.  See  part  V.  B.  2,  infra,  for  discussion  of  Access  to  the  Enhanced  Extended  Link. 


 930  See  Bell  Atlantic  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4126-  27,  para.  340. 


 931  Id.  at  para.  341. 
170
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 171 
 switching  unbundled  from  transport,  local  loop  transmission,  or  other  services.  932  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.  933  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 
 LECs  customers.  934  Additionally,  local  switching  includes  all  vertical  features  that  the  switch  is 
 capable  of  providing,  as  well  as  any  technically  feasible  customized  routing  functions.  935 


 337.  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.  936  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.  937  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.  938  Thus,  there  is  an  overlap  between  the 
 provision  of  unbundled  local  switching  and  the  provision  of  the  OSS  billing  function.  939 


 338.  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  stated  that  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  BOCs  switch,  as  necessary  to  provide  access 
 to  shared  transport  functionality.  940  The  Commission  also  stated  that  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  carriers  point  of 
 presence  to  a  dedicated  trunk  port  on  the  local  switch.  941 


 932  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vi);  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20722. 
 933  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20722,  para.  207. 
 934  Id. 
 935  Id.  at  20722-  23,  para.  207. 
 936  Id.  at  20723,  para.  208. 
 937  Id.  at  20723,  para.  208  (citing  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20619,  para.  140). 
 938  Id. 
 939  Id. 
 940  Id.  at  20723,  para.  209  (citing  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20705,  para.  306). 
 941  Id.  (citing  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20714-  15,  paras.  324-  25). 
171
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 172 
 2.  Discussion 
 339.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 complies  with  checklist  item  6.  942  Specifically,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  provides:  (1)  line-  side 
 and  trunk  side  facilities;  943  (2)  basic  switching  functions;  944  (3)  vertical  features;  945  (4)  customized 
 routing;  946  (5)  shared  trunk  ports;  947  (6)  unbundled  tandem  switching;  948  (7)  usage  information 
 for  billing  exchange  access,  949  and  (8)  usage  information  for  billing  for  reciprocal 


 942  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  103  (SWBT  furnishes  more  than  125,000  unbundled  switch  ports  in  Texas, 
 mostly  in  combination  with  unbundled  loops.);  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  140;  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas  I 
 Aff.  at  para.  105. 


 943  Line-  side  facilities  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  the  connection  between  a  loop  termination  at  a  main 


 distribution  frame,  and  a  switch  line  card.  Trunk-  side  facilities  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  the  connection 
 between  trunk  termination  at  a  trunk-  side  cross-  connect  panel  and  a  switch  trunk  card.  Second  BellSouth 
 Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20724  nn.  679-  680.  See  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  130-  131. 


 944  The  basic  switching  function  includes,  but  is  not  limited  to:  connecting  lines  to  lines,  lines  to  trunks,  trunks  to 


 lines,  trunks  to  trunks,  as  well  as  the  same  basic  capabilities  that  are  available  to  the  BOCs  customers,  such  as  a 
 telephone  number,  directory  listing,  dial  tone,  signaling,  and  access  to  911,  operator  services,  and  directory 
 assistance.  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20726  n.  690.  See  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at 
 para.  132. 


 945  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order  at  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20726.  Vertical  features  provide  end-  users  with  various 


 services  such  as  custom  calling,  call  waiting,  call  forwarding,  caller  ID  and  Centrex.  Id.  See  SWBT  Deere  Texas 
 I  Aff.  at  paras.  132,  139. 


 946  An  incumbent  LEC  must  provide  customized  routing  as  part  of  the  local  switching  element,  unless  it  can 


 prove  to  the  state  commission  that  customized  routing  in  a  particular  switch  is  not  technically  feasible.  Second 
 BellSouth  Louisiana  Order  at  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20728  n.  705.  Customized  routing  permits  requesting  carriers  to 
 designate  the  particular  outgoing  trunks  associated  with  unbundled  switching  provided  by  the  incumbent,  which 
 will  carry  certain  classes  of  traffic  originating  from  requesting  carriers  customers.  See  Id.  at  20728-  29,  para.  221. 
 Customized  routing  is  also  referred  to  as  selective  routing.  Id.  at  20728  n.  704.  See  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at 
 paras.  134-  137. 


 947  Local  Competition  Third  Reconsideration  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  12475-  79;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12 


 FCC  Rcd  at  20716-  17;  see  also  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20732,  para.  228.  See  SWBT 
 Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  135. 


 948  The  requirement  to  provide  unbundled  tandem  switching  includes:  (i)  trunk-  connect  facilities,  including  but 


 not  limited  to  the  connection  between  trunk  termination  at  a  cross-  connect  panel  and  a  switch  trunk  card;  (ii)  the 
 base  switching  function  of  connecting  trunks  to  trunks;  and,  (iii)  the  functions  that  are  centralized  in  tandem 
 switches  (as  distinguished  from  separate  end-  office  switches),  including  but  not  limited  to  call  recording,  the 
 routing  of  calls  to  operator  services,  and  signaling  conversion  features.  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13 
 FCC  Rcd  at  20733  n.  732.  See  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  142-  146. 


 949  See  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20733-  35,  paras.  230-  31.  See  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas 


 I  Aff.  at  para.  107. 
172
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 173 
 compensation.  950  The  Texas  Commission  concludes  that  SWBT  is  in  compliance  with  checklist 
 item  6.  951 


 340.  We  reject  Z-  Tels  argument  that  SWBT  has  failed  to  meet  this  checklist 
 requirement.  Z-  Tel  stated  that  it  is  effectively  foreclosed  from  Line  Class  Code  customized 
 routing  (LCC)  because,  as  stipulated  in  the  T2A  interconnection  agreement,  if  a  competing  carrier 
 requests  LCC  in  any  local  switch  where  Advanced  Intelligent  Network  custom  routing  (AIN)  is 
 implemented,  SWBT  may  establish  a  rate  for  the  requested  LCC,  and  only  if  the  rate  is  disputed 
 will  the  Texas  Commission  set  a  TELRIC  rate.  952  Z-  Tel  argued  that,  given  this  pricing 
 uncertainty,  SWBT  cannot  show  that  it  is  providing  LCC  in  accordance  with  the  271  standard, 
 and  therefore  fails  to  meet  checklist  item  6.  953  To  support  this  conclusion,  Z-  Tel  pointed  to  the 
 Ameritech  Michigan  Order  in  which  the  Commission  stated  that  [  t]  o  be  providing  a  checklist 
 item,  a  BOC  must  have  a  concrete  and  specific  legal  obligation  to  furnish  the  item  upon  request 
 pursuant  to  a  state-  approved  interconnection  agreement  that  sets  forth  prices  and  other  terms  and 
 conditions  for  each  checklist  item.  954  Z-  Tel  also  cited  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  in 
 which  the  Commission  stated  that  the  features,  functions,  and  capabilities  of  the  switch  include 
 any  technically  feasible  customized  routing  functions.  955 


 341.  Z-  Tel  appeared  to  conflate  two  standards    the  sets  forth  prices,  terms,  and 
 conditions  for  each  checklist  item  standard  from  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  and  the  any 
 technically  feasible  standard  from  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order    to  place  an 
 unreasonable  burden  on  SWBT.  Carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  Z-  Tels  argument  would 
 require  BOCs  to  stand  ready  with  fixed  prices  and  terms  for  any  and  all  technically  feasible 
 methods  of  providing  a  function  of  a  network  element.  We  find  that  SWBT  meets  its  obligation 
 to  provide  the  customized  routing  function,  because  SWBT  provides,  at  fixed  prices,  terms,  and 
 conditions,  the  routing  system  SWBT  itself  uses,  and  makes  LCC  available,  upon  request,  as  well.  956 


 342.  Z-  Tel  may  consider  LCC  essential  to  its  business  plan.  Taking  into  consideration 
 the  availability  of  alternative  elements  outside  the  incumbents  network,  including  self-provisioning 
 by  Z-  Tel  or  acquiring  an  alternative  from  a  third-  party  supplier,  Z-  Tel  may  decide 


 950  See  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20735-  37,  paras.  232-  34.  See  SWBT  Auinbauh  Texas 
 I  Aff.  at  para.  107. 
 951  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  69-  72.  See  Final  Staff  Report  at  71-  75. 


 952  Z-  Tel  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  11;  T2A  Attach.  6    5.2.3.4. 
 953  Z-  Tel  Texas  I  Comments  at  11.  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20601,  para.  110. 
 954  Z-  Tel  Texas  I  Comments  at  11.  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20601,  para.,  110. 
 955  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20722-  24,  paras.  207-  209  (citing  the  Ameritech  Michigan 
 Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20705). 
 956  T2A  Attach.  6    5.  2.  4.  2  and  5.  2.  3.  4. 
173
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 174 
 that  SWBTs  customized  switching  offering  materially  diminishes  Z-  Tels  ability  to  provide  the 
 services  it  seeks  to  offer.  957  If  Z-  Tel  believes  we  should  include  LCC  among  the  specific  attributes 
 of  the  switching  element,  we  note  that  there  are  venues  better  suited  to  airing  the  issue.  958 


 G.  Checklist  Item  7 
 1.  911  and  E911  Access 
 a.  Background 
 343.  Section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)  of  the  Act  requires  a  BOC  to  provide 
 [  n]  ondiscriminatory  access  to    (I)  911  and  E911  services.  959  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.  960 
 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.  961  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  carriers  switching  facilities  to  the  911  control  office  at  parity  with  what  [the  BOC] 
 provides  to  itself.  962 


 b.  Discussion 
 344.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 is  providing  nondiscriminatory  access  to  911/  E911  services,  and  thus  satisfies  the  requirements  of 
 checklist  item  7.  963  We  note  that  no  commenter  disputes  SWBTs  compliance  with  this  portion 


 957  See  UNE  Remand  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3725,  para.  51  (47  U.  S.  C.    251(  d)(  2)  impairment  standard);  Id.  at 
 para.  253  et  seq.  (Applying  impairment  standard  to  switching  element). 
 958  Z-  Tel  may  file  a  petition  for  rulemaking,  or  may  seek  to  include  its  argument  in  our  pending  UNE  Remand 


 Order  reconsideration  proceeding.  See  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the 
 Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  98,  Public  Notice,  rel.  Feb.  28,  2000,  65  FR  12004  (Mar.  7, 
 2000). 


 959  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii). 


 960  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20679,  para.  256. 
 961  Id. 
 962  Id. 
 963  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  105-  108;  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  166-  72,  178-  81,  184-  85,  606-  618 
 and  Attach.  A  at  124-  126  (PM  102-  104). 
174
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 175 
 of  checklist  item  7,  and  that  the  Texas  Commission  concludes  that  SWBT  is  providing 
 nondiscriminatory  access  to  911/  E911.  964 


 2.  Directory  Assistance/  Operator  Services 
 a.  Background 
 345.  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  carriers 
 customers  to  obtain  telephone  numbers  and  operator  call  completion  services,  respectively.  965 
 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.  966  The  Commission  implemented  section  251(  b)(  3)  in  the  Local  Competition  Second 
 Report  and  Order.  967 


 346.  We  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).  968  In  the  Local  Competition  Second 


 964  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  72-  76.  See  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Application,  App.  C,  Tab  1233 
 (Texas  Commission  Final  Staff  Report  at  76-  84). 
 965  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)(  II),  (III). 


 966  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  b)(  3). 
 967  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,  CC  Docket  No.  99-  273  (rel.  Sept.  9,  1999) 
 (Directory  Listings  Information  NPRM). 


 968  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,  we  concluded  in  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana 
 Order  that  for  checklist  compliance  purposes,  operator  call  completion  services  is  a  subset  of  or  equivalent  to 
 (continued.) 
175
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 176 
 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  LECs  directory  assistance  service  and  obtain  a  directory 
 listing  on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis,  notwithstanding:  (1)  the  identity  of  a  requesting  customers 
 local  telephone  service  provider;  or  (2)  the  identity  of  the  telephone  service  provider  for  a 
 customer  whose  directory  listing  is  requested.  969  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.  970  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.  971 


 347.  Competing  carriers  may  provide  operator  services  and  directory  assistance  by 
 either  reselling  the  BOCs  services  or  by  using  their  own  personnel  and  facilities  to  provide  these 
 services.  Our  rules  require  BOCs  to  permit  competitive  LECs  wishing  to  resell  the  BOCs 
 operator  services  and  directory  assistance  to  request  the  BOC  to  brand  their  calls.  972  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  BOCs  directory  assistance  database,  or  by  creating  their 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 operator  service.  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  20740  at  n.  763.  As  a  result,  we  use  the 
 nondiscriminatory  standards  established  for  operator  services  to  determine  whether  nondiscriminatory  access  is 
 provided. 


 969  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  Orders  interpretation  of  section  251(  b)(  3)  is  limited  to  access  to 
 each  LECs  directory  assistance  service.  Id.  at  19456,  para.  135.  However,  section  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii)  is  not 
 limited  to  the  LECs  systems  but  requires  nondiscriminatory  access  to  .  .  .  directory  assistance  to  allow  the  other 
 carriers  customers  to  obtain  telephone  numbers.  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  vii).  Combined  with  the 
 Commissions  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  customers  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.  Directory  Listings  Information  NPRM. 


 970  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19464,  para.  151. 


 971  Id.  at  para.  112. 
 972  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  BOCs  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). 
176
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 177 
 own  directory  assistance  database  by  obtaining  the  subscriber  listing  information  in  the  BOCs 
 database.  973 


 348.  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.  974  Checklist  item 
 obligations  that  do  not  fall  within  a  BOCs  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.  975  Checklist  item  obligations  that  do  not  fall  within  a 
 BOCs  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.  976 


 b.  Discussion 
 349.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  directory  assistance  services  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  7.  977 
 The  Texas  Commission  concludes  that  SWBT  has  satisfied  the  requirements  of  this  checklist  item.  978 


 350.  SWBTs  showing  withstands  the  arguments  of  its  opponents  regarding  this 
 checklist  item.  With  regard  to  directory  assistance,  WorldCom  asserts  that  SWBT  violates  the 
 checklist  by  charging  competitive  LECs  non-  cost-  based  rates  for  access  to  directory  assistance 
 listings  of  customers  that  reside  within  its  region,  but  outside  of  Texas  (i.  e.  Arkansas,  Kansas, 


 973  47  C.  F.  R.    51.217(  C)(  3)(  ii);  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19460-  61,  paras. 
 141-  44. 
 974  In  re  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunciations  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket 


 No.  96-  98,  Third  Report  and  Order  and  Fourth  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Reulmaking  (rel.  Nov.  5,  1999)  (Local 
 Competition  Third  Report  and  Order)  at  paras.  441-  442. 


 975  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). 


 976  Local  Competition  Third  Report  and  Order  at  paras.  470-  73.  See  also  47  U.  S.  C.    201(  b),  202(  a). 


 977  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  108-  110.  SWBT  Rogers  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  3-  39;  see  also  SWBT  Dysart 
 Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  525-  542  and  Attach.  A  at  101-  108  (measurements  79-  86). 
 978  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  72.  The  Texas  Commission  notes  that  SWBT  has  obligated  itself  to 


 provide  access  to  directory  assistance  and  operator  services  on  an  unbundled  basis  at  UNE  prices  to  business 
 customers  for  two  years  and  to  residential  customers  for  three  years,  even  though  the  Commission  removed  these 
 items  from  the  required  UNE  list.  Id.  at  74-  74. 
177
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 178 
 Missouri,  and  Oklahoma).  979  SWBT  denies  that  it  violates  this  checklist  item,  because  the 
 Commission  and  some  state  commissions  have  determined  that  directory  assistance  is  a 
 competitive  service  subject  to  market-  based  pricing,  not  cost-  based  pricing.  980 


 351.  We  find  WorldComs  assertions  unpersuasive.  WorldComs  argument  that 
 SWBTs  out-  of-  state  directory  assistance  services  are  priced  at  an  anticompetitive  level  is  not 
 relevant  to  a  determination  of  whether  SWBT  meets  checklist  item  7  in  Texas.  For  purposes  of 
 the  instant  application,  we  consider  only  whether  SWBT  meets  the  requirements  of  section  271  in 
 the  State  of  Texas.  981  No  commenter  has  challenged  SWBTs  rate  for  directory  assistance  in 
 Texas,  and  the  Texas  Commission  conclude  that  SWBT  meets  this  checklist  item.  982  We  therefore 
 conclude  that  SWBT  meets  this  checklist  item. 


 H.  Checklist  Item  8    White  Pages  Directory  Listings 
 1.  Background 
 352.  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  carriers  telephone  exchange  service.  983 
 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.  984 


 353.  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that, 
 consistent  with  the  Commissions  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 


 979  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  56,  57  n.  31  (stating  that  SWBTs  rate  for  in-  region,  out-  of-  state  directory 
 listings  is  $.  0583).  However,  in  an  ex  parte  letter,  WorldCom  informs  the  Commission  that  it  made  a  factual  error 
 and  should  have  reported  this  rate  as  $.  0585.  See  Letter  from  Keith  L.  Seat,  Senior  Counsel  for  Competitive 
 Strategies,  MCI  (WorldCom)  Communications  Corporation,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal 
 Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  (filed  Mar.  14,  2000). 


 980  SWBT  Rogers  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  11-  12. 


 981  For  the  same  reason,  we  find  that  the  National  ALECs  argument  that  SWBTs  directory  assistance  services  in 
 California  are  priced  at  an  anticompetitive  level  is  not  relevant  to  a  determination  of  whether  SWBT  meets 
 checklist  item  7  in  Texas.  See  National  ALEC  Texas  I  Comments  at  10-  11.  See  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York 
 Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4151,  paras.  398-  399  (claim  that  Bell  Atlantic  violated  Commission  rules  in  other  states  is 
 not  relevant  to  determination  of  whether  Bell  Atlantic  meets  its  section  271  obligations  in  New  York). 


 982  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  72-  73. 


 983  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  viii). 
 984  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  b)(  3). 
178
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 179 
 provider.  985  We  further  concluded,  the  term  directory  listing,    as  used  in  this  section,  includes, 
 at  a  minimum,  the  subscribers  name,  address,  telephone  number,  or  any  combination  thereof.  986 


 354.  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  the  Commission  found  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.  987 


 2.  Discussion 
 355.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  SWBT  satisfies  the  requirements 
 of  checklist  item  8.  988  The  Texas  Commission  concludes  that  SWBT  complies  with  this  checklist 
 item.  989 


 356.  We  reject  allegations  that  SWBT  does  not  meet  this  checklist  item.  ALTS  and  the 
 CLEC  Coalition  state  that  competitive  LECs  in  Texas  have  experienced  problems  with  SWBTs 
 processes  for  altering  customer  listings  and  incorporating  changes  into  the  white  pages  directory.  990  ALTS  and  the  CLEC  Coalition  also  state  that  some  listings  are  falling  out  or 


 failing  to  appear  for  no  apparent  reason.  In  addition,  both  parties  express  concern  that  SWBTs 
 performance  measurements  fail  to  capture  the  problems  that  their  members  report.  991  The 


 985  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20748,  para.  255. 
 986  Id.  We  note  that  in  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  we  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  Commissions  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). 


 987  Id. 


 988  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  110-  111;  SWBT  Rogers  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  40-  44,  51-  52;  SWBT  Dysart 
 Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  640-  641,  646-  648  and  Attach.  A  at  133-  136  (PM  110-  113).  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  is 
 providing  white  pages  directory  listings  for  customers  of  competitive  LECs  that  are  nondiscriminatory  in 
 appearance  and  integration,  and  have  the  same  accuracy  and  reliability  that  SWBT  provides  for  its  own  customers. 
 SWBT  Rogers  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  40-  44  (nondiscriminatory  appearance,  e.  g.,  same  size,  font,  and  typeface), 
 and  paras.  51-  52;  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  640-  641,  646-  648  and  Attach.  A  at  133-  136  (PM  110-  113) 
 (comparable  accuracy  and  reliability). 


 989  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  76-  78;  see  Final  Staff  Report  at  85-  89. 


 990  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  46;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  42-  44. 
 991  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  46;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  42-  43. 
179
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 180 
 Association  of  Directory  Publishers  (ADP)  support  ALTS  and  the  CLEC  Coalition,  and  note  that 
 inaccurate  or  incomplete  listings  in  the  incumbents  database  harmed  its  members  as  well. 


 357.  SWBT  explains  that,  at  the  direction  of  the  Texas  Commission,  SWBT  leaves 
 listings  unchanged  during  the  resale  or  UNE  provisioning  process.  Unless  the  competitive  LEC 
 submits  a  Directory  Service  Request  form  stating  otherwise,  SWBT  assumes  the  white  pages 
 listing  is  to  remain  unchanged.  992  ALTS,  the  CLEC  Coalition,  and  ADP  did  not  rebut  SWBTs 
 explanation  in  their  reply  comments.  993 


 358.  We  conclude  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  that  the  difficulties  some  competing 
 carriers  may  have  encountered  with  SWBTs  processes  for  altering  white  pages  listings  reflect 
 systemic  defects  within  SWBTs  white  pages  directory  listings  procedures.  It  appears  likely  that 
 competing  carriers  perception  that  listings  are  falling  out  may  reflect  misunderstanding  or 
 miscommunication  between  carriers  rather  than  actual  failure  to  list  customers  in  SWBTs  white 
 pages  directory.  We  agree  with  the  CLEC  Coalition  and  ADP,  however,  that  irregularities 
 involving  the  white  pages  are  a  very  serious  matter  because  customers  may  tend  to  blame  the  new 
 competitor,  rather  than  the  familiar  incumbent,  for  mistakes.  994  Although  we  do  not  hold  SWBT 
 to  a  standard  of  perfection,  we  note  that,  if  there  were  a  systemic  problem  involving  a  significant 
 number  of  listings,  it  would  warrant  a  finding  of  noncompliance.  995 


 I.  Checklist  Item  9    Numbering  Administration 
 1.  Background 
 359.  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  carriers  telephone 
 exchange  service  customers,  until  the  date  by  which  telecommunications  numbering 


 992  See  Letter  from  Austin  C.  Schlick,  Kellogg,  Huber  et  al.,  Counsel  for  Applicants,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas, 
 Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  at  2  (Feb.  4,  2000)  (Austin  C.  Schlick  Feb. 
 4  Ex  Parte  Letter).  SWBT  further  explains  that  the  Dysart  Affidavits  characterization  of  the  UNE  disconnect  (D) 
 order  as  drop[  ping]    listing  information  out  of  the  database  is  .  .  .  incorrect.  See  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.    640.  For 
 clarity  of  the  record,  all  after  the  first  sentence  of  paragraph  640  of  Mr.  Dysarts  affidavit  should  be  stricken.  Id. 
 Accordingly,  we  take  no  notice  of  that  portion  of  the  Dysart  Texas  I  Affidavit. 


 993  But  see  ALTS/  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  II  Joint  Comments  at  14.  NEXTLINK  states  that  customers  listings  are 


 being  dropped  out  of  the  database.  NEXTLINK  states  that  the  problems  appear  to  be  related  to  orders  falling  out 
 of  the  automated  systems  and  not  being  completed  by  SWBTs  back  end  office  systems.  SWBT  states  that  it  is 
 working  with  NEXTLINK  to  investigate  any  errors  in  directory  listings  that  may  have  occurred  in  connection  with 
 NEXTLINKs  orders  but  has  yet  to  receive  details  from  NEXTLINK  that  would  allow  SWBT  to  investigate  the 
 particular  orders  affected.  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  71.  We  note  that  NEXTLINK  withdrew  its 
 opposition  to  SWBTs  application  on  May  23,  2000.  See  Letter  To  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC,  from 
 NEXTLINK  Communications,  Inc.,  dated  May  23,  2000. 


 994  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  43;  ADP  Texas  1  Reply  at  5. 


 995  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4045,  para.  176. 
180
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 181 
 administration,  guidelines,  plan,  or  rules  are  established.  996  The  checklist  mandates  compliance 
 with  such  guidelines,  plan,  or  rules  after  they  have  been  established.  997 


 360.  SWBT  does  not  assign  telephone  numbers  to  itself  or  competitive  LECs.  The 
 Commission  has  designated  NeuStar,  Inc.  (NeuStar)  as  the  North  American  Numbering  Plan 
 Administrator.  998  NeuStar  is  responsible  for  assigning  blocks  of  10,000  telephone  numbers  (NXX 
 Codes)  to  carriers  within  each  area  code,  and  for  coordinating  area  code  relief  planning  efforts 
 with  state  commissions.  999  SWBT  must  demonstrate  that  it  adheres  to  industry  numbering 
 administration  guidelines  and  Commission  rules,  including  provisions  requiring  the  accurate 
 reporting  of  data  to  the  code  administrator.  1000 


 2.  Discussion 
 361.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  SWBT  satisfies  the  requirements 
 of  checklist  item  9.  1001  The  Texas  Commission  concluded  that  SWBT  meets  the  requirements  of 
 checklist  item  9,  and  no  commenter  alleges  that  SWBT  has  failed  to  meet  such  requirements.  1002 


 J.  Checklist  Item  10    Databases  and  Associated  Signaling 
 1.  Background 
 362.  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.  1003  In  the  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  we  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 


 996  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ix). 
 997  Id. 
 998  In  the  Matter  of  Request  of  Lockheed  Martin  Corporation  and  Warburg,  Pincus  &  Co.  for  Review  of  the 
 Transfer  of  the  Lockheed  Martin  Communications  Industry  Services  Business,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  237,  Order,  FCC 
 99-  346  (rel.  Nov.  17,  1999).  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    52.7-  52.19. 


 999  Administration  of  the  North  American  Numbering  Plan,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  2588,  2615;  NANP 


 Third  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  23042-  46;  see  SWBT  Adair  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  15-  18. 
 1000  See  Second  Bell  South  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20752.  See  also,  e.  g.,  Central  Office  Code  (NXX) 


 Assignment  Guidelines  (INC  95-  0407-  008)  (revised  August  1999). 
 1001  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  paras.  111-  112;  SWBT  Adair  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  15-  18. 


