[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
