[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7787-7788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3772]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CC Docket No. 97-231; FCC 98-17]
Application by BellSouth Corporation, et al. Pursuant to Section
271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide In-
Region, InterLATA Services in Louisiana
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) in CC Docket No. 97-
231 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 Louisiana. The Order declines to grant
BellSouth authority to provide in-region, interLATA services in
Louisiana.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Kinney, Attorney, Policy and
Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
adopted February 3, 1998, and released February 4, 1998. The full text
of this Order is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M St., NW., 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/
fcc98-17.wp, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th
St., NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
SYNOPSIS OF ORDER:
1. On November 6, 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 Louisiana. The Commission recently considered BellSouth's
application for entry into the long distance market in South Carolina.
Because BellSouth's Louisiana application is materially
indistinguishable with respect to two of the checklist items that
BellSouth failed to meet in its South Carolina application, the
Commission denies BellSouth's application to provide interLATA services
in Louisiana.
2. In this Order, the Commission concludes that BellSouth has not
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, and (2) resale of contract service arrangements. The
Commission therefore denies, pursuant to section 271(d)(3), BellSouth's
application to provide in-region interLATA services in Louisiana.
3. Compliance with the Competitive Checklist in Section
271(c)(2)(B). For the 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.
4. Operations Support Systems. With respect to the first checklist
item addressed, the Commission concludes,
[[Page 7788]]
as it did in its Order denying BellSouth's South Carolina application,
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. BellSouth has
deployed the same operations support systems throughout its nine-state
region, and, in its application, BellSouth relies on data from its
entire region to support its assertion that it is in compliance with
the requirements of section 271. The Commission reviewed BellSouth's
OSS in when it reviewed BellSouth's South Carolina application and
found that its OSS were deficient. The Commission uses the
determinations it made about BellSouth's operations support systems in
its BellSouth South Carolina Order, 63 FR 78 (January 2, 1998), as a
starting point. In this Order, the Commission reviews the new
information BellSouth has provided and finds that BellSouth has not
remedied the deficiencies in its OSS that the Commission identified in
its BellSouth South Carolina Order.
5. In this Order, the Commission finds that BellSouth fails to
offer nondiscriminatory access to its OSS functions for the pre-
ordering, ordering, and provisioning of resale services. Based on the
evidence in the record, the Commission made the following conclusions.
First, the Commission concludes that, as in its South Carolina
application, BellSouth has failed to demonstrate that it is offering
competing carriers the ability to order services for resale on a
nondiscriminatory basis, i.e., within substantially the same time and
manner as BellSouth provides the service to itself. Second, the
Commission finds that, as in its South Carolina application, BellSouth
has failed to demonstrate that a competing carrier is able to provide
service to its customers, using BellSouth's resold service, in
substantially the same time and manner that BellSouth provides service
to its own retail customers. Third, the Commission concludes that, as
in its South Carolina application, BellSouth's pre-ordering system does
not provide competing carriers with equivalent access to operational
support systems for pre-ordering.
6. Resale of Contract Service Arrangements. 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. As in its BellSouth South Carolina
Order, 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.
7. In this Order, the Commission affirms its conclusion in the
BellSouth South Carolina Order that neither incumbent LECs nor states
may create a general exemption from the requirement that incumbent LECs
offer their promotional or discounted offerings, including contract
service arrangements, at a wholesale discount. The Commission concludes
that BellSouth's argument that contract service arrangements should not
be further discounted because they have already been discounted from
the tariff rate has been previously considered and rejected by the
Commission. Finally, the Commission concludes that BellSouth's refusal
to offer contract service arrangements at a wholesale discount is not a
local pricing matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state
commission.
8. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission also
concludes that the Act excludes only cellular providers, not Personal
Communications Services (PCS) providers, from being considered
``facilities-based competitors'' for purposes of satisfying section
271(c)(1)(A). Thus, the Commission finds that section 271 does not
preclude the Commission from considering, in future applications, the
presence of a PCS provider in a particular state as a ``facilities-
based competitor.'' The Commission does not address, however, whether
the specific PCS carriers on which BellSouth relies in its Louisiana
application satisfy section 271(c)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-3772 Filed 2-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