 1002  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  80  and  at  n.  445  (agreeing  with  SWBT  Adair  Texas  I  Aff.,  para.  18, 
 that  SWBT  supports  and  adheres  to  all  relevant  rules,  regulations,  and  guidelines  established  by  regulatory 
 agencies  and  industry  groups).  See  Final  Staff  Report  at  90. 


 1003  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  x). 
181
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 182 
 transfer  point  linked  to  the  unbundled  database;  and  (3)  Service  Management  Systems  (SMS).  1004 
 We  also  required  BellSouth  to  design,  create,  test,  and  deploy  Advanced  Intelligent  Network 
 (AIN)  based  services  at  the  SMS  through  a  Service  Creation  Environment  (SCE).  1005 


 363.  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.  1006  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.  1007  In  the  UNE  Remand  Order,  we 
 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.  1008 


 2.  Discussion 
 364.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  SWBT  satisfies  the  requirements 
 of  checklist  item  10.  1009  The  Texas  Commission  also  concludes  that  SWBT  meets  this  checklist 
 item.  1010 


 365.  We  reject  Pilgrims  assertions  that  SWBT  refuses  to  provide  competitors  with 
 real-  time  access  to  information  regarding  900/  976  blocking,  billing  name  and  address  (BNA),  and 
 credit  history,  and  therefore,  SWBT  does  not  fulfill  the  call-  related  database  requirement  of  item 
 10.  1011  Pilgrim  argues  that,  because  it  provides  casual  calling  services  1012  it  must  make  snap 


 1004  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20753,  para.  267. 


 1005  Id.  at  20755-  56,  para.  272. 
 1006  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15741,  n.  1126;  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd 
 at  3875,  para.  403. 
 1007  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15741-  42,  para.  484. 


 1008  UNE  Remand  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3875,  para.  403. 
 1009  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  112-  115;  SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  at  paras.  186-  226  (describing  SS7 
 interconnection  at  paras.  190-  194;  toll  free  800  service  database  at  paras.  198-  208;  AIN  network  architecture  and 
 call-  related  databases  at  paras.  209-  218);  SWBT  Texas  I  Rogers  Aff.  at  paras.  58-  71  (describing  SWBTs  Line 
 Information  Database  (LIDB),  Calling  Name  delivery  (CNAM),  and  Line  Validation  Administrative  System 
 (LVAS)).  Competitive  LECs  access  databases  through  SWBTs  signal  transfer  points  in  the  same  manner  and  by 
 the  same  signaling  links  that  SWBT  uses.  SWBT  Texas  I  Deere  Aff.  at  para.  218. 


 1010  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  80.  See  also  Final  Staff  Report  at  91. 


 1011  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  19.  See  also  Pilgrim  Texas  II  Reply  Comments.  Pilgrim  is  an  interstate, 
 interexchange  carrier  that  offers,  among  other  services,  pay-  per-  call  services.  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  2. 
 1012  By  casual  calling  services  Pilgrim  means  that  the  consumer  does  not  establish  a  business  relationship  and 


 subscriber  account  with  the  service  provider.  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  3-  4. 
182
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 183 
 decisions  whether  or  not  a  call  should  be  accepted  and  transmitted.  1013  Therefore,  Pilgrim 
 maintains,  the  nature  of  its  business  requires  real-  time  access  to  call  blocking,  billing  name  and 
 address  (BNA),  and  credit  information  in  order  to  validate  and  bill  the  call.  1014 


 366.  SWBT  states  that,  regarding  900/  976  blocking  information,  Pilgrim  is  incorrect, 
 and  that  in  fact  SWBTs  LIDB  does  provide  real-  time  access  to  call-  blocking  information.  1015 
 SWBT  describes  in  detail  the  capabilities  of  the  LIDB  system.  1016  Therefore  we  conclude  that, 
 contrary  to  Pilgrims  assertion,  SWBT  makes  call-  blocking  information  available  on  a 
 nondiscriminatory  basis.  1017 


 367.  SWBT  further  states  that  it  has  no  obligation  to  release  end-  users  BNA  or  credit 
 history  to  Pilgrim.  1018  We  agree  with  SWBT  that  checklist  item  10  does  not  require  SWBT  to 
 share  with  other  carriers  the  customer-  credit  information  that  SWBT  has  accumulated  in  the 
 course  of  its  business  dealings  with  its  customers.  Such  information  would  be  considered 
 customer  proprietary  network  information  (CPNI).  1019  Pilgrim  has  not  established  that  SWBT  is 
 under  any  obligation  to  share  such  CPNI  with  Pilgrim,  or  that  such  information  is  necessary  for 
 Pilgrim  to  initiate,  render,  bill,  and  collect  for  telecommunications  services.  1020 


 368.  Pilgrim  appears  to  assert,  correctly,  that  BNA  is  a  call-  related  database  which  must 
 be  unbundled  pursuant  to  section  251(  c)(  3)  of  the  Act.  As  stated  above,  the  Commission  has 
 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.  1021  Because  the  BNA  database  contains  the  billing  name  and  address 


 1013  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  7-  8. 
 1014  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  2-  4,  10,  18-  19.  See  also  Pilgrim  Texas  II  Reply  Comments. 
 1015  SWBT  Texas  I  Rogers  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  14  (  All  records  in  SWBTs  LIDB  are  designated  so  that  they  will 
 indicate  non-  acceptance  of  alternately  billed  900/  976  charges).  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  Attach.  A  at 
 Attach  7  (T2A  Ordering  and  Provisioning),  4.  2  (Parties  to  the  T2A  agreement  have  access  to  a  pre-  order  electronic 
 gateway  that  provides  Real  Time  access  to  SWBTs  information  systems.).  See  also  discussion  of  access  to 
 LIDB  under  checklist  item  II. 


 1016  SWBT  Texas  I  Rogers  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  14;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  Attach.  A  at  Attach.  6  (T2A 


 Unbundled  Network  Elements)  9.  4  et  seq.  (describing  LIDB). 
 1017  Id. 


 1018  SWBT  Texas  I  Rogers  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  14;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  Attach.  A  at  Attach.  7  (T2A 
 Ordering  and  Provisioning),  4.  2.  (Parties  to  the  T2A  have  Real  Time  access  to  SWBTs  BNA  through  a  pre-order 
 electronic  gateway). 


 1019  47  U.  S.  C.    222(  f)(  1)(  B). 


 1020  47  U.  S.  C.    222(  d)(  1). 
 1021  Local  Competition  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15741,  n.  1126;  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd 
 at  3875,  para.  403. 
183
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 184 
 to  validate  and  bill  a  telephone  call,  it  clearly  meets  this  definition.  1022  Unlike  customer-  credit 
 information,  BNA  information  is  available  to  competitive  LECs  that  participate  in  the  T2A 
 interconnection  agreement.  1023  SWBT  provides  real-  time  access  through  a  pre-  order  electronic 
 gateway  to  SWBTs  BNA  to  these  competitive  LECs.  1024  Pilgrim,  therefore,  could  opt  into  the 
 T2A  and  gain  access  to  BNA,  pursuant  to  section  252(  i)  of  the  Act.  1025  Consequently,  we  find 
 that  Pilgrims  allegations  do  not  warrant  a  finding  of  noncompliance  with  this  checklist  item. 


 K.  Checklist  Item  11    Number  Portability 
 1.  Background 
 369.  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.  1026  Section  251(  b)(  2) 
 requires  all  LECs  to  provide,  to  the  extent  technically  feasible,  number  portability  in  accordance 
 with  requirements  prescribed  by  the  Commission.  1027  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.  1028  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.  1029 


 1022  Section  51.319(  e)(  2)(  ii)  of  the  Commissions  rules  list  certain  databases  that  meet  this  definition,  such  as 
 Line  Information  Database  and  Toll  Free  Calling  database,  but  also  states  that  the  list  is  not  limited  to  these 
 examples.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.319(  e)(  2)(  ii). 


 1023  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  Attach.  A.  7,  4.  2  &  4.  2.  1. 


 1024  SWBT  also  makes  BNA  generally  available  under  Tariff  No.  73,  Section  13  and  Texas  Access  Service  Tariff, 
 Section  8.  If  a  customer  chooses  to  receive  SWBTs  response  to  the  customers  request  via  data  tape,  the  tape  is 
 mailed  on  the  next  business  day.  If  a  customer  chooses  electronic  data  transmission  (Network  Data  Mover 
 (NDM)),  SWBT  processes  requests  up  to  six  times  daily.  The  data  are  made  available  for  electronic  recovery 
 within  24  hours  of  SWBTs  receipt  of  a  customers  request.  Letter  from  Austin  C.  Schlick,  Kellogg,  Huber  et  al., 
 Counsel  for  Applicants,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket 
 No.  00-  4  at  2  (filed  March  10,  2000)  (Austin  C.  Schlick  March  10  Ex  Parte  Letter). 


 1025  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  i). 


 1026  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xii). 
 1027  Id.  at    251(  b)(  2). 
 1028  Id.  at    153(  30). 
 1029  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). 
184
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 185 
 370.  Pursuant  to  these  statutory  provisions,  the  Commission  requires  LECs  to  offer 
 interim  number  portability  to  the  extent  technically  feasible.  1030  The  Commission  also  requires 
 LECs  to  gradually  replace  interim  number  portability  with  permanent  number  portability.  1031  The 
 Commission  has  established  guidelines  for  states  to  follow  in  mandating  a  competitively  neutral 
 cost-  recovery  mechanism  for  interim  number  portability,  1032  and  created  a  competitively  neural 
 cost-  recovery  mechanism  for  long-  term  number  portability.  1033 


 2.  Discussion 
 371.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  complies  with  the 
 requirements  of  checklist  item  11.  SWBT  provides  permanent  number  portability  in  conformance 
 with  Commission  regulations  and  provides  interim  number  portability  to  competing  carriers 
 through  remote  call  forwarding,  direct  inward  dialing,  and  directory  number  routing  indexing.  1034 
 SWBT  is  presently  converting  all  interim  number  portability  lines  to  permanent  number  portability 
 and  expects  that  this  conversion  will  be  complete  by  year-  end.  1035  The  Texas  Commission  also 
 concludes  that  SWBT  satisfies  this  checklist  item.  1036 


 372.  We  reject  Global  Crossing  and  the  CLEC  Coalitions  assertions  that  SWBT  fails  to 
 provide  local  number  portability  in  a  reliable  manner.  1037  Global  Crossing  describes  occasions 
 where  it  believes  SWBT  failed  to  update  its  switch  translations  properly  so  that  calls  to  Global 


 1030  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). 


 1031  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. 


 1032  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. 
 1033  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. 
 1034  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  220-  226;  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  84. 


 1035  SWBT  Flemming  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  30.;  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  84. 
 1036  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  82-  86.  We  also  note  that  the  Texas  Commission  established 
 performance  measures  to  capture  SWBT  provision  of  both  permanent  and  interim  number  portability.  In  nearly  all 
 months,  SWBT  meets  the  benchmarks  established  by  the  Texas  Commission  for  both  these  measurements.  See 
 Texas  Commission  Comments  at  85;  SWBT  Aggregated  Performance  Measurement  Data,  Measurement  No.  100 
 (  Average  Time  Out  of  Service  for  LNP  Conversions)  at  271-  No.  99-  101,  Measurement  No.  101  (  Percent  Out  of 
 Service  Less  than  60  Minutes)  at  271-  No.  99-  101;  SWBT  Texas  1  Dysart  Aff.,  Att.  A  at  122-  123  (listing  Texas 
 Commission  benchmarks  for  Measurements  100  and  101). 


 1037  Global  Crossing  Texas  I  Comments  at  8;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  44-  46. 
185
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 186 
 Crossing  customers  with  a  ported  number  were  unable  to  be  completed.  1038  Similarly,  the  CLEC 
 Coalition  claims  that  a  SWBT  local  number  portability  database  outage  delayed  its  members 
 orders.  1039  Because  Global  Crossing  and  the  CLEC  Coalitions  claim  appear  to  be  anecdotal  and 
 unsupported  by  any  persuasive  evidence,  we  conclude  that  they  do  not  warrant  a  finding  of 
 noncompliance  of  this  checklist  item. 


 L.  Checklist  Item  12    Local  Dialing  Parity 
 1.  Background 
 373.  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).  1040  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.  1041  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  customers  designation 
 .  .  .  1042 


 374.  Our  rules  implementing  section  251(  b)(  3)  provide  that  customers  of  competing 
 carriers  must  be  able  to  dial  the  same  number  of  digits  the  BOCs  customers  dial  to  complete  a 
 local  telephone  call.  1043  Moreover,  customers  of  competing  carriers  must  not  otherwise  suffer 


 1038  Global  Crossing  Texas  I  Comments  at  8. 
 1039  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  44. 
 1040  Based  on  the  Commissions  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). 


 1041  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  b)(  3). 


 1042  Id.  at    153(  15). 
 1043  47  C.  F.  R    51.205,  51.207. 
186
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 187 
 inferior  quality  service,  such  as  unreasonable  dialing  delays,  compared  to  the  BOCs  customers.  1044 
 2.  Discussion 
 375.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 provides  local  dialing  parity  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  251(  b)(  3)  and  thus 
 satisfies  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  12.  1045  The  Texas  Commission  concluded  that  SWBT 
 meets  the  requirements  of  this  checklist  obligation.  1046 


 376.  We  reject  Pilgrims  argument  that  because  SWBT  allegedly  denies  Pilgrim  real-time 
 access  to  call-  blocking  databases,  Pilgrim  cannot  offer  its  customers  the  call-  blocking  feature 
 that  is  available  to  SWBTs  customers,  and  SWBT  thus  fails  to  provide  dialing  parity  as  required 
 by  section  271  of  the  Act.  1047  Because  a  customer  may  place  a  call  through  Pilgrim,  rather  than 
 directly  through  SWBTs  switch,  it  is  possible  for  that  customer  (or  anyone  with  access  to  the 
 customers  telephone)  to  circumvent  the  blocking  intelligence  in  SWBTs  switch,  and  thereby 
 reach  the  type  of  pay-  per-  call  services  the  customer  has  asked  SWBT  to  block.  1048  Thus,  Pilgrim 
 argues,  the  customer  suffers  inferior  quality  service  by  using  Pilgrim.  1049 


 377.  The  Commissions  dialing  parity  rules  and  orders  have  concerned  the  ease  with 
 which  a  customer  may  dial  an  outgoing  call,  rather  than  the  ease  with  which  customers  may  block 
 the  ability  to  dial  calls.  1050  Pilgrim  would  have  us  find  an  ease-  of-  blocking  requirement  in  the 


 1044  See  47  C.  F.  R.    51.207  (requiring  same  number  of  digits  to  be  dialed);  Implementation  of  the  Local 
 Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Interconnection  Between  Local  Exchange 
 Carriers  and  Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Service  Providers,  Area  Code  Relief  Plan  for  Dallas  and  Houston 
 Ordered  by  the  Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Texas,  and  Administration  of  the  North  American  Numbering  Plan, 
 Second  Report  and  Order  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  19392  at  19400,  19403  (1996) 
 (Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order),  vacated  in  part  sub  nom.  People  of  the  State  of  Cal.  v.  Federal 
 Communications  Commission,  124  F.  3d  934  (8th  Cir.  1997),  rev'd,  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366 
 (1999). 


 1045  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  118;  SWBT  Deere  Texas  I  Aff.  at  paras.  227-  230. 


 1046  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  85-  86;  Final  Staff  Report  at  97-  98. 
 1047  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  19-  20;  Pilgrim  Texas  II  Reply  Comments;  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xii). 
 1048  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  20  ([  i]  f  a  consumer  who  has  requested  blocking  decides  to  use  one  of  Pilgrims 
 casual  calling  services,  the  consumer  may  unwittingly  make  calls  that  could  not  have  been  dialed  over  SWBTs 
 network  because  Pilgrim  would  not  know  that  the  customer  wanted  those  calls  blocked.). 


 1049  Id. 


 1050  See,  e.  g.,  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996, 
 Interconnection  Between  Local  Exchange  Carriers  and  Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Service  Providers,  Area  Code 
 Relief  Plan  for  Dallas  and  Houston  Ordered  by  the  Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Texas,  and  Administration  of 
 the  North  American  Numbering  Plan,  Third  Order  on  Reconsideration  and  Memorandum  Report  and  Order,  CC 
 Docket  No.  96-  98,  FCC  99-  243,  para.  37  (1999)  (recognizing  that    dialing  parity  is  a  defined  term  in  the  Act  that 
 requires  that  a  customer  be  able  to  access  the  carrier  of  his  or  her  choice  without  having  to  use  any  access  codes); 
 see  also  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  15). 
187
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 188 
 Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Orders  phrase  must  not  otherwise  suffer  inferior  quality 
 service.  1051  We  are  not  persuaded  that  Commission  precedent  requires  such  an  interpretation. 
 Accordingly,  we  reject  Pilgrims  assertion  that  SWBT  fails  to  meet  this  checklist  requirement. 


 M.  Checklist  Item  13    Reciprocal  Compensation 
 1.  Background 
 378.  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).  1052  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.  1053  .  The 
 Commission  has  held  that  ISP-  bound  traffic  is  non-  local  interstate  traffic  and  that  the 
 reciprocal  compensation  requirements  of  section  251(  b)(  5)  of  the  Act  .  .  .  do  not  govern  inter-carrier 
 compensation  for  this  traffic.  1054  The  Commission  specified  that  state  commissions  may 
 impose  reciprocal  compensation  obligations  for  ISP-  bound  traffic,  or  may  decline  to  require  the 
 payment  of  reciprocal  compensation  and  may  adopt  another  compensation  mechanism  while  the 
 Commission  developed  final  rules  in  an  ongoing  proceeding.  1055  On  March  24,  2000,  the  D.  C. 
 Court  of  Appeals  vacated  this  ruling  and  remanded  it  for  a  fuller  explanation  of  why  ISP-  bound 
 traffic  is  not  subject  to  section  251(  b)(  5)  s  reciprocal  compensation  requirements.  1056 


 2.  Discussion 
 379.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 has  entered  into  reciprocal  compensation  arrangements  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 
 section  252(  d)(  2),  and  thus  satisfies  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  13.  SWBT  demonstrates 
 that  it  (1)  has  in  place  reciprocal  compensation  arrangements  in  accordance  with  section 


 1051  Pilgrim  Texas  I  Comments  at  20;  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  19400,  19403, 
 para.  15. 
 1052  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiii). 


 1053  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  2)(  A). 
 1054  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  in  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996:  Inter-  Carrier 
 Compensation  for  ISP-  Bound  Traffic;  Declaratory  Rulemaking  and  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  CC  Docket 
 No.  96-  98,  14  FCC  Rcd  3689  at  3706,  n.  87  (1999)  (Inter-  Carrier  Compensation  for  ISP-  Bound  Traffic  Order). 


 1055  Id. 


 1056  Bell  Atlantic  v.  FCC,  No.  99-  1094  (D.  C.  Cir.  Mar.  24,  2000). 
188
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 189 
 252(  d)(  2),  1057  and  (2)  is  making  all  required  payments  in  a  timely  fashion.  1058  In  its  brief,  SWBT 
 states  that  the  Texas  Commission  established  rates  for  transport  and  termination  in  the  Mega-Arbitration,  1059 
 using  a  forward-  looking  TELRIC  methodology  that  complies  with  Commission 
 rules.  1060  SWBT  states  that  pursuant  to  the  T2A,  its  agreements  contain  clearly  defined 
 arrangements  for  each  party  to  compensate  the  other  for  traffic  exchanged  between  their 
 networks.  1061  SWBTs  interconnection  agreements  include  each  partys  obligation  to  account  for 
 local  traffic,  as  well  as  any  applicable  charges.  1062 


 380.  In  the  T2A,  SWBT  offers  competitive  LECs  three  opportunities  for  establishing 
 the  terms  and  conditions  for  reciprocal  compensation.  1063  First,  a  competitive  LEC  may  obtain  the 
 arbitrated  terms  in  the  then-  effective  SWBT/  AT&  T  interconnection  agreement.  1064  That 
 agreement  expired  January  2,  2000.  1065  If  a  competitive  LEC  chose  this  option  prior  to  that  date, 
 the  provisions  of  the  SWBT/  AT&  T  agreement  continue  to  apply  until  the  competitive  LEC 
 agreement  expires.  1066  After  the  competitive  LEC  agreement  expires,  the  compensation 
 arrangements  become  bill-  and-  keep  while  SWBT  and  the  competitive  LEC  negotiate  and/  or 
 arbitrate  new  terms.  1067  SWBT  states  that  the  Texas  Commission  established  transport  and 


 1057  SWBT  provides  reciprocal  compensation  to  competing  carriers  for  the  termination  of  local  calls  from  SWBT 
 customers  under  approved  interconnection  agreements  and  tariffs.  See  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  118-  119. 
 1058  With  regard  to  the  second  requirement,  we  note  that  section  271(  c)(  2)(  A)(  i)  requires  a  showing  that  a  BOC  "is 


 providing  access  and  interconnection  pursuant  to  one  or  more  agreements  .  .  .  or  .  .  .  is  generally  offering  access 
 and  interconnection  pursuant  to  [an  SGAT]."  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  A)(  i). 


 1059  In  its  application,  SWBT  explains  that  the  Texas  Commission  consolidated  arbitrations  involving  several  of 


 the  largest  competitive  LECs  into  a  single  Mega-  Arbitration  proceeding,  which  addressed  pricing, 
 interconnection,  unbundling,  and  resale  issues.  The  Mega-  Arbitration  also  served  as  a  forum  for  SWBT  to 
 negotiate  with  competitive  LECS  and  the  Texas  Commission,  and  subsequently  the  Department  of  Justice,  the 
 framework  for  SWBTs  performance  monitoring  program.  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  3-  4. 


 1060  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  119. 


 1061  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  111. 
 1062  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  119;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  111. 
 1063  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  19. 
 1064  Id.  at  para.  113. 
 1065  Id. 
 1066  Id.;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  T2A  Attach.  12,  Compensation-  TX  at  2,    1.  2.  1. 
 1067  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  T2A  Attach.  12,  Compensation-  TX  at  2-  3.  Bill-  and-  keep  arrangements  are 
 those  in  which  neither  of  two  interconnecting  carriers  charges  the  other  to  terminate  traffic  that  originated  on  the 
 other  carriers  network.  Rather,  each  carrier  recovers  from  its  own  end  users  the  cost  of  both  originating  traffic 
 delivered  to  the  other  network  and  terminating  traffic  received  from  the  other  network.  Local  Competition  First 
 Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  16,045,  para.  1096. 
189
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 190 
 termination  rates  using  a  TELRIC  methodology.  1068  Under  the  second  alternative,  competitive 
 LECs  and  SWBT  may  mutually  exchange  local  traffic  on  a  bill-  and-  keep  basis  pursuant  to  terms 
 approved  by  the  Texas  Commission.  1069  Finally,  the  competitive  LEC  may  choose  to  negotiate 
 and,  if  needed,  arbitrate  the  terms  for  reciprocal  compensation  while  operating  under  the  other 
 terms  of  the  T2A.  1070  SWBT  says  that  while  it  is  negotiating  or  arbitrating  a  reciprocal 
 compensation  agreement  with  a  competitive  LEC,  the  parties  exchange  local  and  internet  traffic 
 under  an  interim  bill-  and-  keep  arrangement,  subject  to  true-  up,  as  approved  by  the  Texas 
 Commission.  1071  The  Texas  Commission  concludes  that  SWBT  meets  this  checklist  item.  1072  The 
 Texas  Commission  states  that  rates  for  both  tandem-  and  end-  office  transport  and  termination  are 
 based  on  a  TELRIC  methodology.  1073 


 381.  SWBTs  showing  withstands  the  arguments  raised  by  its  opponents.  We  find 
 unpersuasive  the  claims  of  the  CLEC  Coalition  and  e.  spire  that  SWBTs  reported  usage  data  for 
 traffic  passed  between  SWBTs  and  their  respective  networks  is  unreliable  and  incorrect.  1074 
 SWBT  says  it  provides  competitive  LECs  that  use  unbundled  local  switching  with  detailed 
 records  needed  to  obtain  reciprocal  compensation  for  calls  originating  from  SWBT  and  other 
 unbundled  switch-  based  competitive  LECs.  1075  SWBT  notes  that  the  Texas  Commission  has 
 concluded  that  SWBTs  usage  record  method  is  adequate.  1076  The  Texas  Commission  notes  that 
 if  competitive  LECs  do  not  wish  to  use  SWBTs  particular  type  of  record  exchange,  they  are  free 
 to  choose  one  of  the  other  two  reciprocal  compensation  options.  1077 


 382.  SWBT  notes  that  due  to  technological  limitations,  it  currently  cannot  track  calls 
 originating  from  a  third-  party  facilities-  based  carrier  and  terminating  to  a  customer  served  by  a 


 1068  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  19,  113-  122. 
 1069  Id. 
 1070  Id.  at  para.  120. 
 1071  Id.  Pursuant  to  this  option,  interexchange  traffic,  including  traffic  to  a  third  party,  is  compensated  based  on 
 applicable  access  charges.  Internet-  bound  traffic  is  specifically  recognized  as  traffic  that  is  bound  for  a  third  party, 
 and  is  to  be  handled  as  meet-  point  billed  interexchange  traffic.  Each  party  would  bill  the  third  party  any  applicable 
 access  charges  for  its  portion  of  the  call.  However,  internet  service  providers  are  exempt  from  meet-  point  billing 
 under  the  Commissions  Enhanced  Service  Provider  access  charge  exemption.  Id.  at  paras.  111,  118-  19. 


 1072  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  86-  87. 


 1073  Id.  at  87. 
 1074  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  1  Rowling  Decl.  at  para.  46;  e.  spire  Texas  I  Comments  at  6;  e.  spire  Texas  1  Falvey 
 Aff.  at  para.  5. 
 1075  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  122. 


