VII. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of Commissioner Henry Duque was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Opening comments were filed on January 16, 2003 by CAIRS, Verizon and SBC-West (filing jointly), Cox, WorldCom, AT&T and XO (filing jointly), Roseville, the Small LECs, and CPA. Reply comments were filed on January 21, 2003 by CAIRS, Verizon and SBC-West (filing jointly), Cox, WorldCom, AT&T and XO (filing jointly), Roseville, the Small LECs and CPA.

CAIRS comments requested clarification of numerous sections of the draft decision, and we have incorporated these comments as appropriate.

Verizon and SBC-West ask that we permit them to route "all calls, including calls from payphones, to 8YY (1-800) numbers."⁸⁷ Concerning this first issue, throughout this entire proceeding Verizon and SBC-West have asked that the Commission not mandate a form of call routing in the provision of 2-1-1 service. In response to this prior request, we have elected to leave this matter to their negotiations with their customers. In comments on the draft decision, however, Verizon and Pacific bring up a new issue, -- the inability of their switches to route calls from "dumb" payphones to 8YY numbers. At this point they ask that we therefore permit them to route all calls as 8YY calls. We decline to grant this request, but instead trust that they will prove capable of resolving this matter with their customers.

Verizon and SBC-West ask that we clarify that they "need not file their costs with `stakeholders,' such as consumer groups."⁸⁸ Verizon and SBC-West must file their arrangements to provide 2-1-1 call translation services with this Commission in a standard advice letter process. Consistent with that process, they need not provide cost data to their customers or consumer groups as discussed in the Workshop Report. Instead, following standard Commission procedures, such cost information will be provided only to those who execute non-disclosure agreements with these carriers. Disputes concerning access to this data can be resolved by the Commission's Law and Motion Administrative Law Judge.

Verizon and SBC-West provide detailed comments on the milestones, requesting that we delay their advice letter filings until after the Commission has approved specific I&R providers. As an alternate, they request more time and that the Commission require the I&R providers to serve their application letters on Verizon and SBC-West, as appropriate. We have made these changes, granting an additional 30 days before requiring the ILECs to file their advice letters and requiring the I&R providers to serve their letters requesting 2-1-1 authorization on all parties in this proceeding.

Cox identifies certain conclusions of law that are unneeded or which conflict with past Commission precedent. Similarly, WorldCom asks for clarification of certain points and greater specificity in certain conclusions. AT&T and XO, filing jointly, requested modifications. We have incorporated these suggestions as appropriate.

The Small LECs and Roseville filed supportive comments.

We have read the comments and replies of all parties. In addition to the changes specifically discussed, we have made numerous changes, as appropriate.