ices-such as video, long-distance telephony, local telephony, and high-speed Internet access- over a single, integrated platform. Such a strategy may provide the entrant with an advantage over its regulated incumbent rivals, many of whom were unable to offer long-distance or other services that cross LATA boundaries or have an old copper plant that cannot deliver high-speed services to a large share of their subscribers, and all of whom have the provider of last resort responsibility at low regulated local rates. This is precisely why cable companies are expanding and why the noncable CLECs that do not have their own facilities are struggling or even collapsing. In addition, there may be limited room for smaller carriers providing niche services or better service to businesses than the large, regulated incumbents can offer. This may explain why there are still a large number of smaller, private CLECs in operation today. But the roster of the publicly traded companies, each of which surely is cognizant of the strategies of some of these smaller, private companies, provides no obvious recipe for success. 54 Local Entry by Long-Distance Carriers (AT&T and MCI-WorldCom) The two largest long-distance carriers, AT&T and MCI (formerly WorldCom), are major participants in the delivery of local telecommuni- cations services. By June 2003, each was offering approximately 3 million subscriber lines through the UNE platform, and by March 2004 AT&T alone had 4.4 million access lines. 55 These carriers have been highly aggres- sive in lobbying for low UNE-P rates, particularly since the Bell companies have gained access to the interLATA long-distance market. Local Competition under the 1996 Act Table 4-3. Private U.S. CLECs, End of 2002 Company Network strategy Current status KMC Telecom Facilities and UNE Solvent Birch Telecom Emerged from bank- ruptcy; operating Pac Tec Communications Unknown Unknown Ionex Telecom Unknown Unknown BTI Telecom Facilities; UNE Solvent Globalcom Solvent Broadview Networks Unknown Solvent New Sou