 1076  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  45-  46. 
 1077  Texas  I  Commission  Reply  Comments  at  28. 
190
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 191 
 competitive  LEC  using  SWBTs  unbundled  local  switches.  1078  In  response  to  the  Texas 
 Commission's  concerns  regarding  this  problem,  SWBT  and  other  carriers  have  implemented  an 
 interim  traffic  reporting  and  compensation  mechanism.  1079  SWBT  notes  that  this  interim 
 compensation  mechanism  was  agreed  to  by  AT&  T,  WorldCom,  and  Sage  Telecom,  approved  by 
 the  Texas  Commission,  and  is  included  in  the  T2A.  1080  This  interim  mechanism  will  remain  in 
 effect  until  a  permanent  industry  solution  is  found.  1081  SWBT  also  notes  that  the  carriers 
 interconnection  agreements  provide  procedures  for  addressing  billing  disputes,  and  that  neither 
 commenter  has  presented  its  claims  to  the  Texas  Commission.  1082 


 383.  The  1996  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.  1083 
 Although  we  have  an  independent  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.  We  believe  that  e.  spire  and  the  CLEC  Coalition  should  bring  this  fact-  specific 
 dispute  before  the  Texas  Commission.  Additionally,  we  believe  that  SWBT  has  made  a  concerted 
 effort  to  resolve  this  traffic  reporting  dispute,  has  continued  to  exchange  traffic  records  with 
 e.  spire  during  the  course  of  this  dispute,  and  has  implemented  a  reasonable  interim  traffic 
 reporting  mechanism  while  industry  groups  work  toward  a  permanent  industry-  wide  solution.  1084 
 We  find  that  e.  spires  and  the  CLEC  Coalitions  allegations  are  insufficient  to  rebut  SWBTs  case. 


 384.  Nor  are  we  persuaded  by  WorldComs  allegations  that  SWBTs  Extended  Area 
 Service  (EAS)  additive  charge  is  a  non-  cost-  based  fee  intended  to  compensate  SWBT  for  lost 
 revenues,  in  violation  of  our  rules.  1085  EAS  enables  residential  and  business  customers  to  extend 
 the  coverage  of  their  flat-  rate  local  calling  area  for  a  set  monthly  fee.  1086  A  customer  subscribing 
 to  EAS  pays  a  higher  monthly  flat  rate  in  order  to  have  a  larger  non-  toll  calling  area.  1087  Under 


 1078  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  122. 
 1079  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  88. 
 1080  Id. 
 1081  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  88. 
 1082  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  46. 
 1083  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  c),  (e)(  6);  AT&  T  Corp.  v.  Iowa  Utils.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  366  (1999). 
 1084  Id. 
 1085  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  49-  50;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Price  Decl.  at  paras.  19-  25. 
 1086  See,  e.  g.,  In  re  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  13,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order, 
 13  FCC  Rcd  3460,  3536,  n.  384  (1997)  (Texas  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order)  citing  Newtons  Telecom 
 Dictionary  at  221  (1991);  see  also  United  States  v.  Western  Electric,  569  F.  Supp.  990,  1002  n.  54  (D.  D.  C.  1983). 


 1087  See,  e.  g.,  Texas  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  3536,  n.  384. 
191
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 192 
 one-  way  EAS,  a  SWBT  customer  would  be  able  to  call  another  SWBT  customer  within  its 
 extended  area  without  paying  a  toll.  Under  two-  way  EAS,  the  SWBT  subscriber  pays  a  higher 
 fee  to  allow  other  SWBT  customers  within  the  extended  calling  area  to  call  in  without  paying  toll 
 charges. 


 385.  When  either  the  originating  or  terminating  end  user  is  not  a  SWBT  customer, 
 however,  EAS  will  not  work.  If  a  SWBT  EAS  customer  calls  a  competitive  LEC  customer  in  the 
 extended  area,  the  competitive  LEC  ordinarily  would  charge  SWBT  terminating  access,  which 
 SWBT  would  pass  on  to  its  SWBT  customer.  Similarly,  when  a  competitive  LEC  customer  in  the 
 extended  area  calls  a  SWBT  customer,  SWBT  would  charge  the  competitive  LEC  terminating 
 access,  which  the  competitive  LEC  would  pass  on  to  its  customer.  Carriers,  however,  may  agree 
 to  waive  toll  charges  that  would  otherwise  be  assessed.  In  the  alternative,  carriers  may  agree  to 
 bill  each  other  a  per-  minute  charge.  WorldCom  asserts  that  the  additive  charge  of  between  2  and 
 4  cents  per  minute  is  a  non-  cost-  based  charge  intended  to  compensate  SWBT  for  revenues  it  once 
 received  from  EAS  customers  that  have  moved  to  a  new  entrant.  1088  As  the  Texas  Commission 
 explains,  however,  the  additive  charges  are  designed  to  compensate  the  carriers  in  exchange  for 
 their  agreement  to  waive  the  terminating  access  they  otherwise  would  have  received.  1089  The 
 Texas  Commission  notes  that  such  EAS  additives  are  reciprocal  in  nature  and  entirely  optional.  1090 
 Therefore,  we  conclude  that  WorldCom  has  not  demonstrated  that  the  EAS  additive  violates  the 
 section  271  provisions  applicable  to  reciprocal  compensation.  1091 


 386.  Allegiance  requests  that  the  Commission  determine  the  appropriate  compensation 
 arrangement  for  local  and  ISP-  bound  traffic.  1092  Allegiance  asserts  that  the  Commission  should  set 
 compensation  rates  for  inter-  carrier  traffic  in  accordance  with  TELRIC.  1093  The  Texas 
 Commission  has  determined  that  Internet-  bound  traffic  from  an  end  user  is  to  be  treated  under  the 
 applicable  interconnection  agreements  as  if  it  were  local  traffic  for  purposes  of  reciprocal 
 compensation.  1094  SWBT  has  appealed  this  determination  but  states  that  it  will  continue  to  apply 
 this  method  of  compensation  while  required  to  do  so.  1095  We  note  that  Allegiance  does  not  allege 


 1088  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  49-  50;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Price  Decl.  at  paras.  22-  25. 


 1089  Texas  I  Commission  Reply  Comments  at  29;  see  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  48. 
 1090  Texas  I  Commission  Reply  Comments  at  29. 
 1091  We  note  that  SWBT  contends  that  the  EAS  additive  is  not  a  form  of  reciprocal  compensation  and  is  therefore 
 not  subject  to  the  requirements  of  section  252(  d)(  2),  but  rather  is  a  tool  to  facilitate  retail  arrangement  options 
 between  terminating  carriers  and  their  end  users.  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  48.  For  the 
 purpose  of  this  analysis,  we  assume,  but  do  not  decide,  that  these  EAS  charges  constitute  a  reciprocal  compensation 
 arrangement. 


 1092  Allegiance  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  Attach.  1,  Petition  of  Allegiance  Telecom  of  Texas,  Inc.  for  Arbitration  at 


 4  (Allegiance  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  Attach.  1). 
 1093  Allegiance  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  Attach.  1  at  4. 


 1094  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  111. 
 1095  Id. 
192
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 193 
 that  SWBT  fails  this  checklist  item,  but  merely  requests  that  the  Commission  reconsider  its 
 previous  decision  to  allow  states  to  make  determinations  regarding  reciprocal  compensation.  As 
 noted  above,  the  D.  C.  Court  of  Appeals  remanded  the  Commissions  ruling  that  ISP-  bound  traffic 
 is  not  subject  to  section  251(  b)(  5)  s  reciprocal  compensation  requirements.  1096  Because 
 Allegiance  does  not  allege  that  SWBT  fails  this  checklist  item,  and  also  because  this  issue  if  before 
 us  again  due  to  the  courts  remand,  we  do  not  address  it  in  the  context  of  a  271  application. 


 N.  Checklist  Item  14    Resale 
 1.  Background 
 387.  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)."  1097  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."  1098  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.  1099  Section  251(  c)(  4)(  B) 
 prohibits  "unreasonable  or  discriminatory  conditions  or  limitations"  on  service  resold  under 
 section  251(  c)(  4)(  A).  1100  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.  1101  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.  1102  If  a  state  creates 
 such  a  limitation,  it  must  do  so  consistent  with  requirements  established  by  the  Federal 
 Communications  Commission.  1103  In  accordance  with  sections  271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  ii)  and 


 1096  Bell  Atlantic  v.  FCC,  No.  99-  1094  (D.  C.  Cir.  Mar.  24,  2000). 
 1097  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  c)(  2)(  B)(  xiv). 
 1098  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  4)(  A). 
 1099  47  U.  S.  C.    252(  d)(  3). 
 1100  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  4)(  B). 
 1101  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  Commissions  authority  to  promulgate  such  rules,  and  specifically  upheld  the 
 sections  of  the  Commissions  rules  concerning  resale  of  promotions  and  discounts  in  Iowa  Utilities  Board.  Iowa 
 Utils.  Bd.  v.  FCC,  120  F.  3d  at  818-  19,  affd  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. 


 1102  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  4)(  B). 


 1103  Id. 
193
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 194 
 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.  1104 


 2.  Discussion 
 388.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it 
 makes  telecommunications  services  available  for  resale  in  accordance  with  sections  251(  c)(  4)  and 
 252(  d)(  3),  and  thus  satisfies  the  requirements  of  checklist  item  14.  SWBT  states  that  it  is  in 
 compliance  with  the  requirements  of  this  checklist  item,  1105  and  the  Texas  Commission  agrees.  1106 
 SWBT  says  that  it  commits  in  its  interconnection  agreements  and  the  T2A  to  making  its  retail 
 services  available  to  competing  carriers  at  wholesale  rates.  1107  In  1995,  the  Texas  Commission 
 established  a  resale  tariff  to  make  retail  local  exchange  telecommunications  services  available  to 
 resellers  at  a  5  percent  discount.  1108  In  its  Mega-  Arbitration  proceeding,  conducted  after  the  1996 
 Act  was  implemented,  the  Texas  Commission  used  an  avoided-  cost  calculation  method  consistent 
 with  the  Commissions  pricing  rules  to  establish  a  generally-  available  discount  of  21.  6  percent  off 
 SWBTs  retail  rates.  1109  Competing  carriers  may  thus  obtain  services  from  SWBTs  tariff  at  a  5 
 percent  discount,  or  from  the  T2A  or  through  interconnection  agreements  at  a  21.6  percent 
 discount.  1110  Competing  carriers  may  purchase  SWBTs  promotional  offerings  of  90  days  or  less 
 at  the  promotional  rate,  and  its  promotional  offerings  of  greater  than  90  days  at  the  21.6  percent 
 discount.  1111  Competing  carriers  may  purchase  existing  customer  specific  arrangements  (CSAs)  at 
 either  a  5.62  percent  or  8.04  percent  discount,  depending  on  the  type  of  contract.  1112 
 Additionally,  competing  carriers  may  purchase  at  the  21.6  percent  discount  CSAs  to  resell  to  new 
 customers.  1113  Pursuant  to  the  terms  of  the  SBC/  Ameritech  merger,  SWBT  also  offers  a  discount 


 1104  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  oppportunity  to  compete). 


 1105  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  120-  122;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  126-  134,  152. 


 1106  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  90. 
 1107  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  20. 
 1108  Id.  at  para.  128. 
 1109  Id.  at  para.  152. 
 1110  Id.  at  paras.  128,  152. 
 1111  Id.  at  para.  130.  Pursuant  to  Commission  rules,  incumbent  LECs  do  not  need  to  offer  for  resale  short-  term 
 promotions  of  90  days  or  less,  as  long  as  such  short-  term  promotions  are  not  used  to  evade  the  wholesale  rate 
 obligation.  47  C.  F.  R.    51.613(  a)(  2)(  ii). 


 1112  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  134. 


 1113  Id. 
194
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 195 
 of  32  percent  off  its  retail  rate  for  resold  service  to  residential  customers.  1114 
 389.  SWBT  also  states  that  it  makes  its  retail  telecommunications  services  available  for 
 resale  without  unreasonable  or  discriminatory  conditions  or  limitations.  1115  The  Texas 
 Commission  agrees.  1116  According  to  SWBT,  the  telecommunications  services  it  offers  competing 
 carriers  for  resale  are  identical  to  the  services  it  furnishes  its  own  retail  customers,  and  competing 
 carriers  are  able  to  sell  these  services  to  the  same  customer  groups,  in  the  same  manner.  1117 
 Competing  carriers  may  also  take  over  existing  contracts  by  purchasing  CSAs  without  triggering 
 termination  liability  charges  or  contract  transfer  fees  to  the  end  user.  1118  SWBT  permits 
 competing  carriers  that  resell  CSAs  to  meet  minimum  volume  requirements  by  aggregating  the 
 traffic  of  multiple  end-  user  customers,  provided  that  those  customers  are  similarly  situated  to  the 
 customer(  s)  of  SWBTs  original  contract.  1119 


 390.  SWBTs  case  withstands  the  arguments  of  its  opponents.  We  are  not  persuaded 
 by  the  National  ALEC  Association/  Prepaid  Communications  Association  (NALA)  s 
 unsubstantiated  contention  that  SWBTs  resale  contracts  contain  onerous  contract  terms.  1120 
 Specifically,  NALA  asserts  that  SWBTs  resale  contracts:  indemnify  SWBT  against  resellers 
 customer  claims,  limiting  that  liability  to  a  credit  or  refund  if  SWBT  negligently  performs  its  resale 
 services;  lack  meaningful  penalties  if  SWBT  fails  to  perform  its  contract  obligations;  make 
 resellers  responsible  for  all  sales  and  related  taxes;  compel  arbitration  rather  than  litigation  in 
 cases  of  dispute;  fail  to  guarantee  that  SWBTs  third-  party  vendor  arrangements  will  not  result  in 
 higher  reseller  fees;  permit  SWBT  to  terminate  reseller  agreements  on  an  annual  basis;  and  require 
 large  deposits  from  resellers.  1121  The  Texas  Commission  provides  multiple  procedural  vehicles  to 
 address  such  concerns,  and  NALA  should  have  first  raised  these  concerns  there,  preferably  when 


 1114  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  120;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  at  Aff.  para.  132.  See  also  SBC/  Ameritech 
 Merger  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  14712,  App.  C,  Conditions  at  15,018-  19,  paras.  47-  49.  These  carrier-  to-  carrier 
 promotions  were  created  as  a  result  of  the  SBC/  Ameritech  merger.  We  concluded  in  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger 
 Order  that  such  promotions  are  beneficial  because  they  encourage  the  rapid  development  of  local  competition  in 
 residential  and  less  dense  areas.  Id.  at  14874,  para.  390.  Additionally,  we  found  that  the  promotions  are  not 
 discriminatory  because  they  are  offered  to  competitors  in  a  nondiscriminatory  fashion,  allowing  all  competitive 
 LECs  in  SBC/  Ameritechs  region  to  participate.  Id.  at  14916,  para.  497. 


 1115  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  20. 


 1116  Texas  I  Commission  Comments  at  91-  92. 
 1117  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  120;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  133-  34. 
 1118  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  133. 
 1119  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  121;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  paras.  133-  34. 
 1120  NALA  Texas  I  Comments  at  7-  10. 
 1121  Id. 
195
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 196 
 it  was  contemplating  entering  into  the  contracts.  1122  For  example,  if  NALA  does  not  care  for  one 
 of  SWBTs  contract  provisions,  it  may  negotiate  or  arbitrate  such  provision,  or  otherwise  work 
 with  the  Texas  Commission  to  find  an  interim  solution  until  a  final  resolution  is  reached.  1123 
 Additionally,  NALA  has  not  produced  evidence  to  substantiate  its  claim.  We  therefore  find  that 
 SWBTs  application  withstands  this  allegation. 


 391.  Nor  are  we  persuaded  by  NALAs  argument  that  SWBTs  resale-  related  OSS 
 charges  are  discriminatory.  NALA  resells  SWBTs  local  service  to  residential  customers  with 
 poor  credit  histories  in  the  form  of  prepaid,  flat-  rate  local  telephone  service.  1124  SWBT  offers  a 
 virtually  identical  prepaid  package.  1125  NALA  alleges  that  SWBT  offers  its  prepaid  home  service 
 at  a  price  below  what  NALA  .  .  .  members  charge,  and  that  it  appears  that  this  rate  does  not 
 impute  all  the  charges  that  SBCs  competitors  must  pay.  1126  Specifically,  NALA  contends  that 
 SWBT  charges  Texas  resellers  OSS  costs,  and  that  it  is  far  from  clear  whether  these  OSS 
 charges  are  included  in  SBCs  rates  for  its  Prepaid  Home  Service.  1127  SWBT  responds  that  the 
 charge  NALA  refers  to  is  not  OSS.  1128  Rather,  it  is  a  conversion  order  charge  that  SWBT 
 assesses  when  a  competing  carrier  converts  existing  SWBT  retail  POTS  service  into  a  resold 
 service.  1129  Alternately,  SWBT  assesses  a  service  connection  charge  when  a  competing  carrier 
 establishes  a  new  service  using  resold  SWBT  service.  1130  The  service  connection  charge,  SWBT 
 asserts,  is  the  same  charge  it  assesses  its  retail  customers,  but  resellers  receive  a  21.6  per  cent 
 discount.  1131  SWBT  asserts  that  these  charges  recover  the  cost  of  customer  service  labor 
 associated  with  processing  service  orders.  1132  The  Texas  Commission  has  authorized  both  of 
 these  charges.  1133  SWBT  also  disputes  NALAs  assertion  that  it  cannot  compete  with  SWBT  for 


 1122  See,  e.  g.,  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.,  Attach.  A,  T2A,  General  Terms  and  Conditions  at    9.  0  (Dispute 
 Resolution). 
 1123  Id. 


 1124  NALA  Texas  I  Comments  at  5. 
 1125  Id. 
 1126  Id. 
 1127  Id. 
 1128  Letter  from  Austin  C.  Schlick,  Kellogg,  Huber,  Hansen,  Todd  &  Evans,  P.  L.  L.  C.,  Counsel  to  SBC,  to  Magalie 
 Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  4  (filed  March  17,  2000) 
 (Schlick  March  17  Ex  Parte  Letter),  Attach.  2  at  1. 


 1129  Id. 


 1130  Id. 
 1131  Id. 
 1132  Id. 
 1133  Id. 
196
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 197 
 prepaid  home  telephone  service  because  SWBT  is  able  to  underprice  the  service.  1134  SWBT  notes 
 that  resellers  may  purchase  its  prepaid  home  telephone  service  for  resale  at  a  discount  of  either 
 21.6  per  cent  or  32  per  cent.  1135  Alternatively,  resellers  may  purchase  SWBTs  POTS,  along  with 
 those  options  that  constitute  a  prepaid  home  service  option  identical  to  SWBTs,  at  a  discount.  1136 
 We  find  that  NALA  provides  insufficient  information  to  show  that  SWBTs  service  offering  is 
 discriminatory.  1137 


 392.  We  find  unpersuasive  the  claims  of  Adelphia,  1138  Allegiance,  1139  e.  spire,  1140  and 
 KMC  1141  that  the  Commission  should  allow  customers  in  long-  term  contracts  to  switch  to 
 competing  telecommunications  carriers  without  termination  penalties  under  a  fresh  look 
 argument.  These  commenters  assert  that  their  customers  are  reluctant  to  change  carriers  if  they 
 are  required  to  pay  termination  penalties.  1142  SWBT  responds  that  competitive  LECs  may  resell 
 its  CSAs  without  triggering  termination  liability  to  the  end  user.  1143  Additionally,  the  Commission 
 has  previously  held  that  although  termination  liabilities  could,  in  certain  circumstances,  be 
 unreasonable  or  anticompetitive,  they  do  not  on  their  face  cause  a  carrier  to  fail  checklist  item  14.  1144  The  Commission  further  found  that  the  absence  of  a  fresh  look  requirement  is  not  a  basis 


 for  rejecting  a  section  271  application.  1145  KMC  contends  that  the  Commission  should  impose  a 
 fresh  look  requirement  on  public  interest  grounds,  that  is,  as  part  of  our  analysis  under  section 
 271(  d)(  3)(  C).  1146  We  note  that  KMC  raised  an  identical  issue  in  a  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling, 
 which  is  currently  pending.  1147  We  find,  as  we  did  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  that  this 


 1134  Id.  at  1-  2. 
 1135  Id. 
 1136  Id.  NALA  states  that  its  members  purchase  SWBTs  POTS  for  resale.  NALA  Texas  I  Comments  at  2-  3. 
 1137  See  section  V.  D.  2  for  a  discussion  of  TRAs  assertion  that  SWBT  does  not  make  xDSL  services  available  to 
 resellers  at  wholesale  rates. 
 1138  Adelphia  Texas  I  Comments  at  1-  2. 


 1139  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  20-  23;  Allegiance  Texas  II  Comments  at  2. 
 1140  e.  spire  Texas  I  Comments  at  7-  10. 
 1141  KMC  Texas  I  Comments  at  2-  4. 
 1142  See,  e.  g.,  KMC  Texas  I  Comments  at  2. 
 1143  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  121;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh  Aff.  at  para.  133;  SWBT  Texas  I  Auinbauh 
 Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  49-  50. 
 1144  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4147-  48,  paras.  389-  390. 


 1145  Id. 
 1146  KMC  Texas  I  Comments  at  3-  4. 
197
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 198 
 issue  is  best  addressed  in  the  context  of  that  pending  petition,  and  we  decline  to  resolve  the  issue 
 here.  1148  In  any  event,  our  resolution  of  this  issue  would  not  cast  doubt  on  SWBTs  overall 
 compliance  with  checklist  item  14  because  SWBT  meets  our  existing  resale  requirements. 


 393.  Provisioning.  Based  on  evidence  in  the  record,  we  find  that  SWBT  satisfies  the 
 provisioning  requirements  of  checklist  item  14.  As  discussed  above,  SWBT  is  provisioning 
 competitive  LECs  orders  for  resale  in  substantially  the  same  time  and  manner  as  for  its  retail 
 customers.  1149 


 VI.  SECTION  272  COMPLIANCE 
 A.  Background 
 394.  Section  271(  d)(  3)(  B)  requires  that  the  Commission  shall  not  approve  a  BOCs 
 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.  1150  The 
 Commission  set  standards  for  compliance  with  section  272  in  the  Accounting  Safeguards  Order 
 and  the  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order.  1151  Together,  these  safeguards  discourage  and 
 facilitate  the  detection  of  improper  cost  allocation  and  cross-  subsidization  between  the  BOC  and 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  1147 
 See  In  re  Establishment  of  Rules  to  Prohibit  the  Imposition  of  Unjust,  Onerous  Termination  Penalties  on 
 Customers  Choosing  to  Partake  of  the  Benefits  of  Local  Exchange  Telecommunications  Competition,  Petition  for 
 Declaratory  Ruling,  CC  Docket  No.  99-  142  (filed  Apr.  26,  1999)  (requesting  that  the  Commission  declare  unlawful 
 termination  penalties  imposed  by  incumbent  LECs,  to  prohibit  enforcement  of  incumbent  LEC  termination 
 penalties,  and  to  require  the  removal  of  incumbent  LEC  termination  penalties  from  state  tariffs  until  more 
 competition  develops). 


 1148  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4148,  para.  391. 


 1149  See  sections  V.  B.  1  and  2,  supra. 
 1150  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  B). 
 1151  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),  affd  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). 
198
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 199 
 its  section  272  affiliate.  1152  In  addition,  these  safeguards  ensure  that  BOCs  do  not  discriminate  in 
 favor  of  their  section  272  affiliates.  1153 


 395.  As  we  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.  1154  The  Commissions 
 findings  regarding  section  272  compliance  constitute  independent  grounds  for  denying  an 
 application.  1155  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.  1156 


 B.  Discussion 
 396.  Based  on  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  it  will  comply 
 with  the  requirements  of  section  272.  We  address  each  section  272  requirement  below. 


 1.  Structural,  Transactional,  and  Accounting  Requirements  of  Section 
 272 


 397.  Section  272(  a)    Separate  Affiliate.  Section  272(  a)  requires  BOCs  and  their  local 
 exchange  carrier  affiliates  that  are  subject  to  section  251(  c)  to  provide  certain  competitive 
 services  through  structurally  separate  affiliates.  1157  For  the  reasons  described  in  the  subsequent 
 section  below,  we  conclude  that  SBC  demonstrates  that  it  will  operate  in  accordance  with  section 
 272(  a). 


 398.  The  parent  company,  SBC  Communications,  Inc.,  has  established  one  primary 
 section  272  affiliate  to  provide  in-  region  interLATA  services  in  Texas  upon  gaining  section  271 
 approval:  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.  (  SBCS),  which  does  business  as 
 Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance.  1158  At  this  time,  SBCS  conducts  no  business  aside  from  the 


 1152  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. 
 1153  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21914,  paras.  15-  16;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC 


 Rcd  at  20725,  para.  346. 
 1154  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20725;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4153,  para. 


 402. 
 1155  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20785-  20786  at  para.  322;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order, 


 15  FCC  Rcd  at  4153,  para.  402. 
 1156  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4153,  para.  402. 


 1157  Section  272(  a)  states  that  a  BOC  may  not  provide  certain  services  except  through  one  or  more  affiliates  that 
 meet  the  requirements  of  section  272(  b).  See  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  a)(  1)(  B). 
 1158  For  the  purposes  of  its  application  to  provide  in-  region  interLATA  services  in  Texas,  we  only  address  SWBTs 


 section  272  showing  with  respect  to  one  affiliate,  SBCS.  We  note  that  SWBT  has  several  other  section  272 
 (continued.) 
199
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 200 
 companys  calling  card  operations.  Once  earning  section  271  approval,  SBCS  plans  to  provide 
 in-  region  interLATA  services  in  Texas  by  reselling  wholesale  network  services  of  one  or  more 
 unaffiliated  providers.  1159  In  its  application,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  has  implemented  internal 
 control  mechanisms  reasonably  designed  to  prevent,  as  well  as  detect  and  correct,  any 
 noncompliance  with  section  272.  1160 


 399.  Section  272(  b)(  1)    Operate  Independently.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record, 
 SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  its  section  272  affiliate  will  comply  with  section  272(  b)(  1),  which 
 requires  a  section  272  affiliate  to  operate  independently  from  the  Bell  operating  company.  1161 
 The  Commission  has  interpreted  the  operate  independently  requirement  to  impose  four 
 important  restrictions  on  the  ownership  and  operations  of  a  BOC  and  its  section  272  affiliate:  (1) 
 no  joint  ownership  of  switching  and  transmission  facilities;  (2)  no  joint  ownership  of  the  land  and 
 buildings  on  which  switching  and  transmission  facilities  are  located;  (3)  no  provision  by  the  BOC 
 (or  other  non-  section  272  affiliate)  of  operation,  installation,  and  maintenance  services  (OI&  M) 
 with  respect  to  the  section  272  affiliates  facilities;  and  (4)  no  provision  of  OI&  M  by  the  section 
 272  affiliate  with  respect  to  the  BOCs  facilities.  We  note  that  our  review  of  SBCSs  Internet 
 postings,  as  well  as  SWBTs  cost  allocation  manual  (CAM)  and  independent  auditors  reports, 
 support  our  finding. 


