Discussion
While CommPartners raised the issues of voice over Internet protocol providers and alternative 911 service providers,15 what is at issue in this proceeding is the ICA. There is no dispute that the AT&T California-CommPartners ICA requires CommPartners to establish dedicated 911 trunks between each of its switches and AT&T California's Selective Router for the routing of 911 calls:
[CommPartners] shall connect its switches to the E911 Selective Router by one-way outgoing CAMA trunks dedicated for originating emergency 911 service calls . . . .16
Additionally, Section 4 of the Appendix ITR17 requires the trunks to be one-way outgoing trunks:
A segregated trunk group will be required to each appropriate E911 tandem within the exchange in which [CommPartners] offers the Exchange Service. This group shall be set up as a one-way outgoing only and shall utilize MF CAMA signaling.18
There is no language in the agreement that makes the requirement to install and maintain the 911 trunks optional.
CommPartners asked AT&T California to execute a 911 waiver amendment to the ICA, and the incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) refused to do so. Neither Section 251 nor Section 252 of the Act compels AT&T California to relieve CommPartners of its 911 trunking obligations under the agreement. Moreover, regarding this issue, federal law controls and Pub. Util. Code § 453 offers CommPartners no relief from the contractual obligations of its ICA.19
CommPartners has not shown that AT&T California has violated state or federal law by refusing to execute a 911 waiver amendment to their ICA. CommPartners characterizes the refusal as an indication of anti-competitive behavior or corporate greed. However, AT&T California insists that it has more concern about continuing to be considered a steward of and responsible for the 911 system, than about CLECs outsourcing their 911 service to third-party 911 service providers.
AT&T California wonders whether or not the Commission relies on the fact that its ICAs require CLECs to install and maintain 911 trunks to the 911 tandems to satisfy public safety concerns about 911 system reliability. For more than three decades, federal and state authorities have charged AT&T California and other incumbent LECs with the stewardship of and responsibility for the 911 system. AT&T California contends that if it no longer bears responsibility for the 911 reliability of the carriers that interconnect with its network, it will execute a prospective 911 waiver amendment.
While we continue to consider the reliability of the 911 system an integral element of public safety, competition in the realm of communications dictates that the number of those that we must hold responsible for its reliable operation must likewise expand. Historically, we held AT&T California responsible for the 911 system, because it controlled the network. Today, AT&T California interconnects with vast numbers of carriers and networks. Consequently, it shares the responsibility for the reliability of the 911 system as well as the state and national communications network. We expect every carrier that interconnects with the telephone network in California to meet its 911 obligations, and we will consider interconnecting carriers responsible for the failed 911 calls that occur on their respective networks if they provide 911 service independent of AT&T California or another incumbent LEC.
We do not find AT&T California's refusal to amend its ICA with CommPartners to be a violation of Pub. Util. Code § 453 or § 251 and § 252 of the Act. Thus, Complainant's request for reimbursement and sanctions is denied. AT&T California is not solely responsible for 911 reliability; therefore, there is no legal barrier to it executing a 911 waiver amendment to its ICA with CommPartners. We urge AT&T California to execute a prospective 911 waiver amendment with CommPartners and disconnect its 911 trunks.
15 See, CommPartners Opening Brief at 3-5.
16 AT&T California Opening Brief, ICA, Appendix 911-CA, § II. E, WP Appendix at 4 of 7. (CAMA is Centralized Automatic Message Accounting.)
17 ITR is Interconnection Trunking Requirements.
18 Id., Appendix ITR at 4 of 11.
19 The authority granted to state regulatory commissions is confined to the role of arbitrating, approving and enforcing interconnection agreements described in Section 252 of the Act.
