[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78-79]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34144]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 97-208; FCC 97-418]


Application of BellSouth Corporation, et al. Pursuant to Section 
271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide In-Region 
InterLATA Services in South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) in CC Docket No. 97-
208 concludes that BellSouth Corporation, et al. (BellSouth) has not 
satisfied the requirements of section 271(c)(1) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (Act). The Commission therefore denies, 
pursuant to section 271(d)(3), BellSouth's application to provide in-
region interLATA services in South Carolina. The Order declines to 
grant BellSouth authority to provide in-region interLATA services in 
South Carolina.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pryor, Attorney, Policy and 
Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
adopted December 24, 1997, and released December 24, 1997. The full 
text of this Order is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M St., N.W., 
Room 239, Washington, D.C. The complete text also may be obtained 
through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common 
Carrier/Orders/fcc97-228.wp, or may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis Of Order

    1. On September 30, 1997, BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth 
Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. 
(collectively, BellSouth) filed an application for authorization under 
section 271 of the Act, to provide in-region interLATA services in the 
State of South Carolina. In this Order, the Commission concludes that 
BellSouth may not obtain authorization to provide in-region, interLATA 
services in South Carolina pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B) at this 
time because it has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it 
has received no qualifying requests for access and interconnection 
that, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of section 
271(c)(1)(A). The Commission further concludes that BellSouth has not 
yet demonstrated that it has fully implemented the competitive 
checklist in section 271(c)(2)(B). In particular, the Commission finds 
that BellSouth has not met its burden of showing that it meets the 
competitive checklist with respect to: (1) access to its operations 
support systems; (2) access to network elements; and (3) resale. The 
Commission concludes that BellSouth complies with the requirement to 
provide access to 911 and E911 services, and that BellSouth's inbound 
telemarketing script is consistent with the Act. The Commission 
therefore denies, pursuant to section 271(d)(3), BellSouth's 
application to provide in-region interLATA services in South Carolina.
    2. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(B). The Commission concludes 
that BellSouth may not obtain authorization to provide in-region, 
interLATA services in South Carolina pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B) 
at this time because it has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating 
that it has received no qualifying requests for access and 
interconnection that, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of 
section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission, as an initial matter, clarifies 
its standard for evaluating qualifying requests and the role of 
reasonable steps in its evaluation.
    3. The Commission further concludes that MCI's provision of 
telephone exchange service on a test basis, at no charge, to the homes 
of nineteen MCI employees, does not qualify MCI as a competing provider 
under section 271(c)(1)(A), and therefore BellSouth has not satisfied 
the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A).
    4. Compliance with the Competitive Checklist in Section 
271(c)(2)(B). For the

[[Page 79]]

reasons set forth below, the Commission concludes that BellSouth has 
not yet demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that it has 
fully implemented the competitive checklist. As a preliminary matter, 
the Commission concludes that a BOC ``generally offers'' a checklist 
item if it makes the checklist item available as both a legal and a 
practical matter.
    5. With respect to the first checklist item addressed, the 
Commission concludes, consistent with the Department of Justice's 
finding, that BellSouth has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of 
the evidence that it provides nondiscriminatory access to all of the 
operations support systems (OSS) functions provided to competing 
carriers, as required by the competitive checklist. First, the 
Commission describes BellSouth's OSS. Second, the Commission outlines 
its general approach to analyzing the adequacy of a BOC's OSS. Third, 
the Commission analyzes the evidence concerning competing carriers' 
access to OSS functions for resale services and unbundled network 
elements. Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes 
that BellSouth has not demonstrated that the access to certain OSS 
functions that it provides to competing carriers for pre-ordering, 
ordering, and provisioning of resale services and pre-ordering of 
unbundled network elements is equivalent to the access it provides to 
itself. Finally, in order to provide additional guidance, the 
Commission highlights a number of other OSS-related issues that are of 
concern to the Commission.
    6. The next checklist item the Commission addresses is access to 
unbundled network elements. The Commission concludes that BellSouth 
does not meet this checklist item because it has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that it can make available, as a legal 
and practical matter, access to unbundled network elements in a manner 
that allows competing carriers to recombine them. The Commission 
concludes that the statement of generally available terms (SGAT) is 
deficient because it fails to include sufficiently detailed terms and 
conditions for access to network elements for the purposes of 
recombining them. The Commission finds that the SGAT lacks crucial 
details such as which elements will be separated and which will be 
provided in combination, and how and at what cost. The Commission 
concludes that, in particular, BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that 
it can provide access to such elements through the one method that it 
has identified for such access--collocation. The Commission finds that 
BellSouth fails to demonstrate that it offers or can timely provide 
collocation for the purposes of recombining unbundled network elements. 
The Commission finds it significant that BellSouth's SGAT does not 
commit to any provisioning intervals for implementing collocation 
requests. The Commission further finds that the record indicates that, 
in practice, it is taking BellSouth a long time to implement 
collocation requests. The Commission further finds that BellSouth has 
made no showing that there has been actual commercial usage or testing 
of collocation anywhere in its region for the purpose of recombining 
UNEs. Thus, the Commission concludes, BellSouth has not demonstrated 
that it can timely deliver unbundled network elements to collocation 
spaces for combining, or that the resulting provision of these combined 
elements will be at an acceptable level of quality.
    7. The Commission also addresses the checklist item that requires 
incumbent LECs to offer for resale at wholesale rates any 
telecommunications service that the carrier provides at retail, and not 
to prohibit, or to impose unreasonable or discriminatory conditions or 
limitations on, the resale of such telecommunications service. The 
Commission concludes that BellSouth does not meet this checklist item 
because it refuses to offer contract service arrangements, which are 
contractual agreements made between a carrier and a specific, typically 
high-volume, customer, at a wholesale discount. The Commission 
concludes that BellSouth's argument that CSAs should not be further 
discounted because they have already been discounted from the tariff 
rate has been previously considered and rejected by the Commission. The 
Commission further finds that failure to offer CSAs to resellers at a 
discount impedes competition for large-volume customers and thus 
impairs use of resale as a vehicle for competitors to enter BellSouth's 
market.
    8. The Commission also addresses the part of the checklist item 
that requires BellSouth to provide nondiscriminatory access to 911 and 
E911 services. The Commission concludes that BellSouth has made a prima 
facie case that it offers nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 
services. Because no commenter has produced evidence to demonstrate 
that BellSouth is not currently offering nondiscriminatory access to 
911 and E911 services, the Commission concludes that BellSouth 
satisfies this part of the checklist item.
    9. Compliance with Section 272. The Commission concludes that 
BellSouth's inbound telemarketing script is consistent with the Act. 
The Commission concludes that a BOC, during an inbound telephone call, 
may recommend its own long distance affiliate, as long as it 
contemporaneously states that other carriers also provide long distance 
service and offers to read a list of all available interexchange 
carriers in random order.
    10. Public Interest. Based on the Commission's conclusions that 
BellSouth has not fully implemented the competitive checklist, the 
Commission need not and does not address the issue of whether BellSouth 
has demonstrated that the authorization it seeks is consistent with the 
public interest, convenience, and necessity, as required by section 
271(d)(3)(C).

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-34144 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P