 400.  Section  272(  b)(  2)    Books,  Records,  and  Accounts.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the 
 record,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  section  272  affiliate  will  comply  with  the  its  requirement  to 
 maintain  books,  records,  and  accounts  in  a  manner  prescribed  by  the  Commission  which  shall  be 
 separate  from  the  books,  records,  and  accounts  maintained  by  the  [BOCs].  1162  Although  initially 
 unclear  whether  the  section  272  affiliate  maintained  its  books,  records,  and  accounts  in 
 accordance  with  Generally  Accepted  Accounting  Principles  (GAAP),  SWBT  submitted 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 affiliates  as  a  result  of  its  mergers:  Southern  New  England  Telephone  Enhanced  Services,  Inc.  (SNET  Enhanced 
 Services);  Ameritech  Communications,  Inc.  (ACI);  Ameritech  Communications,  Inc.  of  Illinois  (ACoI);  and 
 Ameritech  Communications,  Inc.  of  Wisconsin  (ACoW).  Our  findings  do  not  apply  to  Advanced  Services,  Inc. 
 (ASI)  because  ASI  is  not  a  section  272  affiliate.  See  Rhythms  Comments  at  62-  63.  For  a  complete  description  of 
 SWBTs  corporate  affiliates  and  an  organizational  chart,  see  SBC  Communications,  Inc.,  COST  ALLOCATION 
 MANUAL,    IV  (Dec.  16,  1999). 


 1159  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  para.  20. 


 1160  SWBT  Application  at  69-  70;  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  paras.  51-  57  (describing  SWBTs  section  272  compliance 
 efforts,  such  as  a  centralized  Oversight  Team,  corporate  policies,  and  training  programs),  Attach.  E  (submitting 
 corporate  memoranda  outlining  section  272  compliance  requirements),  F  (submitting  corporate  memoranda 
 describing  compliance  oversight  team),  and  G  (submitting  section  272  training  video),  and  H  (submitting  corporate 
 section  272  compliance  program);  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  para.  70,  Attach.  U  (submitting  compliance  policy  of 
 SBCS).  In  addition,  SWBT  states  that  it  will  provide  refresher  training  on  section  272  compliance  upon  earning 
 section  271  approval.  SWBT  Application  at  69-  70. 


 1161  SWBT  Application  at  63-  64  (citing  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  paras.  9-  19;  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  paras.  17-  21). 


 1162  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  b)(  2);  47  C.  F.  R.  53.203(  b);  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17617-  18,  para. 
 167;  Second  BellSouth  Lousiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20786-  89,  paras.  323-  29;  see  SWBT  Application  at  64. 
200
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 201 
 additional  evidence  to  demonstrate  consistency  with  GAAP  and  compliance  with  the 
 Commissions  rules.  1163  In  addition,  we  note  that  no  party  challenges  SWBTs  showing. 


 401.  Section  272(  b)(  3)    Separate  Officers,  Directors,  and  Employees.  Based  on  the 
 evidence  in  the  record,  SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  its  section  272  affiliate  will  comply  with  the 
 separate  officers,  directors,  and  employees  requirement  of  section  272(  b)(  3).  1164  We  note  that 
 no  party  challenges  SWBTs  showing. 


 402.  Section  272(  b)(  4)    Credit  Arrangements.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record, 
 SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  its  section  272  affiliate  will  comply  with  section  272(  b)(  4),  which 
 prevents  a  section  272  affiliate  from  obtaining  credit  under  any  arrangement  that  would  permit  a 
 creditor,  upon  default,  to  have  recourse  to  the  assets  of  [any  SBC  BOC].  1165  We  note  that  no 
 party  challenges  SWBTs  showing. 


 403.  Section  272(  b)(  5)    Affiliate  Transactions.  Based  on  our  review  of  its  application, 
 we  conclude  that  SBC  demonstrates  that  it  will  comply  with  the  arms  length  and  public 
 disclosure  requirements  of  section  272(  b)(  5)  for  transactions  between  its  BOCs  and  its  section 
 272  affiliate.  1166  Section  272(  b)(  5)  requires  that  a  section  272  affiliate  conduct  all  transactions 
 with  its  affiliated  BOCs  on  an  arms  length  basis,  with  all  such  transactions  reduced  to  writing  and 
 made  publicly-  available.  1167  Consistent  with  the  Commissions  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  all 
 transactions  between  SWBTs  section  272  affiliates  and  any  affiliated  BOC  are  posted  on  the 


 1163  SWBT  Ex  parte  (Jan.  19,  2000).  In  its  ex  parte  filing,  SWBT  stated  that  it  section  272  affiliate  shares  its  chart 
 of  accounts  with  other  non-  BOC  SBC  affiliates.  In  addition,  SWBT  describes  the  security  measures  and  other 
 internal  controls  to  show  restricted  access  to  the  books,  records,  and  accounts  of  its  section  272  affiliate.  See 
 SWBT  Larkin  Aff.  at  paras.  9-  12. 


 1164  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  b)(  3);  47  C.  F.  R.    53.203(  c);  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20730-  31,  para. 


 360;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20789-  90,  paras.  329-  30;  SWBT  Application  at  64; 
 SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  para.  19,  Attach.  B  (submitting  names  of  corporate  officers  and  directors);  SWBT  Weckel 
 Aff.  at  paras.  31-  41,  Attach.  D-  Q  (listing  names  of  relevant  officers  and  directors),  Attach.  R  (submitting  corporate 
 policy  prohibiting  loans  of  employees). 


 1165  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  b)(  4);  47  C.  F.  R.    53.203(  d);  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21995, 


 paras.  189-  90;  see  SWBT  Application  at  65;  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  paras.  42-  44;  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  paras.  at 
 20-  21. 


 1166  Because  SBC  Communications  owns  and  controls  eight  BOCs  (i.  e.,  SWBT,  Pacific  Bell,  Nevada  Bell,  and  the 


 five  Ameritech  Operating  Companies)  and  a  total  of  five  section  272  affiliates,  we  clarify  that  our  analysis  in  this 
 order  is  limited  only  to  SWBT,  which  is  the  BOC  operating  in  Texas,  and  SBCS,  which  is  the  section  272  affiliate 
 through  which  SBC  Communications  plans  to  provide  in-  region  interLATA  services  in  Texas.  We  note,  however, 
 that  SBC  must  comply  with  all  section  272  safeguards  with  respect  to  any  transactions  between  any  SBC-  owned  or 
 controlled  BOC  and  any  section  272  affiliate.  This  would  require,  for  example,  SBCS  to  ensure  that  any 
 transactions  with  Pacific  Bell  or  the  Ameritech  operating  companies  are  reduced  to  writing  and  made  available  for 
 public  inspection  in  accordance  with  the  Commissions  rules.  See  ARMIS  43-  02  USOA  Report,  Table  I-  2 
 (demonstrating  that  Pacific  Bell  provided  SBCS  with  approximately  $5.27  million  worth  of  services  in  1999). 


 1167  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  b)(  5);  47  C.  F.  R.    53.203(  e). 
201
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 202 
 companys  Internet  homepage  within  10  days  of  the  transaction.  1168  To  ensure  that  all 
 transactions  occur  at  arms  length,  SWBT  must  abide  by  the  Commissions  affiliate  transactions 
 rules.  1169  As  noted  in  previous  Orders  addressing  section  271  applications,  the  Commission 
 evaluates  the  sufficiency  of  a  BOCs  Internet  disclosures  by  referring  to  its  ARMIS  filings,  its  cost 
 allocation  manuals  (CAMs),  and  its  CAM  audit  workpapers.  1170 


 404.  SWBT  persuades  us  that  its  section  272  affiliate  will  comply  with  the  section 
 272(  b)(  5)  public  disclosure  requirements,  including  the  obligation  to  post  all  transactions  between 
 the  BOC  and  its  section  272  affiliate  within  10  days  of  the  transaction.  1171  Although  our 
 preliminary  analysis  revealed  a  potentially  significant  discrepancy  between  the  relevant  Internet 
 disclosures  and  SWBTs  accounting  data,  SWBT  adequately  demonstrated  that  the  discrepancies 
 did  not  adversely  impact  the  timely  posting  of  information  on  the  Internet.  1172  We  further  note 
 that,  for  certain  transactions,  SWBT  provided  additional  assurances  to  show  that  it  met  its 
 obligations  under  section  272(  b)(  5).  1173  Finally,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  its  section  272  affiliate 


 1168  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17593-  94,  para.  122;  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd 
 at  20734-  37,  paras.  366-  73;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20790-  95,  paras.  331-  40. 
 1169  See  47  C.  F.  R.    32.27;  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17616-  17,  para.  166;  see  Second 


 BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20790-  95,  paras.  331-  39. 
 1170  See  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20791-  92,  para.  335;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at 


 paras.  411-  12.  In  their  Automated  Reporting  Management  Information  System  (ARMIS)  reports,  the  BOCs 
 provide  summary  information  about  their  transactions  with  nonregulated  affiliates.  See  ARMIS  43-  02  USOA 
 Report,  Table  I-  2,  B-  4.  In  their  CAMs,  the  BOCs  disclose  the  nature,  terms,  and  frequency  of  their  anticipated 
 affiliate  transactions.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.903;  see  also  SBC  Communications,  Inc.,  COST  ALLOCATION  MANUAL,   
 V  (Dec.  16,  1999).  Pursuant  to  the  Commissions  Part  64  accounting  safeguards,  all  the  BOCs  receive  annual 
 audits  of  their  ARMIS  data  performed  by  an  independent  auditor.  47  C.  F.  R.    64.904.  In  addition,  the 
 Commission  regularly  reviews  the  CAMs  and  the  audit  materials  related  to  the  independent  audits,  which  show  the 
 actual  dollar  amount  of  affiliate  transactions  that  occurred  during  the  audited  period. 


 1171  SWBT  Application  at  65;  SWBT  Larkin  Aff.  at  paras.  15-  24;  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  paras.  45-  70;  see  ARMIS 


 43-  02  USOA  Report,  Table  I-  2  (demonstrating  that  SWBT  provided  SBCS  with  approximately  $  3.  44  million 
 worth  of  services  in  1999). 


 1172  SWBT  Ex  parte  (Mar.  3,  2000).  To  review  an  applicants  showing  for  section  272(  b)(  5),  the  Commission 


 examines  publicly-  available  accounting  and  financial  data,  as  well  as  confidential  material  obtained  through  the 
 course  of  routine  audits  of  a  BOCs  Part  64  CAM.  Our  preliminary  review  of  these  materials  revealed  a  potential 
 discrepancy  between  the  dollar  amounts  of  certain  services  posted  on  the  Internet  and  disclosed  through  the  audit 
 materials.  In  response  to  Commission  inquiry,  SWBT  explained  that  there  is  a  lag  time  in  the  true-  up  process  it 
 uses  to  reconcile  its  accounting  records,  more  detailed  billing  records,  and  its  Internet  postings.  More  importantly, 
 SWBT  demonstrated  that  the  transactions  at  issue  were  properly  posted,  and  that  the  discrepancy  applied  only  to 
 the  total  dollar  value  of  the  services.  We  therefore  conclude  that  the  discrepancy  did  not  affect  the  fundamental 
 showing  of  compliance  with  the  section  272(  b)(  5)  disclosure  requirements. 


 1173  SWBT  Ex  parte  (Mar.  7,  2000)  (submitting  additional  information  to  show  that  SBCS  posted  the  transfer  of 


 $25  million  worth  of  switching  equipment  to  the  BOC). 
202
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 203 
 meets  the  Commissions  10-  day  posting  requirement  and  maintains  an  audit  trail  of  past  Internet 
 postings.  1174 


 405.  Although  we  are  concerned  about  the  specific  examples  cited  by  AT&  T,  we 
 conclude  that  the  Internet  disclosures  of  SWBTs  section  272  affiliate  are,  on  the  whole, 
 sufficiently  detailed  to  evaluate  compliance  with  the  Commissions  rules  and  to  facilitate  the 
 detection  of  potential  anticompetitive  conduct.  1175  As  AT&  T  points  out,  however,  the  Internet 
 posting  for  Temporary  Projects  services  provided  by  SBC  to  its  section  272  affiliate  fails  to 
 provide  a  comprehensible  description  of  the  services  at  issue,  1176  and  several  other  Internet 
 postings  contain  a  similar  lack  of  detail.  1177  Despite  these  flaws,  our  in-  depth  review  of  the 
 relevant  Internet  disclosures  shows  that  the  majority  contain  sufficient  detail,  as  specified  in  the 
 Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  the  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  and  the  Second  BellSouth 
 Louisiana  Order.  1178  Finally,  we  note  that  SWBTs  Internet  postings  will  undergo  a  thorough  and 
 systematic  review  in  the  section  272(  d)  biennial  audit,  which  will  ensure  that  any  failure  to  post 
 sufficient  detail  are  identified  in  time  for  appropriate  remedial  action. 


 406.  Based  on  the  record  evidence,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  will 
 comply  with  the  affiliate  transactions  rules,  which  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  all  transactions 
 between  a  BOC  and  its  section  272  affiliate  comply  with  the  statutory  arms  length  requirement.  1179  Our  review  of  SWBTs  ARMIS  data,  its  CAM,  its  independent  auditors 


 workpapers,  and  the  Internet  disclosures  supports  SWBTs  showing  of  compliance  with  the 
 affiliate  transactions  rules.  Neither  the  Commissions  review  of  SWBTs  accounting  information 
 nor  the  audits  conducted  by  independent  auditors  have  revealed  discrepancies  with  SWBTs 
 corporate  accounting  procedures  for  affiliate  transactions  in  the  past  three  years.  We  note  that 
 the  section  272(  d)  joint  Federal-  State  audit  will  provide  an  appropriate  mechanism  for  detecting 
 potential  anticompetitive  or  otherwise  improper  conduct. 


 407.  As  a  final  matter,  we  are  concerned  about  the  confidentiality  agreement  raised  by 


 1174  Id. 
 1175  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  paras.  17-  23. 
 1176  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  para.  21  (citing  SWBT  Temporary  Projects  at 
 <http://  www.  sbc.  com/  PublicAffairs/  PublicPolicy/  Regulatory/  affdocs/  1619-  2.doc>). 
 1177  See  id.  at  paras.  18-  20  (addressing  the  lack  of  detail  contained  in  Official  Communications  Services  and 


 General  Agreement  for  Support  Services). 
 1178  Almost  all  of  SBCSs  Internet  postings  contain  the  detail  required  by  the  Commissions  rules,  including  the 


 rates,  terms,  conditions,  frequency,  the  number  and  type  of  personnel,  and  the  level  of  expertise  of  the  personnel 
 performing  the  services.  See  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17593-  94,  para.  122;  Ameritech 
 Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20734-  37,  paras.  366-  73;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20790-  95,  paras.  331-  39;  see  also  SWBT  Reply  at  71. 


 1179  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20794-  95,  paras.  338-  40;  Accounting  Safeguards  Order, 


 11  FCC  Rcd  at  17592,  para.  119;  47  C.  F.  R.    32.27. 
203
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 204 
 AT&  T,  but  we  are  persuaded  that  the  agreement  does  not  preclude  a  showing  of  compliance  for 
 SWBT.  1180  AT&  T  argues  that  SWBTs  nondisclosure  agreement  1181  restricts  the  ability  of 
 unaffiliated  third  parties  to  obtain  information  about  affiliate  transactions  and  to  report  potential 
 noncompliance  to  the  appropriate  authorities.  1182  We  agree  with  AT&  T  that  restricting  third  party 
 access  to  regulatory  authorities  is  improper  and  that  SWBTs  nondisclosure  agreement  might 
 deter  unaffiliated  third  parties  from  notifying  the  Commission  about  potential  violations  of  our 
 rules.  SWBT  persuades  us,  however,  that  its  current  nondisclosure  agreement  has  not  adversely 
 affected  its  ability  to  comply  with  section  272(  b)(  5)  to  date  because  all  transactions  were  properly 
 posted  on  the  Internet.  1183  Competing  carriers  and  others  are  always  entitled  to  raise  potential 
 problem  areas  and  seek  redress  with  the  appropriate  authorities,  and  that  a  BOC  should  not 
 attempt  to  restrict  such  rights  through  nondisclosure  agreements  or  other  means. 


 408.  Section  272(  c)(  2)    Accounting  Principles.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record, 
 SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  accounts  for  all  transactions  with  its  section  272  affiliates  in 
 accordance  with  the  accounting  principles  designated  or  approved  by  the  Commission.  1184  In  the 
 Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  the  Commission  concluded  that  complying  with  the  Part  32 
 affiliate  transactions  rules  satisfies  the  accounting  requirements  of  section  272(  c),  which  pertain  to 
 the  BOCs  dealings  with  its  separate  affiliate.  We  agree  with  SBC  that  its  section  272  affiliates 
 may  share  services  (except  OI&  M)  provided  to  its  affiliated  BOCs  by  a  shared  services  affiliate, 
 but  we  emphasize  that  such  services  are  subject  to  the  appropriate  non-  structural  safeguards.  1185 


 409.  Section  272(  d)    Biennial  Audit.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we 
 conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  will  comply  with  section  272(  d),  which  requires  an 
 independent  audit  of  a  BOCs  compliance  with  section  272  after  receiving  interLATA 


 1180  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  paras.  32-  37. 
 1181  See  SWBT  Larkin  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  8. 
 1182  AT&  T  Kargoll  Decl.  at  paras.  32,  36-  37  (citing  SWBT  Larkin  Aff.  at  Attachment  C,  para.  5).  Specifically, 
 SWBT  requires  third  parties  to  sign  a  nondisclosure  agreement  in  order  to  review  SWBTs  detailed  billing 
 information.  See  AT&  T  Kargoll  Decl.  at  para.  32.  SWBTs  nondisclosure  agreement,  however,  prohibits  any 
 party  that  identifies  potential  discrimination  from  disclosing  the  evidence  to  a  regulatory  agency  until  SWBT  has 
 had  30  days  to  explain  and/  or  make  any  changes.  Id.  at  para.  36. 


 1183  SWBT  Larkin  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  8  (stating  that  the  nondisclosure  agreement  has  addressed  two  third  party 


 reviews  of  the  Internet  postings,  and  that  neither  such  review  has  resulted  in  complaints  to  regulatory  agencies). 
 1184  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  c)(  2). 


 1185  SWBT  has  a  shared  services  affiliate  that  provides  services  to  members  of  the  corporate  family.  SWBT 
 Rehmer  Aff.  at  para.  29,  Attach.  C  (describing  services  provided  by  SWBTs  shared  services  affiliate  to  the  SWBT 
 section  272  affiliate).  The  Commissions  accounting  safeguards  allow  certain  accounting  treatment  for  services 
 provided  by  a  shared  services  affiliate  to  members  of  the  corporate  family,  so  long  as  the  shared  services  affiliate 
 only  conducts  business  with  members  of  the  corporate  family.  See  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at 
 17607-  608,  para.  148. 
204
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 205 
 authorization.  1186  The  section  272(  d)  biennial  audit  involves  a  thorough  and  systematic  evaluation 
 of  a  BOCs  compliance  with  section  272  and  its  affiliate  relationships  performed  by  an 
 independent  auditor  working  under  the  direction  of  the  Commission  and  state  commissions.  1187  As 
 noted  in  the  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  once  a  BOC  obtains  section  271  approval,  the  Chief 
 of  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  will  form  a  joint  Federal/  State  audit  team  to  review  the  conduct  of 
 the  audit  and  oversee  the  activities  of  the  independent  auditor.  1188  We  view  the  active 
 participation  of  the  state  commissions  as  critical  to  the  success  of  the  biennial  audit  at  ensuring  a 
 BOCs  compliance  with  section  272.  As  noted  in  previous  orders,  the  section  272(  d)  biennial 
 audit  entails  an  examination  into  a  BOCs  affiliate  relationships  to  ensure  the  company  does  not 
 use  its  corporate  affiliates  as  improper  tools  for  circumventing  statutory  obligations.  1189  We  stress 
 that  a  BOC  cannot  circumvent  legal  and  regulatory  requirements  through  its  affiliate  structure.  1190 


 a.  Nondiscrimination  Safeguards  of  Section  272 
 410.  Section  272(  c)(  1)    Nondiscrimination  Safeguards.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the 
 record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  will  comply  with  section  272(  c)(  1),  which 
 prohibits  a  BOC  from  discriminating  in  favor  of  its  section  272  affiliates  in  the  provision  or 
 procurement  of  goods,  services,  facilities,  and  information,  or  in  the  establishment  of  standards.  1191  The  Commissions  nondiscrimination  safeguards  require  a  BOC  to,  among  other 


 things,  provide  to  unaffiliated  entities  the  same  goods,  services,  facilities,  and  information  that  it 
 provides  to  its  section  272  affiliate  at  the  same  rates,  terms,  and  conditions.  1192  Our  review  of 
 SWBTs  internal  controls  and  standard  operating  procedures  shows  that  SWBT  requires  its 
 section  272  affiliate  to  adhere  to  the  same  procedures  for  obtaining  collocation  space  required  of 
 unaffiliated  third  parties,  and  that  SWBT  has  procedures  to  ensure  that  unaffiliated  entities  have 
 access  to  information  for,  among  other  things,  the  development  of  company-  internal  standards 


 1186  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  d);  47  C.  F.  R.    53.209-  213;  see  SWBT  Application  at  67-  68;  SWBT  Larkin  Aff.  at  paras.  38- 
 44;  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  paras.  71-  73. 
 1187  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  d)(  1). 


 1188  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17629,  para.  198. 
 1189  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  17631,  para.  203;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20794,  para.  338;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  416. 
 1190  See  Covad  Reply  at  19  (raising  concerns  about  the  relationship  between  SWBTs  affiliates). 


 1191  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  c)(  1);  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21997-  17,  para.  195;  Second 
 BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  20796-  800,  paras.  341-  50.  The  Commission  found  that  the 
 nondiscrimination  safeguards  extend  to  any  good,  service,  facility,  or  information  that  a  BOC  provides  to  its 
 section  272  affiliate,  including  administrative  services  and  other  non-  telecommunications  goods  and  services. 
 Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  22003-  04,  para.  210.  The  Commission  interprets  the  section 
 272(  c)  nondiscrimination  safeguards  broadly.  See  id.  at  22003,  22007,  22012,  22015-  016. 


 1192  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  22000-  01,  para.  202. 
205
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 206 
 and  processes.  1193  In  addition,  we  note  SWBTs  OSS  showing  demonstrates  that  it  meets  the 
 requirements  of  section  272(  c)(  1)  regarding  nondiscriminatory  provision  of  information.  1194 


 411.  Although  we  agree  with  AT&  T  that  section  272(  c)(  1)  establishes  an  unqualified 
 prohibition  against  discrimination,  we  find  that  its  arguments  regarding  SWBTs  proposed 
 intrastate  switched  access  tariffs  are  moot.  1195  In  its  comments,  AT&  T  contends  that  SWBTs 
 pricing  plan  for  swtiched  access  service  discriminates  against  larger  interexchange  carriers.  1196 
 The  Texas  Commission,  however,  rejected  SWBTs  proposed  intrastate  switched  access  tariff  as 
 unlawful  for  the  reasons  presented  by  AT&  T.  1197  Because  SWBTs  proposed  tariff  is  not  (and 
 will  not)  be  effective,  we  conclude  that  AT&  Ts  argument  regarding  a  violation  of  the  section 
 272(  c)(  1)  nondiscrimination  safeguards  is  moot. 


 412.  Section  272(  e)    Fulfillment  of  Certain  Requests.  Based  on  the  evidence  in  the 
 record,  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  will  comply  with  section  272(  e),  which  requires  SWBT  to 
 fulfill  requests  for,  among  other  things,  telephone  exchange  and  exchange  access  services  from 
 unaffiliated  entities  within  the  same  time  period  SWBT  fulfills  such  requests  for  its  own  retail 
 operations.  1198  In  addition,  section  272(  e)  also  provides  that  a  BOC  shall  not  provide  any 
 facilities,  services,  or  information  concerning  its  provision  of  exchange  access  to  the  [section  272 
 affiliate]  unless  such  facilities,  services  or  information  are  made  available  to  other  providers  of 
 interLATA  services  in  that  market  on  the  same  terms  and  conditions.  1199  Finally,  section  272(  e) 
 places  certain  accounting  and  nondiscrimination  requirements  on  BOCs  with  respect  to  exchange 
 access  and  facilities  or  services  provided  to  their  section  272  affiliates.  1200  Except  for  one  issue, 
 we  note  that  no  party  challenges  SWBTs  showing. 


 1193  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  paras.  17  (noting  that  SBCS  may  negotiate  at  arms  length  to  obtain  collocation  space), 
 31  (describing  procedures  for  the  establishment  of  company-  specific  standards),  Attach.  G  (addressing,  in  training 
 video,  procedures  for  collocation  and  establishing  interal  standards  for  products  and  services). 


 1194  See  discussion  supra  Sections  IV.  B.  1.  c,  e-  f;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  20799,  para.  346. 


 1195  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  para.  39  (citing  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21998,  para.  197). 
 1196  AT&  T  Comments  at  87;  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  para.  38,  n.  33.  AT&  T  contends  that  SWBTs  proposed 
 intrastate  switched  access  tariff  violated  the  nondiscrimination  safeguards  of  section  272(  c)(  1)  by  allowing  a  series 
 of  discounts  targetted  to  small  volume  interexchange  carriers.  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  paras.  338-  48. 


