rconnection. Like any chain, the IIC supply chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In this case, LEC interconnection is a fundamental link, and potentially the weak one. LEC interconnection is a fundamental link because it encompasses the technologies and processes IICs use to order products and services from each other. It's a weak link because even though ILECs provide various automated interfaces for key processes, the level of integration supporting them is inconsistent, as are the interface technologies they employ. Many of the supporting processes remain manual and/or based on older, obsolete systems. A lack of interface standards or even common guidelines has made interconnecting with multiple ILECs extremely complicated, requiring custom development with very little reuse from provider to provider or region to region. Interconnection was bound to be a problem from the very beginning. The initial interconnection orders, subsequent to deregulation, ordered ILECs to open their OSSs and provide electronic access to pre-ordering, ordering, trouble ticketing, provisioning and billing functions. The FCC did not, however, propose any models or appoint any industry forum to spearhead an interface standards process, determine any technical guidelines or benchmarks, or set any minimums for what ILECs would have to provide. They were told they would be tested, but tests were administered on a state- by-state basis, differing greatly from place to place. The interconnection orders called for parity, where CLECs would be guaranteed equal access to data and equal fulfillment timeframes to what ILECs provided for themselves. The problem with parity is that the service ILECs provide to themselves is often not very good. Although interconnection interface standards are troublesome, standards have been developed for local and access service requests. Local service requests (LSRs) are basically the order forms IICs submit to ILECs; for example, to switch an ILEC local service customer to a CLEC's local services. Small 