Opinion ID: 184717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Relevant Developments

Text: 18 Since BellSouth filed its appeal, three cases relevant to this appeal have been decided. On March 20, 1998, this court decided SBC Communications, denying SBC's petition to review the so-called Oklahoma Order. In that case, SBC sought review of the FCC's denial of its request to provide in-region long distance services in Oklahoma. SBC argued that it had satisfied Track A, because another entity was providing service to 20 customers in the region. SBC argued in the alternative that it had satisfied Track B. The FCC denied SBC's request, because it found that SBC had not satisfied either Track A or Track B. 19 This court denied SBC's petition to review the FCC's decision, because it found that the other entity providing service in-region was doing so free of charge, and it was reasonable for the FCC to interpret competing provider in Track A to require an actual commercial alternative to the BOC. SBC Communications, 138 F.3d at 416 (internal quotation marks omitted). This court also found that SBC had not satisfied Track B. Particularly relevant to this case, this court approved the FCC's interpretation that Track B was foreclosed the moment a provider requested interconnection so long as [the FCC] could predict that the carrier would, after implementing the agreement, provide competitive service to both residential and business customers, at least predominantly over its own facilities. Id. at 417. Because SBC had received qualifying requests that satisfied the FCC's interpretation of Track B, it could not seek to provide long distance services under that track. 20 On May 15, 1998, this court decided BellSouth I, holding that § 274, which limited the ability of the BOCs to provide electronic publishing, was not a bill of attainder, nor did it violate the BOCs' right to free speech under the First Amendment. Although BellSouth I addressed many of the bill of attainder issues raised in this case, there are differences between § 274 and § 271 that make this case somewhat different from that one. 21 On September 4, 1998, the Fifth Circuit decided SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.1998) (SBC Communications (5th)), in which SBC had argued that all of the Special Provisions of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 271-276, were unconstitutional. Reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit found that the provisions did not constitute a bill of attainder, did not violate the separation of powers requirement, and did not violate the equal protection clause. It also found that the electronic publishing restrictions did not violate the BOCs' right to free speech under the First Amendment. 22 In the light of these developments, we now review the FCC's denial of BellSouth's application to provide long distance services in South Carolina.