 1197  SWBT  Reply  at  74. 


 1198  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  e)(  1);  Non-  Accounting  Safeguards  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  22018-  22,  paras.  239-  45;  Second 
 BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20800-  01,  paras.  348-  50;  see  SWBT  Application  at  68-  69.  SWBT 
 demonstrates  that  it  will  provide  accurate  data  regarding  actual  service  intervals  so  that  unaffiliated  parties  can 
 evaluate  the  performance  SWBT  provides  itself  and  its  affiliates  and  compare  such  performance  to  the  service 
 quality  SWBT  provides  to  competing  carriers.  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  33-  39,  Attach.  D  (submitting  report  format 
 for  section  272(  e)(  1)  reporting  requirements). 


 1199  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  e)(  2). 


 1200  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  e)(  3),  (e)(  4);  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20802-  03,  paras.  353-  55;  see 
 SWBT  Application  at  68-  69;  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  paras.  40-  47;  SWBT  Larkin  Aff.  at  paras.  15-  24. 
206
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 207 
 413.  As  discussed  above  in  the  context  of  the  section  272(  c)(  1)  nondiscrimination 
 safeguards,  AT&  T  alleges  that  a  SWBT-  proposed  intrastate  switched  access  tariff  violates  the 
 nondiscrimination  safeguards  of  section  272(  e)(  3)  because  it  provides  volume  discounts  to  a 
 limited  number  of  interexchange  carriers.  1201  Although  AT&  T  correctly  points  out  that  the 
 Commissions  section  272(  e)(  3)  rules  require  a  BOC  to  make  volume  and  term  discounts 
 available  on  a  nondiscriminatory  basis  to  all  unaffiliated  interexchange  carriers,  its  argument  is 
 moot  because  the  Texas  Commission  rejected  SWBTs  proposed  intrastate  switched  access  tariffs 
 as  unlawful  for  the  reasons  presented  by  AT&  T.  1202  Because  SWBTs  proposed  tariff  is  not  (and 
 will  not)  be  effective,  we  conclude  that  AT&  Ts  argument  regarding  a  violation  of  the  section 
 272(  e)(  3)  nondiscrimination  safeguards  is  moot. 


 b.  Joint  Marketing  Provisions  of  Section  272 
 414.  Section  272(  g)(  1)    Affiliate  Sales  of  Telephone  Exchange  Access  Services. 
 Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  conclude  that  SWBT  has  demonstrated  that  it  will 
 comply  with  the  joint  marketing  provisions  of  section  272(  g)(  1).  1203  We  note  that  no  party 
 challenges  SWBTs  showing. 


 415.  Section  272(  g)(  2)    Bell  Operating  Company  Sales  of  Affiliate  Services.  We 
 conclude  that  SWBT  demonstrates  that  it  will  comply  with  section  272(  g)(  2),  which  prevents  a 
 BOC  from  marketing  or  selling  within  its  region  any  interLATA  service  provided  by  a  section  272 
 affiliate  absent  authorization  obtained  pursuant  to  section  271(  d).  1204  We  note  that  no  party 
 challenges  SWBTs  showing. 


 VII.  PUBLIC  INTEREST  ANALYSIS 
 A.  Overview 
 416.  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.  1205  We 
 conclude  that  approval  of  this  application  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  In  reaching  this 
 determination,  we  find  that  compliance  with  the  competitive  checklist  is  itself  a  strong  indicator 
 that  long  distance  entry  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  This  approach  reflects  the 


 1201  AT&  T  Kargoll  Aff.  at  para.  40. 
 1202  SWBT  Reply  at  74. 
 1203  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  g)(  1);  see  SWBT  Application  at  69;  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  para.  50;  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at 
 para.  80. 
 1204  47  U.  S.  C.    272(  g)(  2);  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20804,  para.  357;  see  SWBT 


 Application  at  69;  SWBT  Rehmer  Aff.  at  para.  50;  SWBT  Weckel  Aff.  at  para.  80. 
 1205  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  3)(  C). 
207
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 208 
 Commissions  many  years  of  experience  with  the  consumer  benefits  that  flow  from  competition  in 
 telecommunications  markets. 


 417.  Nonetheless,  the  public  interest  analysis  is  an  independent  element  of  the  statutory 
 checklist  and,  under  normal  canons  of  statutory  construction,  requires  an  independent 
 determination.  1206  Thus,  we  view  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,  we  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  this  application.  1207  Another  factor  that  could  be  relevant  to  our  analysis  is 
 whether  we  have  sufficient  assurance  that  markets  will  remain  open  after  grant  of  the  application. 
 While  no  one  factor  is  dispositive  in  this  analysis,  our  overriding  goal  is  to  ensure  that  nothing 
 undermines  our  conclusion,  based  on  our  analysis  of  checklist  compliance,  that  markets  are  open 
 to  competition.  As  discussed  below,  we  conclude  that  the  public  interest  would  be  met  by  grant 
 of  this  application. 


 418.  Finally,  we  note  that  a  strong  public  interest  showing  cannot  overcome  a  failure  to 
 demonstrate  compliance  with  one  or  more  checklist  items.  The  Commission  is  specifically  barred 
 from  limit[  ing]  .  .  .  the  terms  used  in  the  competitive  checklist,  1208  or  forbearing  from  requiring 
 compliance  with  all  statutory  conditions  under  section  271.  1209 


 B.  Competition  in  Local  Exchange  and  Long  Distance  Markets 
 419.  As  set  forth  below,  we  conclude  that  approval  of  this  application  is  consistent  with 
 promoting  competition  in  the  local  and  long  distance  telecommunications  markets.  Consistent 
 with  our  extensive  review  of  the  competitive  checklist,  which  embodies  the  critical  elements  of 
 market  entry  under  the  Act,  we  find  that  barriers  to  competitive  entry  in  the  local  market  have 
 been  removed  and  the  local  exchange  market  today  is  open  to  competition.  We  disagree  with 
 commenters  arguments  that  the  public  interest  would  be  disserved  by  granting  SWBTs 
 application  because  the  local  market  in  Texas  has  not  yet  truly  been  opened  to  competition.  1210 


 1206  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). 


 1207  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). 


 1208  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  4). 


 1209  47  U.  S.  C.    160(  d). 
 1210  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  89;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  57-  61;  Sprint  Texas  I  Comments 
 at  74-  78;  Sprint  Texas  II  Comments  at  48. 
208
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 209 
 Commenters  cite  an  array  of  evidence  which,  they  argue,  demonstrates  that  the  local 
 telecommunications  market  is  not  open  and  that  competition  has  not  sufficiently  taken  hold  in 
 Texas.  For  example,  commenters  allege  that  the  local  market  in  Texas  is  characterized  by:  the 
 low  percentage  of  total  access  lines  served  by  competitive  LECs;  1211  the  concentration  of 
 competition  in  Dallas,  Fort  Worth,  Houston  and  other  urban  areas;  1212  minimal  competition  for 
 residential  services;  1213  modest  facilities-  based  investment;  1214  and  prices  for  local  exchange  service 
 at  the  maximum  permissible  levels  under  the  price  caps.  1215  We  note  that  Congress  specifically 
 declined  to  adopt  a  market  share  or  other  similar  test  for  BOC  entry  into  long  distance,  and  we 
 have  no  intention  of  establishing  one  here.  1216  We  further  find  that  the  record  confirms  our  view, 
 as  noted  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  that  BOC  entry  into  the  long  distance  market  will 
 benefit  consumers  and  competition  if  the  relevant  local  exchange  market  is  open  to  competition 
 consistent  with  the  competitive  checklist.  1217 


 C.  Assurance  of  Future  Compliance 
 420.  As  set  forth  below,  we  find  that  SWBTs  performance  remedy  plan  provides 
 additional  assurance  that  the  local  market  will  remain  open  after  SWBT  receives  section  271 
 authorization.  The  Commission  previously  has  explained  that  one  factor  it  may  consider  as  part  of 
 its  public  interest  analysis  is  whether  a  BOC  would  continue  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  section 
 271  after  entering  the  long  distance  market.  1218  Although  the  Commission  strongly  encourages 
 state  performance  monitoring  and  post-  entry  enforcement,  we  have  never  required  BOC 
 applicants  to  demonstrate  that  they  are  subject  to  such  mechanisms  as  a  condition  of  section  271 
 approval.  1219  The  Commission  has  stated  that  the  fact  that  a  BOC  will  be  subject  to  performance 


 1211  See  Sprint  Texas  I  Comments  at  74-  78;  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  13;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  89; 
 WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  57-  61. 
 1212  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  89;  but  see  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  at  76. 


 1213  See  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  89;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  60;  Sprint  Texas  I  Comments  at  75-  76; 
 Sprint  Texas  II  Comments  at  48-  49. 
 1214  See  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  58-  59. 


 1215  Id.  at  61. 
 1216  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4163,  para.  427.  This  is  consistent  with  the  Commissions 
 approach  in  prior  section  271  orders.  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20585,  para.  77. 
 1217  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4164,  para.  428. 


 1218  See  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20806;  see  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20747. 
 1219  These  mechanisms  are  generally  administered  by  state  commissions  and  derive  from  authority  the  states  have 


 under  state  law  or  under  the  federal  Act.  As  such,  these  mechanisms  can  serve  as  critical  complements  to  the 
 Commissions  authority  to  preserve  checklist  compliance  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6).  Moreover,  in  this 
 instance,  we  find  that  the  extensive  collaborative  process  by  which  these  mechanisms  were  developed  and  modified 
 in  Texas  has  itself  helped  to  bring  SWBT  into  checklist  compliance. 
209
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 210 
 monitoring  and  enforcement  mechanisms  would  constitute  probative  evidence  that  the  BOC  will 
 continue  to  meet  its  section  271  obligations  and  that  its  entry  would  be  consistent  with  the  public 
 interest.  1220 


 421.  We  believe  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  state  monitoring  and  enforcement 
 mechanism  alone  provide  full  protection  against  potential  anti-  competitive  behavior  by  the 
 incumbent.  Most  significantly,  we  recognize  that  the  Commissions  enforcement  authority  under 
 section  271(  d)(  6)  already  provides  incentives  for  SWBT  to  ensure  continuing  compliance  with  its 
 section  271  obligations.  We  also  recognize  that  SWBT  may  be  subject  to  payment  of  liquidated 
 damages  through  many  of  its  individual  interconnection  agreements  with  competitive  carriers.  1221 
 Furthermore,  SWBT  risks  liability  through  antitrust  and  other  private  causes  of  action  if  it 
 performs  in  an  unlawfully  discriminatory  manner.  1222 


 1.  Performance  Remedy  Plan 
 422.  SWBTs  Performance  Remedy  Plan  is  part  of  the  T2A  standard  interconnection 
 contract  and  is  available  through  that  agreement.  1223  Under  the  Plan,  SWBT  monitors  131 
 performance  measurements  according  to  set  definitions  and  business  rules.  1224  The  Performance 
 Remedy  Plan  provides  for  two  classes  or  tiers  of  performance  penalties.  Tier-  1  penalties  apply 
 to  customer-  affecting  measurements,  such  as  how  long  it  takes  to  install  or  restore  service. 
 Penalties  for  failure  to  comply  with  standards  corresponding  to  these  performance  measurements 
 are  paid  to  competitive  LECs  receiving  the  substandard  performance  and  that  sign  the  T2A.  1225 
 Tier-  2  penalties  apply  to  competition-  affecting  measurements  such  as  OSS  availability,  and  are 
 paid  to  the  Texas  State  Treasury.  1226  For  both  tiers  the  penalties  accrue  per-  occurrence,  which 
 means  that  SWBTs  damages  or  fines  are  calculated  according  to  the  number  of  incidents  that 
 SWBT  delivers  non-  compliant  performance  for  a  particular  measurement.  1227  Each  measurement 
 also  is  ranked  low,  medium  or  high,  with  the  size  of  the  per-  occurrence  payment  tailored 
 accordingly.  Tier-  1  damages  are  assessed  if  a  performance  measure  is  out  of  compliance  for  a 


 1220  See  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  20806. 


 1221  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4165,  para.  430.  The  Commissions  enforcement  powers 
 include,  among  other  penalties,  suspension  or  revocation  of  section  271  approval.  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6)(  A). 
 1222  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4165,  para.  430;  SWBT  Texas  I  Application  at  45-  47. 


 1223  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  25. 
 1224  Since  the  Texas  I  Application  was  filed  more  measurements  have  been  added,  notably  in  measuring 
 performance  relating  to  DSL-  capable  loops  and  interconnection.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  ex  parte  letter  of 
 June  19,  2000  at  1-  5;  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  1-  3. 


 1225  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  46. 


 1226  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  46.  The  performance  measurements  in  the  two  tiers  overlap  substantially, 
 with  41  of  the  47  Tier-  2  measurements  also  counted  as  Tier-  1  measurements.  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at 
 86. 


 1227  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  Attach.  H  at  9. 
210
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 211 
 single  month,  but  Tier-  2  fines  apply  only  if  a  measurement  is  missed  for  three  consecutive  months.  1228 
 2.  Key  Elements  of  the  Enforcement  Plan 
 423.  Although  the  details  of  mechanisms  developed  at  the  state  level  may  vary  widely, 
 we  have  examined  certain  key  aspects  of  these  plans  to  determine  whether  they  fall  within  a  zone 
 of  reasonableness,  and  are  likely  to  provide  incentives  that  are  sufficient  to  foster  post-  entry 
 checklist  compliance.  1229  In  our  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  for  example,  we  predicted  that  the 
 enforcement  mechanisms  developed  in  New  York  would  be  effective  in  practice.  1230  Plans  may 
 vary  in  their  strengths  and  weaknesses,  and  there  is  no  one  way  to  demonstrate  assurance.  1231 
 Through  a  lengthy  collaborative  process,  the  Texas  Commission,  SWBT  and  involved  competitive 
 LECs  have  arrived  at  workable  measures  to  sufficiently  capture  SWBTs  wholesale  performance.  1232  The  measures,  coupled  with  a  self-  executing  performance  remedy  plan  (Plan), 


 are  designed  to  prevent  backsliding.  The  Texas  Commission  was  aware  of  the  need  to  fashion  a 
 remedy  plan  that  produced  sufficient  incentives  for  SWBT  to  maintain  a  high  level  of  wholesale 
 service,  and  sufficient  disincentives  for  SWBT  to  engage  in  anti-  competitive  behavior  after  section 
 271  relief  is  granted.  1233  As  explained  below,  we  conclude  the  Texas  Commission  established  a 
 performance  remedy  plan  that  would  discourage  anti-  competitive  behavior  by  setting  the  damages 
 and  penalties  at  a  level  above  the  simple  cost  of  doing  business.  1234 


 424.  Total  Liability  At  Risk.  We  conclude  that  the  total  of  $289  million  in  potential 
 penalties  placed  at  risk,  on  an  annual  basis,  under  the  performance  plans  represents  a  meaningful 
 incentive  for  SWBT  to  maintain  a  high  level  of  performance.  1235  We  thus  disagree  with 


 1228  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  Attach.  H  at  15. 
 1229  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4166-  67,  para.  433. 
 1230  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4166-  67,  para.  433.  This  prediction  was  based  on  five 
 characteristics:  potential  liability  that  provides  a  meaningful  and  significant  incentive  to  comply  with  the 
 designated  performance  standards;  clearly-  articulated,  pre-  determined  measures  and  standards,  which  encompass  a 
 comprehensive  range  of  carrier-  to-  carrier  performance;  a  reasonable  structure  that  is  designed  to  detect  and 
 sanction  poor  performance  when  it  occurs;  a  self-  executing  mechanism  that  does  not  leave  the  door  open 
 unreasonably  to  litigation  and  appeal;  and  reasonable  assurances  that  the  reported  data  is  accurate.  Id.  at  433. 


 1231  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  20741-  51,  para.  393. 


 1232  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  98-  111. 
 1233  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  106. 
 1234  Id.  at  106. 
 1235  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para  52.  SWBT  set  the  cap  at  $289  million  annually  in  response  to  concerns 
 that  SWBTs  earlier  cap  was  too  low.  The  cap  is  based  on  36%  of  SWBTs  net  return,  and  will  be  recalculated 
 annually,  but  will  never  exceed  $289  million  or  go  below  $225  million.  The  cap  is  comparable  to  the  cap  we 
 deemed  adequate  for  Bell  Atlantic  in  New  York.  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  436  n.  1332. 
211
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 212 
 commenters  that  suggest  that  this  amount  is  insufficient  and  fails  to  provide  adequate  assurance  of 
 SWBTs  compliance  in  the  future.  1236  Most  fundamentally,  we  disagree  with  a  basic  assumption 
 made  by  several  commenters:  that  liability  under  the  Plan  must  be  sufficient,  standing  alone,  to 
 completely  counterbalance  SWBTs  incentive  to  discriminate.  1237  The  performance  plans  adopted 
 by  the  Texas  Commission  do  not  represent  the  only  means  of  ensuring  that  SWBT  continues  to 
 provide  nondiscriminatory  service  to  competing  carriers.  In  addition  to  the  $289  million  at  stake 
 under  this  Plan,  as  noted  above,  SWBT  faces  other  consequences  if  it  fails  to  sustain  a  high  level 
 of  service  to  competing  carriers,  including:  federal  enforcement  action  pursuant  to  section 
 271(  d)(  6);  liquidated  damages  under  dozens  of  interconnection  agreements;  and  remedies 
 associated  with  antitrust  and  other  legal  actions. 


 425.  Performance  Measurements  and  Standards.  Performance  measurements  are 
 intended  to  ensure  that  the  reporting  mechanism  provides  a  benchmark  against  which  new 
 entrants  and  regulators  can  measure  performance  over  time  to  detect  and  correct  any  degradation 
 of  service  rendered  to  new  entrants.  1238  Several  commenters  contend  that  the  performance 
 measurements  fail  to  capture  certain  problems  competitive  LECs  experience  in  their  relations  with 
 SWBT.  1239  In  reply,  SWBT  defends  the  scope  and  meaningfulness  of  its  measurements.  1240 
 Through  a  collaborative  process  SWBT  has  increased  the  number  of  performance  measurements 
 from  66  at  the  time  of  its  initial  filing  before  the  Texas  Commission  to  the  131  measurements  in 
 place  at  the  time  of  filing  this  section  271  application.  1241  Moreover,  the  plan  is  not  static,  and  we 
 recognize  that  the  Texas  Commission  presently  is  considering  modifying  existing  measurements, 
 and  adding  new  measurements  based  on  input  from  both  SWBT  and  competitive  LECs.  For 
 example,  SWBT  and  competitive  LECs  are  developing  additional  performance  measurements  for 


 1236  See  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  49-  50,  57;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  96;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at 
 66-  67,  74-  75  (Overall  cap  is  meaningless  gesture  because  it  cant  be  reached  short  of  SWBT  shutting  down  or 
 disconnecting  every  actual  or  potential  competitive  LEC  customer.)  See  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15 
 FCC  Rcd  at  4168-  69,  para.  437  ([  A]  n  overall  liability  amount  would  be  meaningless  if  there  is  no  likelihood  that 
 payments  would  approach  this  amount,  even  in  instances  of  widespread  performance  failure.).  We  note  that 
 SWBT  may  commence  a  show-  cause  proceeding  if  SWBTs  Tier  1  payments  to  an  individual  competitive  LEC 
 exceed  $3  million  in  a  month,  or  payments  exceed  $10  million  to  all  competitive  LECs  in  a  given  month.  Texas 
 Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  108.  See  also  ALTS  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  18-  19. 


 1237  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4167,  para.  435. 


 1238  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4169,  para.  438;  Second  BellSouth  Louisiana  Order,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  at  20806,  para.  363. 
 1239  See,  e.  g.,  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  56;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  97;  AT&  T  Pfau/  DeYoung  Decl.  at 


 167-  68;  CLEC  Coalition  Texas  I  Comments  at  42-  44;  Covad  Texas  I  Comments  at  63;  WorldCom  Texas  I 
 Comments  at  73-  74;  NorthPoint  Texas  I  Comments  at  2,  9. 


 1240  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  at  19-  27;  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  11,  18,  21,  22;  Austin  C.  Schlick 


 Feb.  4  Ex  Parte  Letter. 
 1241  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  111.  As  of  January  10,  2000  SWBT  tracked  data  in  1,874 


 submeasures.  SWBT  Texas  I  Brief  Attach.  2  at  5. 
212
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 213 
 provision  of  DSL-  related  services.  1242  In  addition,  in  response  to  competitive  LEC  concerns  that 
 aspects  of  interconnection  trunking  measurements  give  an  incomplete  portrayal  of  SWBTs  actual 
 performance,  the  Texas  Commission  has  implemented  a  new  measurement,  PM  73.1  (concerning 
 missed  due  dates),  and  is  considering  modifications  to  PM  78  (concerning  average  installation 
 intervals)  during  its  April  2000  performance  review.  1243  This  continuing  ability  of  the 
 measurements  to  evolve  is  an  important  feature  because  it  allows  the  Plan  to  reflect  changes  in  the 
 telecommunications  industry  and  in  the  Texas  market.  1244 


 426.  Structural  Elements  of  the  Plan.  The  structural  elements  of  the  Plan  appear 
 reasonably  designed  to  detect  and  sanction  poor  performance  when  it  occurs.  Commenters  have 
 raised  specific  criticisms,  arguing,  for  example,  that  the  Plan  fails  to  deter  targeted  discrimination 
 directed  against  individual  competing  carriers,  1245  and  does  not  include  penalties  that  escalate  with 
 the  magnitude  or  duration  of  the  performance  shortfall.  1246  These  criticisms  do  not  undermine  our 
 overall  conclusion  that  the  Plan  provides  a  meaningful  incentive  to  provide  nondiscriminatory 
 performance  in  the  future.  We  find  it  significant  that  the  Texas  Commission  considered  and 
 rejected  most  of  these  arguments.  1247 


 427.  Self-  Executing  Mechanism.  The  performance  monitoring  and  enforcement 
 mechanisms  appear  to  be  reasonably  self-  executing,  and  are  generally  comparable  to  the 
 mechanisms  we  found  satisfactory  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order.  1248  Specifically,  we  note 
 that  SWBT  is  required  to  provide  performance  data  by  the  20th  day  of  the  month  following  the 
 reporting  month,  and  is  required  to  make  payments,  if  necessary,  by  the  30th  day  following  the 
 due  date  of  the  performance  measurement  report  for  the  month  in  which  the  obligation  arose.  1249 


 1242  Covad  Goodpastor  Texas  I  Reply  Decl.  at  4.  See  also  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  1-  4;  Texas 
 Commission  Texas  II  Reply  Comments 
 1243  See  discussion  under  checklist  item  1.  The  Texas  Commission  provides  a  forum  for  ongoing  modification  and 


 improvement  of  the  performance  metrics.  The  Texas  Commission  reports  that  a  six  month  review  process  is  in 
 place  to  assure  that  the  plan  is  not  static  in  nature.  The  Texas  Commission,  in  conjunction  with  SWBT  and  the 
 competitive  LECs,  will  engage  in  comprehensive  review  of  the  performance  measures  to  determine  if  commercial 
 experience  indicates  that  changes  are  necessary.  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  105.  The  six-  month 
 review  process  began  in  April  2000.  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  II  Comments  at  1-  4;  Texas  Commission  Texas 
 II  Reply  Comments  at  1-  3.  Cf.  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  at  para.  438  and  nn.  1338-  1339  (New  York 
 Commissions  steps  to  ensure  that  metrics  will  continue  to  be  developed  and  refined). 


 1244  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4169,  para.  438. 


 1245  See,  e.  g.,  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  69. 
 1246  Id.  at  69-  70. 
 1247  See  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  106-  111;  see  also  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at 
 4170-  71,  para.  440. 
 1248  See  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  53;  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4171,  para.  441. 


 1249  See  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  Attach.  H  at  12-  13. 
213
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 214 
 We  further  note  that  the  Plan  provides  for  expedited  dispute  resolution  in  certain  carefully 
 designated  circumstances.  1250  AT&  T  argues  that  because  the  Texas  Commission  has  not  provided 
 guidance  regarding  waiver  terms  comparable  to  that  set  forth  by  the  New  York  Commission,  the 
 Plan  invites  litigation  by  SWBT.  1251  We  have  said  that  a  waiver  process,  if  not  narrowly  limited  to 
 a  discrete  set  of  circumstances  and  subject  to  time  constraints,  could  have  such  an  impact.  1252 
 Should  the  Texas  Commission  suspect  any  party  of  abusing  the  dispute-  resolution  procedures 
 provided  in  the  Plan,  we  are  confident  the  Texas  Commission  will  take  appropriate  action. 


 428.  Data  Validation  and  Audit  Procedures.  The  Department  of  Justice  states,  and  we 
 agree,  that  the  reliability  of  reported  data  is  critical,  and  that  properly  validated  metrics  must  be 
 meaningful,  accurate,  and  reproducible.  1253  In  particular,  the  raw  data  underlying  a  performance 
 measurement  must  be  stored  in  a  secure,  stable,  and  auditable  file  if  we  are  to  accord  a  remedy 
 plan  significant  weight.  1254 


 429.  Several  commenters  allege  that  SWBTs  performance  data  is  generally  unreliable.  1255  SWBT  states  that  its  performance  data  collection,  storage,  and  reporting  practices 
 are  verifiable,  and  are  conducted  according  to  contemporaneously  published  business  rules. 
 Further,  SWBT  replies  that  its  data  collection  methods  and  procedures  were  verified  by  Telcordia, 
 and  that  Telcordia  confirmed  that  SWBT  collects  and  reports  data  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the 
 state-  approved  business  rules.  1256  While  Telcordia  did  make  several  recommendations  regarding 
 SWBTs  data  control  mechanisms,  we  note  that  SWBT  has  agreed  to  implement  each  of  these 
 measures.  1257  We  also  note  that  the  Texas  Commission,  in  collaboration  with  competitive  LECs 
 and  SWBT,  is  currently  reviewing  a  document  concerning  SWBTs  internal  data  collection 


 1250  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Comments  at  108.  If  SWBT  delivers  non-  compliant  performance  for  three 
 consecutive  months  on  at  least  20%  of  the  measures  reported,  but  SWBT  has  not  incurred  more  than  $1  million  in 
 damages  payable  to  the  competitive  LEC,  the  competitive  LEC  may  commence  an  expedited  dispute  resolution 
 proceeding  to  demonstrate  why  additional  damages  are  appropriate.  If  SWBTs  Tier  1  payments  to  an  individual 
 competitive  LEC  exceed  $3  million  in  a  month,  or  payments  exceed  $10  million  to  all  competitive  LECs  in  a  given 
 month,  upon  timely  completion  of  a  show-  cause  proceeding,  SWBT  must  pay  the  balance  of  damages  owed.  Id.; 
 see  also  SWBT  Texas  I  Dysart  Aff.  Attach.  H  at  8. 


