[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