THE 1984 BELL system bust-up brought competition to the long-distance market, benefiting consumers across the country. The 1996 Telecommunications Act was supposed to do the same for local phone service.

That's started to happen in some states - such as New York, Michigan and California - but not yet in Maryland. And that must end.

In Maryland, Verizon - heir to the Bell monopoly - retains roughly 95 percent of the local lines. AT&T; and other competitors say that's largely because Verizon's wholesale prices for using its system to provide local service are much too high, in some cases more than Verizon's retail prices. Verizon replies that it can't invest in its system for the benefit of its competitors without adequate returns and that it isn't responsible for other companies' failures to crack its market share.

But now Verizon wants to enter the long-distance market, as it has done in more than 40 states. It first must gain approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In turn, the FCC will be looking to the state Public Service Commission for a judgment on whether Verizon has sufficiently provided for local competition.

As elsewhere, the sparring over that question is as astoundingly complex as the players' highly paid lawyers can make it. But in the end, says Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America, Verizon's market share speaks for itself: Its high wholesale rates deter competition. The Maryland Office of People's Counsel, the state advocate for residential utility consumers, agrees, saying Verizon's lease rates should be lowered by more than a third.

With the explosion in wireless phone use, competing over the stagnant land-line business is a bit like fighting over the horse-and-buggy trade at the turn of the 20th century. But all the big phone companies essentially want the same thing: to gain market share by offering discounted, one-bill packages of local, long distance, cell and Internet services - deals that depend on the ability to offer local service.

Consumers benefit from this, too. In New York, where Verizon's competitors have captured 23 percent of the local market, bills for local and long-distance service are down by as much as 20 percent (while Verizon has grabbed a healthy share of the long-distance market there).

Right now, the state PSC is mulling over whether to support Verizon's FCC application to offer long-distance service. A lot is at stake here for millions of Maryland consumers, who should benefit when competition is maximized.

With that in mind, the PSC should back Verizon's move into long-distance services, but at the same time it should require Verizon to first lower its wholesale rates sufficiently to provide for more local phone competition. To allow Verizon to offer long-distance service without that greater local competition, as Mr. Cooper says, would be too much like letting it have dessert without first eating its vegetables.