 1251  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  96;  see  also  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments  at  19-  20. 


 1252  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4171,  para.  441. 
 1253  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  5. 
 1254  Department  of  Justice  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  5;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at  78. 
 1255  See  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  13;  AT&  T  Pfau  &  DeYoung  Aff.  at  para.  15,  25,  56-  58;  BlueStar  Texas  I 
 at  5-  6;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  33-  34;  Sprint  Texas  I  Comments  at  74-  76. 
 1256  SWBT  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at  81. 


 1257  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  at  para.  76. 
214
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 215 
 procedures.  1258  Because  the  Performance  Remedy  Plan  rests  entirely  on  SWBTs  performance  as 
 captured  by  the  measurements,  the  credibility  of  the  performance  data  should  be  above  suspicion.  1259 


 430.  Accounting  Requirements.  Consistent  with  our  accounting  rules,  antitrust 
 damages  1260  and  certain  other  penalties  paid  by  carriers,  1261  SWBT  should  not  reflect  any  portion 
 of  penalties  paid  out  under  the  Plan  as  expenses  in  the  revenue  requirement  for  interstate  services. 
 As  we  noted  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  such  accounting  treatment  ensures  that 
 ratepayers  do  not  bear,  in  the  form  of  increased  rates,  the  costs  of  penalties  paid  out  under  the 
 Plan  in  the  event  that  SWBT  fails  to  provide  adequate  service  quality  to  competitive  LECs.  1262 


 D.  Other  Arguments 
 431.  We  recognize  that  commenters  raise  several  other  concerns  which,  they  contend, 
 support  a  finding  that  grant  of  this  application  is  not  in  the  public  interest.  These  arguments  do 
 not  convince  us  that  grant  of  this  application  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  public  interest. 
 Several  commenters  offer  specific  allegations  that  SWBT  has  engaged  in  anti-  competitive 
 behavior.  1263  We  have  previously  stated  that  we  will  not  withhold  section  271  authorization  on 
 the  basis  of  isolated  instances  of  allegedly  unfair  dealing  or  discrimination  under  the  Act.  1264  In 
 this  instance,  we  do  not  find  that  the  various  incidents  cited  by  commenters  constitute  a  pattern  of 
 discriminatory  conduct  that  undermines  our  confidence  that  SWBTs  local  market  is  open  to 


 1258  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Evaluation  at  105,  n.  607.  We  applaud  the  Texas  Commissions  ongoing 
 commitment  to  strengthening  the  Plan,  and  do  not  interpret  such  efforts  to  call  into  question  the  Texas 
 Commissions  endorsement  of  the  Plan  as  filed. 


 1259  See  SWBT  Dysart  Texas  I  Aff.  Attach.  H  at  1.  0  (providing  for  SWBT  to  collect,  analyze,  and  report 


 performance  data). 
 1260  See  Accounting  for  Judgments  and  Other  Costs  Associated  with  Litigation,  12  FCC  Rcd  5112  (1997);  47 


 C.  F.  R.    7370(  d).  As  a  general  matter,  a  carriers  operating  expenses  recovered  through  its  rates  must  be 
 legitimate  costs  of  providing  adequate  service  to  ratepayers.  See,  e.  g.,  West  Ohio  Gas  Co.  v.  PUC,  294  U.  S.  63,  74 
 (1935);  Mountain  States  Tel.  and  Tel.  Co.  v.  FCC,  939  F.  2d  1035,  1044  (D.  C.  Cir.  1991). 


 1261  In  the  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order,  the  Commission  held  that  bill  credits  provided  under  the  performance 


 assurance  plan  arising  from  that  order  shall  not  be  reflected  in  the  revenue  requirement  of  an  SBC/  Ameritech 
 incumbent  LEC.  SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Order  App.  C  at  para.  34. 


 1262  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4172-  73,  para.  443. 


 1263  For  example,  several  commenters  suggest  that  misconduct  of  SWBT,  such  as  intransigence,  delaying  tactics, 
 perpetual  litigation  (and  sanctionable  tactics  during  litigation,  such  as  destruction  of  or  withholding  documents), 
 and  the  refusal  to  pay  reciprocal  compensation,  undermines  confidence  in  SWBTs  post-  grant  conduct.  See  Sprint 
 Texas  I  Comments  at  78;  BlueStar  Texas  I  Comments  at  6;  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  14-  16;  Connect  Texas 
 I  Comments  at  6-  8;  e.  spire  Texas  I  Comments  at  6;  CompTel  Texas  I  Comments  at  9;  AT&  T  Texas  I  Comments  at 
 89-  95;  WorldCom  Texas  I  Comments  at  62-  63;  Covad  Texas  I  Comments  at  49-  50,  58,  60-  62;  NALA/  PCA  Texas 
 I  Comments  at  3. 


 1264  See  Ameritech  Michigan  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  20749,  para.  396. 
215
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 216 
 competition  and  will  remain  so  after  SWBT  receives  interLATA  authority.  1265 
 432.  Several  commenters  urge  the  Commission  to  deny  SWBTs  application  on  the 
 grounds  that  SBCs  investment  in  a  network  architecture  commonly  known  as  Project  Pronto  is 
 discriminatory  because  it  favors  the  business  plans  of  ASI.  1266  For  example,  competing  carriers 
 claim  that  SWBTs  Project  Pronto  architecture  will  deploy  digital  loop  carrier  systems  in  remote 
 terminals  fed  by  fiber  optic  cables  and  will  not  permit  competing  carriers  to  line  share  the  loops 
 served  by  those  remote  terminals.  1267  At  the  same  time,  SWBT  contends  that  the  investments  of 
 its  parent  company  will  bring  broadband  services  to  the  vast  majority  of  residential  and  small 
 business  customers  in  its  operating  area  and  that  the  benefits  of  these  infrastructure  changes  will 
 be  available  to  all  xDSL  service  providers  on  equal  terms.  1268  We  acknowledge  the  importance  of 
 competing  carrier  concerns  regarding  Project  Pronto  and  the  impact  that  Project  Pronto  may 
 ultimately  have  on  a  number  of  the  section  271  checklist  items  (e.  g.,  interconnection,  unbundled 
 local  loops).  The  record  before  us,  however,  does  not  demonstrate  that  Project  Pronto  has 
 resulted  in  a  showing  of  noncompliance  with  any  checklist  item.  1269  To  the  extent  that  SWBT 
 utilizes  Project  Pronto  in  such  a  way  that  it  results  in  non-  compliance  in  the  future,  however,  we 
 may  take  appropriate  enforcement  action  pursuant  to  section  271(  d)(  6). 


 433.  We  disagree,  as  stated  above,  with  commenters  that  believe  that  a  section  271 
 application  is  an  appropriate  forum  to  consider  instituting  a  fresh  look  policy  (to  provide  an 
 opportunity  for  retail  and  wholesale  customers  to  exit  without  penalty  long  term  contracts  that  the 
 carriers  have  voluntarily  entered  into  with  SWBT).  1270  Moreover,  we  also  reject  concerns  that  the 


 1265  We  emphasize  that  grant  of  this  application  does  not  reflect  any  conclusion  that  SWBTs  conduct  in  the 
 individual  instances  cited  by  commenters  is  nondiscriminatory  and  complies  with  the  companys  obligations  under 
 the  Communications  Act. 


 1266  Project  Pronto  is  a  SBC  network  upgrade  that  will  employ  fiber  optic  cable  and  remote  terminals  to  provide 


 xDSL-  capable  services  to  customers  that  are  out  of  reach  of  a  central  office  digital  subscriber  line  access 
 multiplexers  (DSLAMs).  SWBT  represents  that  it  will  offer  competitors  nondiscriminatory  access  to  the  xDSL 
 facilities  being  deployed  in  remote  terminals.  SWBT  Texas  II  Reply  Brief  at  26-  27;  CompTel  Texas  II  Comments 
 at  5-  8;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Comments  at  23-  24;  AT&  T  Texas  II  Pfau/  Chambers  Decl.  at  paras.  54-  69;  AT&  T  Reply 
 Comments  at  15-  18;  Rhythms  Texas  II  Comments  at  9-  10. 


 1267  Rhythms  Comments  at  9. 


 1268  SWBT  Auinbauh  and  Lube  Texas  II  Reply  Aff.  at  paras.  6-  8,  22-  35. 
 1269  A  number  of  parties  have  raised  issues  concerning  Project  Pronto  in  a  number  of  proceedings  before  us.  See, 
 e.  g.,  Line  Sharing  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20912  (recons.  pending);  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  3696  (recons. 
 pending);  Letter  from  Paul  K.  Mancini,  Vice  President  and  Assistant  General  Counsel,  SBC  Communications, 
 Inc.,  to  Lawrence  E.  Strickling,  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau  (Feb.  15,  2000)  ("  SBC  Waiver  Request"); 
 Common  Carrier  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  SBC's  Request  for  Interpretation,  Waiver,  or  Modification  of  the 
 SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Conditions,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  141,  ASD  File  No.  99-  49,  Public  Notice,  DA  00-  335  (rel. 
 Feb.  18,  2000). 


 1270  See  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  62-  65;  e.  spire  Texas  I  Comments  at  8-  10;  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at 


 20-  23  urging  fresh  look  for  retail  customers  only.  See  also  part  V.  N,  infra,  for  discussion  of  fresh  look 
 argument. 
216
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 217 
 Texas  Commission  has  limited  regulatory  authority  over  SWBT  because  of  legislation  enacted  by 
 the  Texas  Legislature  in  1999.  1271  The  Texas  Commission  notes  that  the  legislation 


 1271  See  Allegiance  Texas  I  Comments  at  17-  18;  ALTS  Texas  I  Comments  at  50-  55;  DSL.  net  Texas  I  Comments  at 
 9;  ALTS  Texas  II  Reply  Comments  at  20-  22. 
217
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 218 
 does  not  limit  the  Texas  Commissions  authority  or  any  competitors  ability  to  challenge  rate 
 changes  or  service  offerings  by  SWBT.  1272 


 VIII.  SECTION  271(  D)(  6)  ENFORCEMENT  AUTHORITY 
 434.  Section  271  approval  is  not  the  end  of  the  road  for  SWBT  in  Texas.  The  statutory 
 regime  makes  clear  that  SWBT  must  continue  to  satisfy  the  conditions  required  for    approval  1273  after  it  begins  competing  for  long  distance  business  in  Texas.  To  this  end,  Congress  gave  the 


 Commission  additional  post-  approval  enforcement  powers  to  address  possible  backsliding  by 
 SWBT  and  other  BOCs.  This  authority  is  critical  to  the  statutory  design  that  local  market  are   
 and  remain    open  to  competition,  and  evidences  Congresss  recognition  that  a  BOCs  incentives 
 to  cooperate  with  its  local  service  competitors  may  diminish  in  a  given  state  once  the  BOC 
 obtains  section  271  approval  in  that  state.  1274  As  we  stated  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order, 
 [  s]  wift  and  effective  post-  approval  enforcement  of  section  271s  requirements    is  essential  to 
 achieve  Congresss  goal  of  maintaining  conditions  conducive  to  achieving  durable  competition  in 
 local  markets.  1275 


 435.  We  described  the  post-  approval  enforcement  framework,  as  well  as  our  various 
 section  271(  d)(  6)  enforcement  powers,  in  detail  in  the  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order.  1276  Among 
 other  things,  section  271(  d)(  6)  provides  for  Commission  receipt  and  review  of  complaints  filed  by 
 persons  concerning  alleged  failure  by  a  BOC  to  meet  conditions  required  for  long  distance 
 approval.  It  also  specifies  several  enforcement  actions  that  the  Commission  can  take  on  its  own 
 motion  to  address  BOC  backsliding.  These  include  monetary  forfeitures,  as  well  as  suspension  or 
 revocation  of  authority  to  provide  long  distance  service.  We  envision  exercising  our  section 
 271(  d)(  6)  suspension  power,  when  appropriate,  through  a  standstill  order  that  could  prohibit  a 
 non-  compliant  BOC  from  enrolling  additional  subscribers  and  from  marketing  and  promoting 
 interLATA  service    in  essence,  freezing  the  BOCs  subscriber  base  as  of  the  date  of  the  order.  1277 


 436.  Working  in  concert  with  the  Texas  Commission,  we  intend  to  monitor  closely 


 1272  Texas  Commission  Texas  I  Reply  Comments  at  27.  The  Texas  Commission  states  that  the  legislation  adopts  a 
 more  aggressive  timeframe,  allowing  an  offering  to  go  into  the  market  after  a  10  day  notice  to  the  Texas 
 Commission  and  to  all  companies  that  have  an  effective  interconnection  agreement  with  SWBT.  The  Texas 
 Commission  believes  that  this  procedural  change  is  consistent  with  a  more  competitive  marketplace  and  has 
 accelerated  its  review  of  such  offerings  in  order  to  reflect  this  change.  Id.  at  27. 


 1273  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6). 


 1274  See  generally  U  S  WEST  Communications,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  177  F.  3d  1057,  1060  (D.  C.  Cir.  1999)  (noting  that  a 
 central  purpose  of  section  271  is  to  create  incentives  for  BOCs  to  open  local  markets  to  competition),  cert.  denied, 
 120  S.  Ct.  1240  (2000). 


 1275  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4174,  para.  446. 


 1276  See  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4174-  77,  paras.  446-  453. 
 1277  See  47  U.  S.  C.    271(  d)(  6)(  A)(  iii);  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4175-  76,  paras.  448-  451. 
218
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 219 
 SWBTs  post-  approval  compliance.  We  require  that  SWBT  provide  us  with  the  monthly  Texas 
 Aggregated  Performance  Measurement  Reports  that  it  provides  to  the  Texas  Commission  for  at 
 least  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  release  of  this  order,  so  that  we  can  review  SWBT's 
 performance  to  ensure  continued  compliance  with  the  statutory  requirements.  We  stand  ready  to 
 exercise  our  various  statutory  enforcement  powers  quickly  and  decisively  in  appropriate 
 circumstances  to  ensure  that  the  local  market  remains  open  in  Texas.  We  are  confident  that 
 cooperative  state  and  federal  oversight  and  enforcement  can  address  any  backsliding  that  may 
 arise  with  respect  to  SWBTs  entry  into  the  Texas  long  distance  market.  1278 


 IX.  CONCLUSION 
 437.  For  the  reasons  discussed  above,  we  grant  SWBTs  application  for  authorization 
 under  section  271  of  the  Act  to  provide  in-  region,  interLATA  services  in  the  state  of  Texas. 


 X.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 438.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  271  of  the 
 Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  154(  j)  and  271,  SWBTs 
 application  to  provide  in-  region  interLATA  service  in  the  State  of  Texas  filed  on  April  5,  2000,  IS 
 GRANTED. 


 439.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  this  Order  SHALL  BECOME  EFFECTIVE 
 July  10,  2000. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 1278  In  New  York,  for  example,  the  New  York  Public  Service  Commission  and  the  Commission  responded  quickly 
 with  a  coordinated,  two-  pronged  enforcement  response  when  Bell  Atlantic  developed  performance  problems 
 associated  with  lost  or  mishandled  orders  for  unbundled  network  elements  submitted  electronically  by  its  local 
 service  competitors.  See  Order  Directing  Market  Adjustments  and  Amending  Performance  Assurance,  Case  OO-C- 
 0008/  9  and  Case  99-  C-  0949  (New  York  PSC,  Mar.  23,  2000);  Bell  Atlantic-  New  York,  Authorization  Under 
 Section  271  of  the  Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  New  York,  File 
 No.  EB-  00-  IH-  0085,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  5413  (2000)  (adopting  consent  decree  between  Commission  and  Bell 
 Atlantic  that  included  provisions  for  Bell  Atlantic  to  make  a  voluntary  payment  of  $3,000,000  to  the  United  States 
 Treasury,  additional  payments  if  Bell  Atlantic  failed  to  meet  specified  performance  standards,  and  weekly 
 reporting  requirements  to  gauge  Bell  Atlantics  performance  in  correcting  the  problems  associated  with  its 
 electronic  ordering  systems);  Letter  from  David  H.  Solomon,  Chief,  FCC  Enforcement  Bureau  to  Edward  D. 
 Young,  III,  Senior  Vice  President    Regulatory,  Bell  Atlantic,  dated  June  20,  2000  (advising  Bell  Atlantic  that  it 
 appears  to  the  Commission  to  have  met  the  requisite  performance  standards  and  that,  in  the  absence  of  new 
 information  indicating  that  Bell  Atlantics  performance  reports  are  materially  inaccurate,  Bell  Atlantics 
 obligations  under  the  Consent  Decree  have  terminated). 
219
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 220 
 Secretary 
220
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 APPENDIX  A 
 SBC  Communications  Inc,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company 
 Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services 
 271  Application  to  provide  In-  region,  InterLATA  services  in  Texas 


 CC  Docket  No.  00-  65 
 Comments 


 Allegiance  Telecom,  Inc  (Allegiance) 
 Association  for  Local  Telecommunications  Services 
 (ALTS)  &  CLEC  Coalition  (CLEC)  Joint  Comments 
 Alliance  for  Public  Technology 
 AT&  T  Corp. 
 CCCTX,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Connect 
 Competition  Policy  Institute 
 Campaign  for  Telecommunications  Access  and  33  Participating  Companies 
 COVAD  Communications  Company 
 Competitive  Telecommunications  Association 
 Department  of  Justice 
 IP  Communications 
 Joint  Comments  of:  Bluestar  Network  Services,  DSLNET,  Inc. 
 MGC  Communications  d/  b/  a  MPOWERCommunications,  Waller  Creek  Communications  d/  b/  a 
 Pontio  Communications  Corp 
 Level  3  Communications  L.  L.  C. 
 MCI 
 NorthPoint 
 Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Texas 
 RCN  Telecom  Services  Inc. 
 Rhythms  Net  Connections 
 Southwestern  Tel-  Com 
 Sprint  Communications  Co. 
 Telecommunications  Resellers  Associations 
 Z-  TEL  Communications 
221
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 -A-  2  - 
 SBC  Communications  Inc,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company 
 Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services 
 271  Application  to  provide  In-  region,  InterLATA  services  in  Texas 
 CC  Docket  No.  00-  65 


 Reply  Comments 


 Allegience 
 Association  of  Local  Telecommunications  Services  (ALTS) 
 AT&  T 
 COVAD  Communications  Company 
 Department  of  Justice 
 Global  Crossing  Local  Services,  Inc. 
 Joint  Comments  of:  Bluestar  Network  Services,  LINK  Network,  Inc. 
 DSLNET,  Inc  MGC  Communications  d/  b/  a  MPOWERCommunications 
 Waller  Creek  Communications  d/  b/  a  Pontio  Communications  Corp 
 MCI/  WorldCom 
 Pilgrim  Telephone,  Inc. 
 Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Texas 
 RCN  Telecom  Services,  Inc. 
 Southwestern  Bell  Corporation 
 Telecommunication  Resellers  Association 
222
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 -A-  3  - 
 SBC  Communications  Inc,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company 
 Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services 
 271  Application  to  provide  In-  region,  InterLATA  services  in  Texas 
 CC  Docket  No.  00-  4 


 Comments 


 Adelphia  Business  Solutions  (Adelphia) 
 Allegiance  Telecom,  Inc.  (Allegiance) 
 Alliance  for  Public  Technology 
 Association  for  Local  Telecommunications  Services  (ALTS) 
 AT&  T  Corp.  (AT&  T) 
 Bluestar  Communications  (Bluestar) 
 Campaign  for  Telecommunications  Access  and  33  Participating  Companies 
 CCCTX,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Connect 
 CLEC  Coalition 
 Communications  Workers  of  America 
 Competitive  Telecommunications  Association 
 COVAD  Communications  Company 
 Department  of  Justice 
 DSL,  Inc. 
 E.  spire  Communications,  Inc. 
 Global  Crossing 
 IP  Communications 
 KMC  Telecom  Inc. 
 MCI  WorldCom,  Inc. 
 Metromedia  Fiber  Network  Services,  Inc. 
 National  ALEC  Association/  Prepaid  Communications  Association 
 NorthPoint  Communications,  Inc. 
 Pilgrim  Telephone,  Inc. 
 Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Texas 
 Rhythms  Net 
 Sprint  Communications  Co. 
 Telecommunications  Resellers  Association 
 Texas  Office  of  Public  Utility  Counsel  (Texas  OPC) 
 Z-  Tel  Communications  Inc. 
223
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 -A-  4  - 
 SBC  Communications  Inc,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company 
 Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services 
 271  Application  to  provide  In-  region,  InterLATA  services  in  Texas 
 CC  Docket  No.  00-  4 


 Reply  Comments 
 Allegiance  Telecom,  Inc.  (Allegiance) 
 Association  of  Directory  Publishers 
 Association  for  Local  Telecommunications  Services  (ALTS) 
 AT&  T  Corp.  (AT&  T) 
 BellSouth 
 Bluestar  Communications  (Bluestar) 
 Campaign  for  Telecommunications  Access  and  57  Participating  Companies 
 CCCTX,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Connect  and  Focal  Communications 
 CLEC  Coalition 
 Communications  Workers  of  America 
 Competition  Policy  Institution 
 Competitive  Telecommunications  Association 
 Consumer  Federation  of  America 
 COVAD  Communications  Company 
 Department  of  Justice 
 Global  Crossing 
 IP  Communications 
 MCI  WorldCom,  Inc. 
 Metromedia  Fiber  Network  Services,  Inc. 
 North  Point  Communications 
 Public  Utilities  Commissions  of  Texas 
 Rhythms  Net  Connections  Inc. 
 SBC 
 Sprint  Communications  Co. 
 Texas  Internet  Service  Providers  Association 
224
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 -  B-  1  - 
 APPENDIX  B 
 Overview  of  SWBTs  OSS  Operations. 
 1.  The  process  of  obtaining  resold  local  services  or  unbundled  network  elements  from 
 SWBT  begins  with  the  submissions  of  a  Local  Service  Request  (LSR)  by  a  competing  carrier. 
 Upon  the  submission  of  an  LSR,  there  are  a  series  of  transaction  that  must  take  place  between 
 SWBT  and  the  competing  carrier  to  ensure  that  the  order  is  completed  on  time  and  in  the  manner 
 contemplated  by  the  competing  carrier.  For  example,  SWBT  must  inform  a  competing  carrier  of 
 the  status  of  the  order  as  it  progresses  through  its  system,  and  a  new  entrant  must  have  a  means  of 
 notifying  SWBT  if  the  service  or  network  element  is  not  properly  installed.  Competing  carriers 
 may  submit  LSRs  and  conduct  the  various  other  transactions  associated  with  obtaining  service  or 
 network  elements  from  SWBT  through  either  manual  or  electronic  access  to  SWBTs  OSS. 
 Manual  access  means  that  the  competing  carrier  may  place  an  order  via  facsimile  and  monitor  the 
 status  of  an  order  by  placing  a  phone  call  to  SWBT.  Electronic  access,  in  contrast,  means  that 
 information  is  exchanged,  and  transactions  are  conducted,  between  SWBT  and  the  competing 
 carrier  through  the  use  of  electronic  interfaces. 


 2.  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with  access  to  six  primary  electronic  interfaces 
 to  access  its  pre-  ordering,  ordering  and  provisioning,  maintenance  and  repair,  and  billing 
 functions.  1  These  interfaces  are  either  application-  to-  application  interfaces  or  graphical  user 
 interfaces  (GUIs).  2  Application-  to-  application  interfaces  are  based  on  industry  guidelines  and 
 require  software  development  by  both  SWBT  and  the  competing  carrier.  An  application-  to-application 
 interface  may  be  integrated  with  the  competing  carriers  own  ordering  systems, 
 thereby  allowing  it  to  control  how  the  application  appears  to  its  own  sales  representatives.  A 
 GUI  interface,  in  contract,  is  a  proprietary  interface  that  may  not  be  integrated  with  the  competing 
 carriers  own  systems.  Thus,  when  a  competing  carrier  obtains  information  from  SWBTs  GUI-based 
 interfaces,  it  must  retype  that  information  into  its  own  systems. 


 3.  Pre-  Ordering.  Before  placing  an  actual  order  for  service,  a  competing  carrier  can 
 obtain  pre-  ordering  information  from  SWBT  that  assists  the  competing  carriers  negotiations  with 
 its  end-  user  customer.  3  Such  preordering  information,  which  is  often  accessed  while  the  customer 


 1  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  10-  17,  51-  247;  Texas  Commission  OSS  Evaluation  Master  Test  Plan    2.  2. 
 2  SWBT  provides  competitive  LECs  with  several  application-  to-  application  interfaces  based  on  an  SWBT 
 proprietary  protocol  or  on  the  Electronic  Data  Interchange/  Common  Object  Request  Broker  Architecture 
 (EDI/  CORBA)  protocol,  as  well  as  graphical  user  interfaces  (GUIs),  available  from  SWBTs  Toolbar  Platform 
 (Toolbar).  SWBT  Ham.  Aff.  at  paras.  46-  48.  SWBTs  Toolbar  Platform  provides  access  to  multiple  GUI 
 applications  using  a  single  standard  User  ID  and  password.  Id.  Specifically,  SWBTs  Toolbar  provides  access  to 
 Verigate  (for  preordering),  LEX  (for  ordering),  Order  Status  (for  checking  status  of  orders),  Provisioning  Order 
 Status  (for  checking  provisioning  status  of  pending  orders),  Trouble  Administration  (for  repair  and  maintenance) 
 and  Bill  Information  (for  billing).  The  Toolbar  provides  for  automated  software  updates  over  the  users  network 
 connection.  Id. 


