ncy 911 services, numbering and number portability, directory services, and the services required to switch customers to the new entrants. Many of these regulations had never been implemented before, espe- cially in regard to network unbundling, number portability, or large-scale, real-time transfer of customers from an incumbent telephone company's network to those operated by new entrants. Indeed, there was virtually no experience with local competition for residential and small-business sub- scribers anywhere in the world. 13 Nevertheless, the Bell companies and other incumbents were required to adhere to these untested rules, and the Bell companies' compliance on a state-by-state basis was a condition for gaining entry into long-distance services originating in each state. Network Unbundling In probably its most controversial provision, the 1996 act required incumbent carriers to provide entrants with access to their unbundled facil- ities at regulated rates: "[The incumbent carrier has t]he duty to provide to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecom- munications service nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and con- ditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory."`s The FCC was to identify which facilities had to be unbundled: "In determining what network elements should be made available the Commission shall consider at a minimum whether-[A] Access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary; and [B] The failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunica- tions carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer"15 (emphasis added). The FCC took this sweeping language as an invitation to require the unbundling of virtually everything in the incumbent carriers' existing net- works. 16 Even after the Supreme Court remanded this approach for the FCC's reconsideration, the commission was by and large unmov