 3  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  52;  Master  Test  Plan  at    4.  3.  5.  1.  Pre-  ordering  functions  that  SWBT  makes 


 available  to  competitive  LECs  include:  address  verification;  access  to  customer  service  records,  customer  service 
 inquiries,  directory  listings  and  Directory  Assistance;  service  and  feature  availability,  access  to  telephone  number 
 (continued.) 
225
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  2 
 is  on  the  line,  typically  includes  a  customers  address  and  service  history,  services  and  features 
 available  to  that  customer,  telephone  numbers,  and  dates  that  various  services  and  facilities 
 required  by  the  competing  carrier  will  be  available.  4  Competitive  carriers  can  exchange 
 preordering  information  with  SWBT  by  sending  a  request  manually,  or  by  using  one  or  more  of 
 SWBTs  four  electronic  interfaces  that  provide  access  to  SWBTs  pre-  ordering  capabilities:  5  Easy 
 Access  Sales  Environment  (EASE)  for  resale  services,  6  DataGate,  7  Verigate,  8  and  Electronic 
 Data  Interchange  (EDI)/  CORBA  interface.  9 


 4.  Ordering  and  Provisioning.  Using  the  information  obtained  in  the  pre-  ordering 
 process,  the  competing  carrier  submits  a  Local  Service  Request  (LSR)  using  any  of  four 
 electronic  interfaces  for  access  to  SWBTs  OSS  ordering/  provisioning  capabilities:  EASE, 
 Southwestern  Order  Retrieval  and  Distribution  (SORD);  10  Local  service  request  EXchange 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 assignment,  due  date  availability,  dispatch  requirements,  Primary  Interexchange  Carrier  (PIC)  and  Local  Primary 
 IntraLATA  Carrier  (LPIC)  list,  Access  to  Common  Language  Location  Identifier  for  the  serving  central  office; 
 Channel  facility  assignment  verification  for  UNEs.  Id. 


 4  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  51-  53 


 5  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  53.  SWBT  provides  a  table  listing  which  preordering  functions  and  the  capabilities 
 that  are  available  in  each  system.  Id. 
 6  EASE  is  SWBTs  proprietary  interface  that  competing  LECs  can  use  for  preordering  and  ordering  of  resale 


 services  for  residential  customers  with  up  to  five  lines  and  for  business  customers  with  up  to  thirty  lines.  It  is  the 
 same  system  used  by  SWBTs  own  retail  service  representatives.  SWBT  Application  at  82;  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at 
 paras.  5,  31-  32.  According  to  SWBT,  EASE  integrates  ordering  and  pre-  ordering  functions  into  a  single 
 application  and  provides  competitive  LEC  resellers  the  same  access  to  ordering  capabilities  for  resale  services  that 
 are  available  to  SWBTs  retail  service  representatives.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  55. 


 7  DataGate  is  an  application-  to-  application  electronic  interface  that  provides  competing  carriers  with  pre-ordering 


 functionality  for  resale  services  and  UNEs.  SWBT  designed  DataGate  to  be  used  by  competing  LECs  that 
 have  their  own  software  programs  or  applications.  It  allows  competing  LECs  to  connect  their  mechanized  OSS 
 directly  to  SWBTs  systems,  thereby  minimizing  the  need  for  manual  entry  of  data.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  60. 
 SWBT  states  that  the  competing  LECs  can  integrate  DataGate  with  SWBTs  EDI  Gateway  to  provide  an  integrated 
 pre-  ordering  and  ordering  system.  Id.  For  a  discussion  of  the  integratability  of  these  interfaces,  see  discussion 
 infra  at  Section  V.  B.  1. 


 8  Verigate  is  a  graphical  user  interface  (GUI)  operating  on  Windows.  Verigate  provides  competitive  LECs 


 access  to  pre-  ordering  functions  available  from  SWBTs  back  office  systems  (those  systems  not  directly  accessed 
 by  service  SWBTs  or  competitive  LEC  representatives,  but  are  accessed  only  through  the  systems  used  by  those 
 representatives).  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  57.  SWBT  states  that  Verigate  was  designed  for  competing  carriers 
 that  want  to  use  the  EDI  or  LEX  ordering  interfaces,  but  do  not  want  to  develop  their  own  software  programs 
 required  for  use  of  DataGate  or  EDI/  CORBA. 


 9  Like  DataGate,  SWBTs  EDI/  CORBA  is  an  application-  to-  application  interface  that  supports  both  resale 


 services  and  UNEs.  9  According  to  SWBT,  EDI/  CORBA  for  pre-  ordering  can  be  integrated  with  SWBTs  EDI 
 Ordering  Gateway.  SWBT  Application  at  82l.  See  SWBT  Texas  Model  Interconnection  Agreement  Attach.  2    2, 
 Attach  7    2,4;  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  51-  70. 


 10  SORD  is  the  same  electronic  interface  that  SWBTs  retail  service  representatives  use  to  create,  edit  distribute, 


 and  control  requests  for  changes  to  customers  services  and  account  records.  SORD  enables  competing  carriers  to 
 (continued.) 
226
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  3 
 (LEX);  11  or  SWBTs  EDI  Gateway.  12  SWBT  reports  that,  as  of  the  filing  date  of  this  application, 
 seven  carriers  were  using  EDI  for  ordering  and  another  15  have  tentatively  scheduled  production 
 in  the  first  quarter  of  2000.  13  For  those  competing  LECs  that  do  not  choose  to  utilize  an 
 electronic  interface  for  ordering,  SWBT  also  accepts  service  requests  by  facsimile,  courier,  U.  S. 
 Mail,  or  telephone.  Such  manually-  submitted  LSRs  would  be  processed  by  a  SWBT  Local 
 Service  Center  (LSC)  service  representative.  14 


 5.  Before  an  actual  service  order  is  created  in  SWBT's  systems,  the  LSR  submitted  by 
 a  competing  carrier  through  LEX  or  EDI  must  pass  a  set  of  edits  that  check  for  valid  data  entries 
 and  formats,  as  well  as  for  agreement  between  various  data  fields.  15  An  LSR  requesting 
 unbundled  network  elements  enters  through  SWBTs  EDI  Gateway  to  Local  Access  Service 
 Request  (LASR),  which  edits  the  LSR  for  the  validity  of  data  and  conditions.  16  If  the  LSR  fails 
 the  LASR  edits,  LASR  electronically  returns  an  error  message  to  the  competing  LEC  via  LEX  or 
 the  EDI  Gateway,  and  the  competing  LEC  must  correct  the  error  and  resubmit  the  LSR.  17  Once  a 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 perform  all  ordering  functions  for  resold  services  and  unbundled  network  elements.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  85-88. 
 These  functions  include  certain  complex  ordering  functions  for  those  resold  services  and  unbundled  network 
 elements  that  EASE,  EDI,  and  LEX  cannot  handle.  Id.  SORD,  however,  is  a  more  complex  system  because  it  is 
 not  English  language-  based.  Id.  at  para.  87. 


 11  LEX  is  a  graphical  user  interface  (GUI)  that  is  based  upon  national  Ordering  and  Billing  Forum  (OBF)/  LSR 


 guidelines.  It  allows  competing  LECs  to  electronically  submit  requests  to  SWBT  for  both  local  resale  service  and 
 UNEs.  LEX  supports  UNE  combinations  LEX  also  enables  competitive  LECs  to  receive  acknowledgments  and 
 notification  of  error  details  from  SWBT,  and  to  track  the  status  of  their  orders.  See  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  74-99. 
 SWBT  provides  a  list  of  ordering/  provisioning  functions  and  the  capabilities  available  in  each  system.  Id.  at 
 para.  75. 


 12  SWBTs  EDI  Gateway  provides  an  electronic  interface  that  conform  to  the  Ordering  and  Billing 


 Forum/  Telecommunications  Interface  Forum  (OBF/  TCIF)  national  guidelines.  It  supports  the  ordering  and 
 provisioning  of  both  resale  and  UNEs  and  can  be  integrated  with  either  DataGate  or  EDI/  CORBA  to  provide  an 
 integrated  preordering  and  ordering  system.  Both  EDI  and  LEX  support  the  same  types  of  orders  for  resale  services 
 and  UNEs.  For  resale  services,  LEX  and  EDI  enables  the  competitive  LECs  to  perform  conversions,  new  connects, 
 changes  of  service,  disconnects,  and  suspend  order  requests.  For  unbundled  network  elements,  LEX  and  SWBTs 
 EDI  Gateway  allows  competing  carriers  to  submit  conversions,  new  connects,  changes  of  service,  disconnects, 
 outside  moves,  and  record  changes  orders  for  unbundled  local  loops,  interim  number  portability,  number  portability 
 and  switch  ports.  SWBT  Ham.  Aff.  at  paras.  90,  96.  SWBT  states  that  additional  electronic  interfaces  are 
 available  to  order  local  interconnection  trunks,  unbundled  dedicated  transport,  and  to  check  the  status  of  service 
 orders.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  74. 


 13  See  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  98. 


 14  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  74.  SWBT  provides  a  list  of  ordering/  provisioning  functions  and  the  capabilities 
 available  in  each  system.  Id.  at  para  75. 
 15  SWBT  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  48. 


 16  SWBT  Ham.  Aff.  at  paras.  138,  166-  167.  SWBT  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  48.  LASR  edits  are  based  on  LSR  field 
 entries  as  required  by  OBF  and  SWBTs  internal  business  rules.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  138. 
 17  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  138.  If  the  LSR  contains  a  Super  Fatal  error  such  as  a  missing  Company  Code 


 or  Purchase  Order  Number,  the  competing  LEC  is  required  to  send  a  new  request  with  corrections.  Id.  If  the  LSR 
 (continued.) 
227
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  4 
 service  request  passes  the  LASR  edits,  LASR  sends  the  LSR  to  FOLDERS,  18  SLR/  Decision 
 Support  System  (DSS),  19  and  to  the  Mechanized  Order  Generator  (MOG)  if  the  order  is  MOG-eligible. 


 6.  An  LSR  is  MOG-  eligible  if  SWBTs  systems  are  supposed  to  generate  a  service 
 order  automatically,  without  manual  intervention.  20  Upon  receiving  a  MOG-  eligible  order,  MOG 
 performs  another  series  of  edits  and  attempts  to  create  a  service  order.  21  If  MOG  cannot  create  a 
 mechanical  service  order  because  of  a  fatal  error,  the  LASR  electronically  returns  an  error 
 message  to  the  requesting  LEC.  22  As  with  a  LASR  fatal  error,  the  requesting  LEC  must  correct 
 the  error  and  resend  the  LSR.  If  MOG  cannot  create  a  service  order  because  of  a  non-  fatal  error, 
 LASR  sends  the  LSR  to  the  MOG  error  report  in  FOLDERS  and  LSR/  DSS,  and  the  LSR  falls 
 out  for  manual  processing  by  an  LSC  service  representative  for  creation  of  a  manually-  generated 
 reject  notice.  23 


 7.  If  the  LSR  fails  LASR  or  MOG  fatal  edits,  SWBT  returns  a  reject  notification  on 
 LSRs  submitted  via  LEX  or  EDI.  When  an  LSR  falls  out  because  of  a  SORD  error  or  non-  fatal 
 MOG  error,  a  SWBT  local  service  representative  manually  inputs  a  reject  notification  into  LASR 
 GUI  to  produce  an  electronic  notification  via  LEX  or  EDI.  24  SWBT  sends  jeopardy  notices  to  the 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 contains  a  Fatal  Error  the  competing  LEC  can  correct  the  error  via  a  supplemental  request.  Id.  An  LSR 
 containing  errors  is  sent  back  to  the  competitive  LEC  across  the  same  mechanism  it  was  received.  MASTER 
 TEST  PLAN  at    2.2.2.3. 


 18  FOLDERS  stores  the  LSR  and  displays  a  MOG  indicator  if  the  LSR  was  also  sent  to  the  MOG.  FOLDERS  is 


 used  by  LSC  service  representatives  to  view  LSRs  and  reports  generated  during  the  processing  of  competing 
 carriers  requests.  SWBT  Ham.  Aff.  at  para.  168. 


 19  LSR/  DSS  is  a  workload  distribution  tool  utilized  by  the  LSC  for  handling  manual  processes.  SWBT  Ham.  Aff. 


 at  para.  169. 
 20  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  169.  See  SWBT  Ham  Aff.,  Attachment  X-  1  for  a  list  of  MOG-  eligible  service. 


 21  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  140.  SWBT  states  that  for  LSRs  that  cannot  be  mechanically  generated,  competing 
 carriers  can  use  SORD,  the  same  system  that  the  LSC  service  representatives  would  use  on  behalf  of  the  competitor 
 to  manually  create  those  orders  that  are  not  currently  MOG-  eligible.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  143. 


 22  SWBT  Ham.  Aff.  at  para  170.  A  list  of  MOG  fatal  errors  are  listed  in  the  LSOR. 


 23  SWBT  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  48.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  170.  If  the  non-  fatal  error  was  caused  by  the 
 competing  LEC,  the  LSC  service  representative  manually  inputs  a  reject  notification  via  the  LASR  GUI.  If  the 
 non-  fatal  error  was  caused  by  SWBTs  internal  processes  that  do  not  impact  competing  LEC  entries  on  the  LSR, 
 the  LSC  service  representative  will  create  the  service  order  in  EASE  (if  resale)  or  in  SORD.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at 
 para.  170. 


 24  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  148.  SWBT  states  that  it  developed  a  graphical  user  interface  to  allow  LSC  to 


 electronically  return  manual  rejects  as  an  interim  measure  until  it  can  move  LSR  resolvable  error  detection 
 capability  to  LASR.  Id. 
228
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  5 
 requesting  carrier  in  the  same  manner.  25 
 8.  If  the  LSR  passes  all  LASR  and  MOG  edits,  MOG  creates  a  service  order  which 
 is  sent  to  Service  Order  Retrieval  and  Distribution  (SORD)  for  processing.  26  SORD  performs 
 additional  edits  which  may  also  cause  an  order  to  drop  out  for  manual  processing.  27  Once  an 
 order  successfully  flows  through  SORD,  SORD  distributes  the  orders  to  the  appropriate  back-office 
 system.  28  Once  an  order  reaches  SWBTs  back  office  systems,  it  is  mixed  in  and  processed 
 along  with  SWBT  retail  orders.  29  When  all  orders  for  a  request  are  created  and  distributed 
 through  SORD,  SWBT  returns  a  Firm  Order  Confirmation  (FOC)  to  the  competing  LEC.  30 


 9.  The  FOC  contains  critical  information  such  as  the  assigned  telephone  number  and 
 the  date  on  which  the  service  will  be  installed.  If  SWBT  is  unable  to  fulfill  the  order  by  the  date 
 confirmed  on  the  FOC,  it  will  send  either  an  electronic  or  manual  jeopardy  notice  to  the 
 competing  carrier.  31  Electronic  jeopardy  notification  via  LEX  or  EDI  is  limited  to  jeopardy 
 situations  relating  to  no  facilities  available.  32  In  all  other  jeopardy  situations,  SWBT  will 
 manually  input  the  jeopardy  code  into  LASR  GUI,  which  then  sends  an  electronic  notification  to 
 the  competing  carrier  via  LEX  or  EDI.  33  A  manual  jeopardy  notice  is  sent  for  reasons  such  as 


 25  Id.  at  para.  152. 


 26  Master  Test  Plan  at    2.2.2.4  SORD  provides  the  service  order  distribution  and  assignment  processing  and 
 associated  information.  SORD  also  provides  the  FOC  and  SOC  notification  to  the  competing  carrier  via  LASR  or 
 EDI  or  LEX,  whichever  mechanism  in  which  it  was  received.  Id.  at    2.2.2.6 


 27  When  a  SORD  error  prevents  SORD  from  distributing  the  order,  the  LSC  representative  electronically  sends  a 


 reject  notification  to  the  requesting  carrier.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  147. 
 28  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  140-  142.  SORD  has  a  separate  editing  process  for  service  orders.  Those  edits  that  are 


 translated  and  programmed  in  LASR  and  MOG  as  fatal  edits  can  also  be  programmed  by  the  competing  carrier 
 into  its  own  side  of  the  EDI  Gateway. 


 29  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para  121. 


 30  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  141,  144,  154.  A  typical  LSR  creates  multiple  orders.  For  example,  the  process  to 
 convert  a  retail/  resale  end  user  to  UNE-  P  requires  the  creation  of  three  separate  orders  from  the  LSR:  The  D 
 order  is  issued  to  disconnect  the  CRIS  billing  for  either  the  SWBT  end  user  or  the  competitive  LEC  resale 
 customer;  the  C  order  is  issued  to  provision  the  UNE  element(  s)  as  the  competing  carrier  specifies  on  the  LSR; 
 and  establishes  CABS  billing  for  the  UNE  element.  A  CRIS  N  order  is  issued  to  keep  Directory  Listings  and 
 E911  in  sync  and  to  migrate  those  listings  to  competing  LECs.  30  All  firm  order  confirmation  (FOC)  criteria  must 
 be  met  before  a  FOC  is  returned  to  the  competing  carrier.  This  would  include  matches  on  the  following  fields:  the 
 LSR  number,  telephone  numbers,  circuit  IDs,  or  ported  numbers.  Id. 


 31  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  42;  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  151. 


 32  Ham.  Aff.  at  para.  151;  see  also  Southwestern  Bell  Accessible  Letter  Jeopardy  Notification  Mapping  Update, 
 No.  CLESS00=  035  (dated  Mar.  12,  1999)  (SWBT  Mar.  12,  1999  Accessible  Letter).  SWBT  implemented  this 
 electronic  jeopardy  notification  process  in  May  1999. 


 33  SWBT  implemented  this  manual  jeopardy  notification  process  on  January  15,  2000.  Prior  to  this  time,  if  a 


 jeopardy  condition  occurred  after  a  FOC  had  been  sent  back  to  the  competing  LEC,  SWBT  would  send  a  post-  FOC 
 reject  to  the  competing  carrier  via  LASR  GUI. 
229
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  6 
 additional  information  is  needed  with  respect  tot  he  service  address  or  a  SWBT  technician 
 attempting  to  install  the  service  cannot  obtain  access  to  the  premises  (i.  e.,  no  access).  34 


 10.  After  an  order  is  successfully  entered  into  SORD,  SWBT  begins  the  process  of 
 provisioning  the  order,  or  activating  the  requested  service  or  feature,  which  may  involve  assigning 
 facilities,  updating  translations  in  a  switch,  and  dispatching  technicians.  An  order  flows  from 
 SORD  to  the  Service  Order  Analysis  and  Control  (SOAC)  system  which  controls  the  progress  of 
 service  orders  through  the  provisioning  process  by  distributing  the  service  order  to  other 
 necessary  provisioning  systems  and  updating  SORD.  From  the  SOAC,  most  orders  flow 
 automatically  through  the  assignment  systems,  including  the  Loop  Facility  Assignment  and 
 Control  System  (LFACS),  where  the  appropriate  facilities  are  assigned  or  reserved  for  the  order. 
 Technicians  at  the  central  office  receive  the  order  and  perform  any  wiring  work  associated  with 
 the  order.  Orders  that  require  work  performed  outside  are  sent  via  Trunk  Integrated  Record 
 Keeping  System  (TIRKS)  to  the  Work  Force  Administration  (WFA)  systems  for  dispatch  of  a 
 field  technician.  Once  the  work  for  the  service  order  is  physically  completed,  a  Service  Order 
 Completion  (SOC)  notification  is  sent  to  the  competing  carrier.  35 


 11.  A  competing  carrier  can  monitor  the  status  of  an  order  using  SWBTs 
 Provisioning  Order  Status  (POS),  which  provides  a  read-  only  view  of  the  current  provisioning 
 status  for  pending  service  orders.  36  In  addition,  SWBT  s  Order  Status,  a  graphical  user  interface 
 application  available  to  competing  carriers  from  the  SWBTs  Toolbar.  37  Order  Status  displays 
 the  status  of  orders  relative  to  the  SORD  distribution  process  and  enables  competing  carriers  to 
 check  the  status  of  service  orders,  view  a  service  order,  verify  that  a  service  order  has  been 
 completed,  or  verify  that  a  pending  service  order  has  been  posted.  38  The  Order  remains  in 


 34  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  151-  152;  Southwestern  Bell  Accessible  Letter  Final  Requirements  Exception  Request  for 
 January  15,  2000  Release  at  1  &  Attach.  2  (dated  Dec.  20,  1999)  (SWBT  Dec.  20,  1999  (Accessible  Letter);  see 
 also  Southwestern  Bell  Accessible  Letter  Final  Requirements  for  June  26  th  Release  (dated  Mar.  31,  1999)  (SWBT 
 Mar.  31,  1999  Accessible  Letter).  Other  manual  jeopardy  codes  include:  (1)  verify  address  or  provide  nearby  TN; 
 (2)  account  already  converted  send  cancel;  (3)  invalid  CFA;  (4)  invalid  feature  detail;  (5)  invalid  TN;  (6)  invalid 
 due  date;  (7)  duplicate  LSR;  (8)  account  not  eligible  for  conversion;  (9)  invalid  feature;  (10)  EU  name  and  TN  do 
 not  match;  (11)  provide  driving  instructions;  (12)  duplicate  circuit  ID;  (13)  busy  cable  ID  and  channel  pair. 


 35  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  159.  The  completion  phase  is  accomplished  mechanically  by  SORD  when  all  orders 


 for  a  request  are  completed  and  the  SOC  criteria  are  met,  including  matches  for  LSR  number,  telephone  numbers, 
 circuit  IDs,  or  ported  numbers.  Id. 


 36  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  122.  POS  is  a  graphical  user  interface  application  that  is  launched  from  SWBTs 


 toolbar.  Id.  POS  displays  the  status  of  an  order  as  it  relates  to  the  provisioning/  dispatching  process.  Id.  at  para. 
 123. 


 37  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  122.  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  access  to  its  OSS  systems  through  its 


 Toolbar  that  serves  as  a  single  launching  point  for  access  to  multiple  application  using  a  single  standard  User  ID 
 and  password.  Id.  at  para  47.  The  Toolbar  provides  for  automated  software  updates  over  the  users  network 
 connection.  Id. 


 38  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  115. 
230
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  7 
 Originating  (O)  status  until  the  date  the  order  is  physically  completed.  39  Once  the  work  is 
 physically  completed,  the  order  is  sent  over  SORD  distribution,  which  puts  the  order  into 
 Completion  (C)  status.  40 


 12.  SWBT  sends  a  Service  Order  Completion  notice  (  SOC)  when  SWBT  has 
 completed  the  provisioning  work  associated  with  an  order.  41  The  SOC  is  sent  to  the  carrier  over 
 the  EDI  interface  if  the  order  was  submitted  via  EDI,  and  over  the  LEX  interface  if  the  order  was 
 submitted  via  LEX.  Carriers  using  EASE  for  ordering  resale  services  do  not  receive  order 
 completion  notices.  While  the  SOC  represents  notification  that  provisioning  has  been  completed, 
 it  is  not  a  notice  that  the  billing  systems,  or  the  maintenance  and  repair  systems,  have  actually 
 been  updated.  Indeed,  the  SOC  actually  is  issued  before  the  order  is  posted  to  SWBTs  billing 
 systems,  and  before  the  maintenance  and  repair  systems  are  updated  to  allow  the  competing  LEC 
 full  access. 


 13.  UNE-  P  Three-  Order  Process.  As  explained  above,  at  a  certain  point  in  the 
 ordering  process,  SWBT  transforms  a  competing  carriers  order  (either  automatically  or 
 manually)  into  one  or  more  service  orders  which  perform  different  functions  in  SWBTs  down-stream 
 provisioning  and  billing  systems.  For  most  resale  services  and  unbundled  network 
 elements  (e.  g.,  an  order  for  a  new  loop),  a  single  service  order  is  created.  SWBT  uses  a  three-order 
 process,  however,  for  UNE-  P  migrations:  a  D  order,  to  disconnect  and  remove  the 
 customer  from  the  retail  billing  systems;  a  C  order,  to  initiate  service  and  add  the  customer  to  a 
 different  billing  system;  and  an  N  order,  to  migrate  the  directory  and  E911  listings  to  the 
 competing  LEC.  42  The  provisioning  function  for  UNE-  P  migration  orders  is  performed  by  the 
 D  and  C  orders.  SWBT  explains  that,  for  its  UNE-  P  provisioning  process  to  perform  as 
 designed,  these  two  orders  must  proceed  in  tandem.  A  related  order  field  on  each  of  these 
 orders  is  used  to  keep  these  orders  together.  This  field  is  populated  automatically  on  service 
 orders  created  mechanically  but,  for  service  orders  that  are  typed  manually  by  SWBT  personnel 
 (i.  e.,  that  do  not  flow  through),  SWBT  personnel  must  remember  to  type  this  field  manually. 


 14.  SWBT  explains  that  orders  nonetheless  become  disassociated  under  two 
 circumstances.  First,  SWBT  may  simply  fail  to  populate  the  related  order  field  on  service 
 orders  that  are  typed  manually,  causing  the  D  and  C  orders  to  be  processed  as  stand-  alone 
 orders.  43  Because  the  vast  majority  of  UNE-  P  orders  flow  through  SWBTs  systems  without 


 39  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  144. 


 40  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  145. 
 41  See  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  145  and  159  (the  SOC  is  sent  once  the  work  for  the  service  order  is  physically 
 completed). 
 42  See  SWBT  Ham  Decl.  at  para.  197;  see  also  SWBT  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  73  (the  D  order  will 


 disconnect  the  old  service.). 
 43  SWBT  identified  this  as  the  cause  for  8  end  users  losing  dial  tone  while  being  converted  to  AT&  T  UNE-  P 


 service  in  August  and  September  1999.  See  SWBT  Ham  Reply  Aff.  at  para.  71  (for  these  UNE-  P  orders,  the 
 [related  field  identifiers]  were  not  properly  placed  on  the  service  order  by  SWBTs  Local  Service  Center  .  .  . 
 representatives  after  the  orders  fell  out  for  manual  handling.). 
231
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  8 
 such  manual  handling,  44  however,  we  note  that  few  orders  run  the  risk  of  this  mistake.  Second, 
 SWBTs  system  is  designed  to  override  the  related  order  field  (and  thus  to  disassociate  the 
 orders)  if  the  address  on  the  C  order  is  not  identical  to  the  address  on  the  D  order.  45  The 
 address  on  the  C  order  is  the  address  provided  by  the  carrier  and  has  passed  through  edits  to 
 ensure  that  it  is  consistent  with  the  PREMIS  address  databese.  The  address  on  the  D  order  is 
 taken  from  the  CRIS  address  database. 


 15.  There  appear  to  be  two  different  reasons  why  the  C  and  D  orders  would 
 contain  different  addresses    neither  of  which  would  be  detected  until  the  provisioning  stage. 
 First,  the  discrepancy  may  stem  from  a  mismatch  between  the  addresses  contained  in  the  PREMIS 
 database  and  the  CRIS  database.  Competing  LECs  explain  that,  for  certain  orders,  they  have 
 found  that  the  address  verified  by  the  PREMIS  database  is  not  consistent  with  the  address 
 contained  in  CRIS.  46  SWBT  does  not  dispute  that  mismatches  exist  between  its  PREMIS  and 
 CRIS  databases.  47  That  SWBTs  internal  databases  contain  inconsistencies  is  not  fatal  to  its 
 application:  we  note  that  database  inconsistencies  may  affect  SWBTs  retail  operations  as  well. 
 It  is  the  fact  that  these  inconsistencies  result  in  rejections,  delays  and  service  outages,  however, 
 that  causes  us  concern. 


 16.  A  second  reason  for  an  address  mismatch  between  D  and  C  orders  is  that  a 
 carrier  may  enter  the  wrong  address  on  its  order  (e.  g.,  4  Elm  Street,  rather  than  44  Elm  Street). 
 This  type  of  mistake  will  not  be  detected  until  the  provisioning  stage  because  the  mechanized 
 PREMIS  edits  only  check  the  address  listed  on  the  order,  and  do  not  verify  that  the  address 
 matches  the  customers  name  and  telephone  number.  48  While  this  mistake  necessarily  would 
 derive  from  a  competing  LECs  typographical  error,  we  believe  that  the  failure  of  SWBTs  OSS 
 edits  to  detect  such  a  mistake  places  a  heavy  burden  on  competing  LECs  to  pre-  edit  their  orders 
 to  ensure  that  they  are  accurate.  Indeed,  we  note  that  this  type  of  name/  address  mismatch  would 
 not  be  likely  to  occur  on  SWBTs  retail  side.  The  system  used  by  SWBT  for  the  bulk  of  its  retail 
 orders,  EASE,  contains  detailed  up-  front  address  edits  that  would  detect  these  name/  address 
 mismatches.  We  thus  disagree  with  SWBT  that  competing  carriers  are  to  blame  for  these  order 


 44  SWBT  reports  that  over  95%  of  UNE-  P  orders  submitted  electronically  via  EDI  flow  throuh  its  ordering 
 systems  without  manual  handling.  See  [discussion  in  Ordering  section]. 
 45  See  SWBT  Ham  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  73  (point7,  bullet  3);  see  also  SWBT  Ham  Decl.  at  para.  198  (  If  the  end 


 user  address  on  the  LSR  [which  is  placed  on  the  C  order]  does  not  match  the  address  on  the  existing  records  in 
 the  CRIS  database,  the  orders  become  disassociated.) 


 46  For  example,  AT&  T  notes  that  the  two  databases  may  simply  have  addresses  that  are  formatted  differently 


 (e.  g.,  PREMIS  lists  a  street  name  as  Jackson-  Keller  Road  and  CRIS  lists  the  street  without  the  hyphen  as 
 Jackson  Keller  Road). 


 47  See  Ham  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  73  (  If  the  service  address  provided  by  the  competing  LEC  on  the  LSR  is  a  valid 


 address  [i.  e.,  is  consistent  with  the  PREMIS  database],  but  is  different  from  the  service  address  contained  on  the 
 SWBT  CSR  for  the  end-  user  [i.  e.,  the  address  obtained  from  the  CRIS  database],  the  C  and  D  orders  will  have 
 different  addresses.). 


 48  See  WorldCom  McMillon/  Sivori/  Lichtenberg  Reply  Decl.  at  para.  26. 
232
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  9 
 disassociations  and  resultant  service  outages. 
 17.  Maintenance  and  Repair.  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with  several  options 
 for  requesting  maintenance  and  reporting  trouble  for  resold  local  services  sand  unbundled 
 network  elements.  If  a  competing  carriers  customer  experiences  service  disruptions,  the  carrier 
 can  call  the  LOC  where  a  customer  service  representative  enters  a  trouble  report  into  SWBTs 
 Enhanced  Customer  Report  System  (ECRS),  which  interfaces  with  SWBTs  back-  office  systems 
 involved  in  maintenance  and  repair.  49  The  customer  service  representative  then  performs  a 
 mechanized  line  test  (MLT)  and  provides  the  results  to  the  competing  LEC,  along  with  a  due  date 
 for  service  repair.  50 


 18.  A  competing  carrier  can  also  create  and  monitor  trouble  tickets,  access  trouble 
 history  for  a  line,  and  request/  initiate  a  test  of  the  customers  circuit  by  submitting  electronic 
 inquiries  through  SWBTs  proprietary  graphic  user  interface,  Toolbar  Trouble  Administration 
 (TBTA),  51  or  through  SWBTs  Electronic  Bonding  Trouble  Administration  Interface  (EBTA),  an 
 application-  to-  application  interface.  52  The  TBTA  electronic  interface  offers  the  competing  carrier 
 the  same  capabilities  as  SWBTs  retail  ECRS,  the  system  SWBT  retail  representatives  utilize  for 
 maintenance  and  repair  activity.  TBTA  provides  competing  carriers  with  the  ability  to  issue 
 trouble  reports,  request  and  receive  MLTs  for  POTS  services  and  POTS-  like  UNE  combinations 
 without  initiating  a  trouble  report,  53  check  status  on  an  opened  trouble  report,  obtain  trouble 
 histories,  view  a  list  of  open  trouble  reports,  and  view  a  list  of  closed  trouble  reports  within  the 
 last  120  days.  54  Using  the  TBTA,  a  competing  carrier  can  issue  a  trouble  report  without  manual 
 intervention.  55  EBTA  offers  the  same  capabilities  as  ECRS  and  TBTA,  with  the  exception  of 


 49  SWBT  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  69. 
 50  SWBT  Conway  Aff.  at  para.  69. 
 51  TBTA  is  a  GUI  used  by  SWBTs  retail  business  customers  and  IXCs  for  maintenance  and  repair 
 administration  that  offers  competing  carriers  access  to  SWBTs  back  office  systems.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras. 
 218-  220. 


 52  EBTA  is  an  application-  to-  application  interface  that  the  competing  carrier  can  integrate  into  its  own  back 


 office  systems.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para  218.  SWBT  states  that  due  to  the  complexity  and  the  information 
 technology  resource  requirements  of  developing  an  EBTA,  larger  competitors  are  the  most  likely  candidates  to 
 utilize  the  SWBT  EBTA.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  229. 


 53  SWBT  states  that  the  MLT  capability  is  not  available  for  other  forms  of  unbundled  network  elements 


 combinations  because  MLT  is  capable  of  testing  only  POTS  and  POTS-  like  combinations.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at 
 para.  220. 


 54  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  219-  220.  A  user  of  Trouble  Administration  can  test  or  report  trouble  on  a  line  on  the 


 same  day  that  the  order  posts  to  the  Customer  Access  Billing  System  (CABS).  If  a  service  order  has  been  created 
 but  errors  out  prior  to  posting  to  CABs  a  competing  carrier  attempting  to  test  the  line  using  TBTA  will  receive  an 
 Unauthorized  to  Access  error  message.  In  this  situation,  the  CLEC  Handbook  instructs  the  carriers  to 
 manually  report  trouble  to  the  LOC.  Id.  at  paras.  223-  225. 


 55  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  222. 
233
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  10 
 checking  trouble  history  and  viewing  the  lists  of  open  and  closed  trouble  reports.  56  Both  of  these 
 electronic  interfaces  flow  into  SWBTs  back  end  systems.  57 


 19.  Billing.  In  order  for  competing  carriers  to  bill  their  customers,  SWBT  provides 
 carriers  with  usage  billing  information  and  a  process  for  adjusting  or  correcting  invalid  or 
 incorrect  data.  58  SWBT  provides  competing  carriers  with  a  choice  of  five  options  for  obtaining 


 56  Id.  at  para.  219.  Currently,  EBTA  is  used  by  AT&  T,  WorldCom,  and  Sprint  for  interexchange  access  service 
 and  by  WorldCom  and  Sprint  for  local  service.  SWBT  Texas  I  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  230. 
 57  Id.  Thus,  when  a  competing  carrier  issues  a  trouble  report  or  requests  the  current  status  of  an  existing  report, 


 the  trouble  ticket  or  status  request  will  be  sent  to  SWBTs  back  office  system  with  no  manual  intervention  by 
 SWBT.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  paras.  222,  229. 


 58  See  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  234. 
234
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  11 
 electronic  access  to  billing  information:  Bill  Plus;  59  EDI  for  billing;  60  Carrier  Access  Billing 
 System  (CABS);  Bill  Data  Tape  (BDT)  for  UNEs;  61  Bill  Information;  62  and  Usage  Extract  feed.  63 
 These  interfaces  can  be  used  to  view  SWBTs  bill  to  competitive  LECs  and  specific  information 
 available  from  these  interfaces  can  also  be  used  by  a  competing  carrier  to  bill  its  end  user 


 59  Bill  Plus  is  an  electronic  telephone  bill  that  provides  a  competing  carrier  with  the  same  information 
 contained  on  its  paper  bill.  Bill  Pluss  various  reporting  options  allow  carriers  with  the  capability  to  analyze  its 
 billing  data.  In  addition,  a  carrier  can  extract  the  billing  data  to  their  internal  systems.  See  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at 
 para.  236. 


 60  EDI  for  billing  is  an  interface  that  enables  competing  carriers  to  receive  their  resale  services  billing  data  in  an 


 industry  standard  electronic  format.  The  billing  data  consists  of  the  same  information  that  appears  on  the 
 competing  carrier's  paper  bill  for  resale  service.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para.  238. 


 61  Bill  Data  Tape  provides  to  competing  carriers,  in  an  electronic  format  from  SWBTs  CABs  database,  the  same 


 information  that  would  appear  on  the  competing  carriers  paper  bill  for  unbundled  net  work  elements.  The  data  is 
 offered  electronically  via  direct  connection,  on  tape,  on  floppy  disks,  or  on  microfiche.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para. 
 242. 


 62  Bill  Information  is  a  graphical  user  interface  available  from  SWBTs  Toolbar  platform  that  allows  competing 


 carriers  to  view  billing  data  and  other  information  regarding  a  competing  carriers  resale  services  or  unbundled 
 network  elements.  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para  243. 


 63  Usage  Extract  is  a  process  by  which  a  competing  carrier  can  receive  its  usage  sensitive  messages  on  a  daily 


 basis  for  resale  services  or  unbundled  network  elements. 
235
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 B-  12 
 customers.  64  In  addition,  SWBT  makes  available  to  competing  carriers  that  are  reselling  SWBT 
 products  or  services,  its  Customer  Record  Information  System  (CRIS),  the  system  SWBT  uses  to 
 bill  its  own  retail  products  to  residential  and  business  customers  and  create  bills  for  competitive 
 LECs.  65  Competing  carriers  can  also  utilize  CRIS  to  bill  a  few  UNE-  related  services  such  as 
 Interim  Number  Portability  and  operator-  handled  calls. 


 64  SWBT  Ham  Aff.  at  para  234. 
 65  See  Aff.  of  John  A.  Locus,  App.  A-  4,  Tab  4. 
236
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 CONCURRING  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  HAROLD  W. 
 FURCHTGOTT-  ROTH 


 In  the  Matter  of  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone 
 Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc. 
 d/  b/  a  Southwestern  Bell  Long  Distance 
 Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996 
 To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  in  Texas,  CC  Docket  No.  00-  65 


 I  concur  in  the  decision  to  grant  this  application  by  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone 
 Company  (SWBT)  to  provide  in-  region,  inter-  LATA  services  in  the  State  of  Texas.  I  write 
 separately,  however,  in  order  to  apply  my  understanding  of  the  statute. 


 Application  of  Sections  251,  252,  and  271 


 As  I  explained  in  the  decision  on  Bell  Atlantics  application  to  offer  long  distance  service 
 in  New  York,  the  relationship  between  the  regulatory  approval  process  under  section  271  and  the 
 procedures  regarding  private  interconnection  agreements  established  by  sections  251  and  252  is  a 
 critical  one.  Unfortunately,  the  Commission  has  not  paid  close  attention  to  this  relationship,  and 
 its  failure  to  do  so  has  caused  the  section  271  review  process  to  morph  into  something  quite 
 different  from  the  original  statutory  plan.  The  process  has  turned  into  a  general  federal  regulatory 
 scheme,  instead  of  tracking  the  contract-  based,  State-  centric  model  of  sections  251,  252,  and  271. 
 See  generally  Concurring  Statement  of  Commissioner  Harold  W.  Furchtgott-  Roth,  In  the  Matter 
 of  Application  by  Bell  Atlantic  New  York  for  Authorization  Under  Section  271  of  the 
 Communications  Act  to  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Service  in  the  State  of  New  York,  CC 
 Docket  No.  99-  295  (rel.  Dec.  22,  1999)  (  New  York  Statement). 


 I  will  briefly  reiterate  those  points  that  pertain  to  my  analysis  here.  First,  the  text  of 
 section  271  makes  clear  that  the  relevant  universe  of  BOC  conduct  to  be  tested  in  a  Track  A 
 application  is  not  its  commercial  performance  generally,  as  the  Order  supposes,  but  its  fulfillment 
 of  specific  interconnection  agreements: 


 With  respect  to  a  BOC  that  "is  providing  access  and  interconnection  pursuant  to  one  or 
 more  agreements  described  in  paragraph  (1)(  A),"  as  here,  it  is  "such  access  and 
 interconnection  [that  must]  meet[]  the  requirements  of"  the  competitive 
 checklist.  Id.  section  271(  c)(  2)(  A)  (emphasis  added).  Similarly,  the  statute  defines  the 
 Commissions  administrative  task  under  Track  A  as  determining  whether  the  petitioning 
 BOC  "with  respect  to  access  and  interconnection  provided  pursuant  to 
 subsection  c(  1)(  A)  has  fully  implemented  the  checklist."  Id.  section  271(  d)(  3)(  A)(  i). 


 New  York  Statement  at  para.  6. 
 Second,  in  analyzing  the  RBOCs  fulfillment  of  the  checklist  under  its  approved 
 interconnection  agreements,  one  should  consider  the  existence  of  complaints  to  enforce  those 
237
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 2 
 agreements  filed  by  interconnecting  parties  with  the  State  Commission.  If  CLECs  are  receiving 
 seriously  inadequate  service  under  those  agreements,  one  would  expect  to  see  them  invoke  the 
 rights  and  remedies  guaranteed  to  them  by  sections  251  and  252,  including  the  right  to  arbitration 
 and  federal  court  review.  Accordingly,  it  has  seemed  to  me  that 


 the  most  probative  evidence  of  compliance  with  the  checklist    perhaps  even  prima  facie 
 proof  --  is  the  absence  of  disputes  arising  under  section  252  contracts.  Conversely,  the 
 best  evidence  of  noncompliance  is  the  presence  of  such  disputes.  Record  documentation  of 
 these  disputes,  such  as  complaints  filed  with  State  Commissions  pursuant  to  section  252, 
 would  only  strengthen  that  showing. 


 Id.  at  para.  23. 
 In  sum,  the  best  case  for  noncompliance  with  section  271  under  Track  A  is  to  be  made  by 
 parties:  (1)  with  approved  interconnection  agreements  described  in  section  271(  c)(  1)(  A);  (2)  who 
 legitimately  allege  that  the  RBOC  is  not  providing  them  service  pursuant  to  the  actual  terms  and 
 conditions  of  those  agreements;  and  (3)  who  have  pursued  those  alleged  violations  with  State 
 Commissions  pursuant  to  section  252. 


 On  this  record,  we  have  evidence  that  approaches,  but  does  not  meet,  this  standard. 
 Covad  Communications,  which  opposes  the  instant  application,  receives  interconnection  and 
 access  from  SWBT  pursuant  to  a  final,  Track  A  interconnection  agreement  that  was  arbitrated 
 and  approved  under  section  252.  And  that  agreement  appears  to  provide  for  the  non-discriminatory 
 provisioning  of  x-  DSL  capable  loops  to  Covad.  See  Ex  Parte  Submission  of 
 Covad  Communications  (June  27,  2000)  (attaching  interconnection  agreement  on  DSL).  So  far, 
 so  good. 


 That  interconnection  agreement,  however,  was  not  finalized  and  operative  until  February 
 of  this  year.  Although  Covad  points  to  findings  by  Texas  arbitrators  related  to  discriminatory 
 provisioning  of  loops  by  SWBT,  those  findings  were  not  made  in  the  context  of  a  controversy 
 arising  under  a  section  252  contract    that  is,  in  a  dispute  over  the  adequacy  of  SWBTs  service 
 under  the  terms  of  an  existing  interconnection  agreement.  Rather,  they  were  made  in  the  context 
 of  a  petition  for  arbitration  to  establish  an  interconnection  agreement  and  terms  thereunder  with 
 SWBT.  1  Covad  never  alleged  a  breach  of  performance  under  a  Track  A  agreement,  at  the  State 
 Commission  or  anywhere  else,  and  the  arbitrators  findings  do  not  go  to  SWBTs  actual 
 performance  of  an  agreement  but  to  the  proper  drafting  of  a  future  agreement.  Such  findings, 
 then,  are  not  probative  of  a  failure  to  provide  access  and  interconnection  pursuant  to  a  Track  A 
 agreement. 


 1  Indeed,  the  arbitration  award  relied  upon  so  heavily  by  Covad  as  evidence  of  actual  discrimination  in  violation 
 of  section  251  and  271  is  captioned  Petition  of  Rhythms  Links,  Inc.  for  Arbitration  to  Establish  an 
 Interconnection  Agreement  with  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company  and  Petition  of  Dieca  Communications, 
 Inc.  d/  b/  a  Covad  Communications  Company  for  Arbitration  of  Interconnection  Rates,  Terms,  Conditions,  and 
 Related  Arrangements  with  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company. 
238
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 3 
 AT&  T,  which  also  takes  service  from  SWBT  under  an  approved  interconnection 
 agreement,  also  opposes  the  grant  of  this  application.  It  argues  in  this  proceeding  that  SWBT  is, 
 in  various  ways,  violating  the  terms  and  conditions  of  its  interconnection  agreement.  See  Ex  Parte 
 Submission  of  AT&  T  (June  23,  2000).  For  example,  AT&  T  says  that  SWBT  is  discriminating 
 against  it  in  the  provision  of  unbundled,  DSL-  capable  loops  obtained  as  part  of  the  UNE-platform, 
 and  that  this  conduct  violates  the  non-  discrimination  and  other  provisions  of  their 
 agreement  and  section  251.  See  id.  at  page  2  (citing  section  55.1  of  agreement,  providing  that 
 [  a]  t  the  request  of  AT&  T  and  pursuant  to  the  requirements  of  the  Act,  SWBT  will  offer  .  .  . 
 Network  Elements  to  AT&  T  on  an  unbundled  basis  on  rates,  terms,  and  conditions  set  forth  in 
 this  Agreement  that  are  just,  reasonable,  and  non-  discriminatory).  Thus,  AT&  T  well 
 demonstrated  that  the  conduct  that  it  alleges  as  a  problem  under  section  271  is  conduct  to  which 
 its  interconnection  agreement  directly  speaks.  Again,  so  far  so  good. 


 What  AT&  T  has  not  done,  however,  is  adduce  evidence  that  it  has  sought  enforcement  of 
 its  contractual  right  to  nondiscrimination  with  the  State  Commission.  Like  Covad,  it  has 
 participated  in  hearings  regarding  the  content  of  new,  not-  yet-  entered-  into  interconnection 
 agreements.  See  AT&  T  Ex  Parte  Submission  (June  27,  2000).  But  the  record  does  not  reflect 
 that  AT&  T  has  ever  asserted  that  SWBTs  provision  of  access  and  interconnection  under  an 
 operative  agreement  was  in  breach.  As  with  respect  to  Covad,  there  is  no  showing  here  that 
 AT&  T  has  ever  attempted  to  enforce  its  contractual  rights. 


 As  noted  above,  CLEC  action  to  enforce  an  alleged  breach  of  an  interconnection 
 agreement  is  evidence  of  significantly  inadequate  provisioning  of  access  and  interconnection  under 
 section  252  contracts,  which,  as  I  read  section  271,  is  the  relevant  universe  of  access  and 
 interconnection  Accordingly,  while  both  Covad  and  AT&  T  make  legitimate  points  here,  I  still 
 view  with  skepticism  assertions  of  inadequate  BOC  performance  lodged  for  the  first  time  in  the 
 section  271  approval  process.  Concurring  Statement,  New  York  Order.  That  is  what  we  have 
 with  respect  to  both  Covad  and  AT&  T,  and  I  thus  find  no  record  evidence  of  failure  by  SWBT  to 
 perform  as  required  under  the  terms  of  section  252  contracts. 


 SBC/  Ameritech  Merger  Conditions 


 As  I  stated  at  the  time  of  the  Commissions  approval  of  SBC  and  Ameritechs  application 
 to  transfer  licenses  and  authorizations  under  sections  309  and  214  of  the  Communications  Act,  I 
 believe  that  some  of  the  conditions  applied  to  the  license  transfer  conflict  with  specific  sections  of 
 the  Act.  In  particular,  I  believe  that 


 of  especial  legal  concern  are  those  related  to  carrier-  to-  carrier  promotions.  These 
 conditions  limit  the  number  of  services  and  facilities  that  may  be  offered  to  competitive 
 local  exchange  carriers  (CLECs)  on  a  promotional  basis.  Once  the  caps  are  reached,  some 
 CLECs  will  be  unable  to  obtain  the  same  promotional  deals  as  other  CLECs.  Quite  simply, 
 carrier-  to-  carrier  promotions  will  not  be  available  on  an  equal  basis  to  all  requesting 
 carriers.  In  this  way,  then,  the  conditions  violate  the  "nondiscriminatory  access" 
239
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  238 
 4 
 requirement  of  section  251(  c)(  3),  as  well  as  the  resale  non-  discrimination  requirement  of 
 251(  c)(  4)(  B). 


 Moreover,  the  caps  directly  conflict  with  the  "pick-  and-  choose"  provision  of  section  252. 
 Section  252(  i)  requires  incumbent  LECs  to  "make  available  [to  a  CLEC]  any  .  .  .  service, 
 or  network  element"  provided  to  any  other  CLEC  "upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions," 
 regardless  of  the  level  of  offering  to  others.  For  the  reasons  given  above,  the  guarantee  of 
 that  section  will  be  unfulfilled  as  a  result  of  the  caps. 


 Apart  from  the  caps  themselves,  the  underlying  discounts  on  loop  rates  also  offend 
 sections  252(  i)  and  251(  c)(  3).  These  discounts  discriminate  among  CLECs  --  in  terms  of 
 prices  and  offerings  --  by  creating  a  situation  in  which  a  CLEC  that  uses  an  ILEC's 
 unbundled  switch  gets  one  rate  for  the  loop,  but  a  CLEC  that  uses  its  own  switch  gets  a 
 discount  on  the  very  same  loop. 


 Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Harold  W.  Furchtgott-  Roth,  Concurring  in  Part  and 
 Dissenting  in  Part,  In  re  Applications  of  Ameritech  Corp.,  Transferor,  and  SBC  Communications 
 Inc.,  Transferee,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  141  (rel.  Oct.  8,  1999). 


 I  personally  solicited  further  comment  on  the  effect  of  these  merger  conditions  on 
 SWBTs  section  271  application.  See  Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Harold  W. 
 Furchtgott-  Roth,  In  the  Matter  of  Application  by  SBC  Communications  Inc.,  Southwestern  Bell 
 Telephone  Company,  and  Southwestern  Bell  Communications  Services,  Inc.  d/  b/  a  Southwestern 
 Bell  Long  Distance  Pursuant  to  Section  271  of  the 
 Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  To  Provide  In-  Region,  InterLATA  Services  In  Texas,  CC 
 Docket  No.  00-  4  (rel.  April  6,  2000). 


 Some  parties  addressed  this  issue.  See  Comments  of  AT&  T  at  62-  64.  As  I  review  the 
 record,  no  party  submitted  information  revelatory  of  the  actual  effects  of  the  loop  discounts 
 required  in  the  Commissions  merger  Order.  Specifically,  the  record  is  ambiguous  as  to  whether 
 the  cap  has  been  reached  or  not;  and  if  the  cap  has  not  been  reached,  then  price  discrimination  is, 
 at  this  point  in  time,  just  a  theoretical  possibility.  If,  in  future  long  distance  applications,  a  party 
 can  show  that  the  cap  has  been  reached  and  differential  prices  are  actually  being  charged,  this 
 issue  would  be  live  and  I  would  be  most  willing  to  pursue  it  further.  At  this  point,  however,  the 
 record  does  not  support  it. 


 *** 
 Because  I  believe  that  SBWT  is  providing  access  and  interconnection  pursuant  to  Track  A 
 agreements  as  required  by  those  contracts,  which  in  turn  incorporate  rights  available  to  CLECs 
 under  sections  251  and  252,  I  concur  in  the  grant  of  its  application  to  offer  long  distance  service 
 in  Texas. 
240