7. Public Safety Rules

The May 2 ACR proposed that we extend two rules explicitly designed to address public safety concerns to wireless carriers. First, the May 2 ACR proposed that we order all carriers to require their employees to identify themselves by name or identifier. Second, it proposed that we direct all carriers, including wireless companies connecting to the public switched telephone network, to provide their customers with access to 911 emergency services to the extent permitted by technology, even when a bill is delinquent.

DRA states that these rules are justified and should be retained. It contends that the "benefits of these rules, such as public safety, outweigh any potential cost that may be imposed on carriers."¹⁶²

Similarly TURN, the Consumer Federation of California, National Consumer Law Center, Consumers Union, and the California Public Interest Research Group (collectively "Consumer Groups") support inclusion of these public safety rules.¹⁶³ They declare that the rules "cover issues that are important to consumers."¹⁶⁴ With respect to the 911 rule in particular, Consumer Groups argue that "the Commission should make a strong statement to the FCC and to carriers that it takes 911 availability seriously. . . ."¹⁶⁵ The Consumer Groups, however, state that the public safety rules are some of the "least helpful" rules from the original General Order.¹⁶⁶

The AG's response to the public safety rules also is mixed. The AG characterizes the employee identification rule as "a helpful thing," but demurs that this rule does not provide "real consumer protection."¹⁶⁷ Similarly, concerning the 911 rule, the AG states that "we support providing broad access to 911 and E911 services even when a bill is delinquent," but declines to endorse the rule.¹⁶⁸ The AG reasons that similar protections are provided by P.U. Code §§ 2883 and 2892, and it is a "possible loophole" for the 911 service requirement to be limited to those situations where it is "technically feasible."¹⁶⁹

The Wireless Carriers directly criticize these two rules. They argue that the identification rule is unneeded and "largely duplicates" P.U. Code §§ 708 and 2889.9.¹⁷⁰ The Wireless Carriers level similar criticisms against the 911 rule. They contend that 911 is the subject of "detailed federal regulation" and "exceeds the Commission's authority."¹⁷¹ More generally the Wireless Carriers argue that "duplicating existing laws is superfluous at best" and that at "worst, it creates uncertainty and confusion."¹⁷²

The Wireless Carriers also maintain that the rules "address subject areas which are being adequately addressed by the competitive workings of the market place."¹⁷³ They reason that competition in the telecommunications industry is robust,¹⁷⁴ so carriers have a strong incentive to perform many of the duties that the rules would impose upon them.

Upon review of various parties' comments and replies, we leave the two public safety rules mostly unchanged. We agree with DRA and TURN that we should extend these two public safety rules so that they are applicable to both wireline carriers and wireless carriers.

We disagree with the AG's protest that our identification requirement does not provide "real" consumer protection. We have had identification requirements in place for wireline carriers for some time, and our experience is that they do provide a measure of protection.

Also we continue to support our limiting the 911 requirement to situations where it is "permitted by existing technology or facilities." This feasibility language is consistent with the legislative directive provided in P.U. Code § 2883. While the AG noted that P.U. Code § 2883 already requires "carriers to provide residential telephone connections with access to 911 service,"¹⁷⁵ the AG overlooked the fact that § 2883 only imposes this requirement "to the extent permitted by existing technology or facilities."¹⁷⁶ Our inclusion of an identical qualification in our rule maintains consistency with governing state law.¹⁷⁷

Our further review of P.U. Code § 2883, in fact, convinces us that we need to add another qualification to our 911 rule. Section 2883(e) specifically states that nothing in the statute "shall require a local telephone corporation to provide `911' access pursuant to this section if doing so would preclude providing service to subscribers of residential telephone service." We overlooked this important qualification when drafting the 911 rule, and we accordingly modify the rule to take this provision into account.

With respect to the Wireless Carriers arguments, we disagree with their contention that they should be exempt from the public safety rules because the rules are duplicative of existing laws, and possibly unneeded and confusing. First, to the extent these rules track statutory language, we do not see how any new source of confusion arises. Second, incorporating these rules into the General Order makes it easier for consumers to find these public safety rules. Third, to the extent that carriers are already complying with these rules, these public safety rules impose no additional costs on carriers. Thus the benefits of codifying the public safety rules clearly outweigh their incremental costs.

Finally, and of particular significance, we observe that the role of the government at issue here - the promotion of public safety - is independent of the marketplace. Significant public safety considerations justify the extension of 911 requirements to wireless carriers. For some time, state and local governments have relied on 911 as the critical communications element in providing police, fire protection, and emergency health services. Although the marketplace will likely drive most providers to offer 911 services, we believe that it is better to adopt these 911 requirements, rather than create a situation in which the unavailability of 911 service becomes known only in an emergency.

In reaching this conclusion, we acknowledge that the Wireless Carriers raise an important point when they note that the FCC is currently examining the questions concerning 911 service for wireless carriers. We recognize the significance of FCC regulations in the rule itself, as we state that access to 911 service should be provided "in accordance with all applicable Federal Communications Commission orders." Yet we hold that the FCC's examination of 911 issues does not provide a significant basis for forbearing from adopting these regulations. We believe instead that the more prudent course is to extend these rules to wireless carriers but to invite carriers to file petitions to modify this decision if and when the FCC adopts rules that contravene the rules that we adopt today.

The worker identification requirements convey additional public safety protections. By extending the identification requirements to wireless carriers, the Commission helps set consumer expectations that company employees will have official identification materials. Inclusion of this requirement in G.O. 168 alerts citizens that they should be suspicious of any alleged carrier personnel who cannot provide official identification.

Further consideration of such public safety factors highlighted in the record, however, convinces us that we should modify the proposed identification rule in two respects. First, we hold that we should extend the identification requirement to apply to carriers' contractors, so that we ensure that we are encouraging consumers to set appropriate public safety expectations. Second, we limit the application of this rule to individuals and small businesses that purchase, subscribe to, or apply for a telecommunications service subject to Commission jurisdiction.¹⁷⁸ Multiple parties argue that it is appropriate to differentiate enterprise consumers from other consumers.¹⁷⁹ This distinction is particularly important in this context, as this rule otherwise could unduly burden large businesses' ready access to specialized contract workers.

In conclusion, we adopt two modified public safety rules addressing access to 911 service and worker identification. We add a qualification to the 911 rule in order to ensure consistency with P.U. Code § 2883. We further revise the worker identification rule so that it extends to carriers' contractors, but does not impose an undue burden upon carriers' relationships with their enterprise customers.

¹⁶² DRA Reply Comments, p. 2,

¹⁶³ Consumer Groups Opening Comments, p. 9.

¹⁶⁴ Id.

¹⁶⁵ Id. at 10.

¹⁶⁶ Id. at 9.

¹⁶⁷ AG Opening Comments, p. 13.

¹⁶⁸ Id.

¹⁶⁹ Id.

¹⁷⁰ Wireless Carriers Opening Comments, p. 7.

¹⁷¹ Id. at 8

¹⁷² Id. The Wireline Group, however, concedes that the Commission made a "helpful revision[]" when it "ensure[d] that the rule will be interpreted in concert with P.U. Code Section 2883." Consolidated Reply Comments of the Wireline Group on Proposed Decision of Commissioners Peevey and Kennedy, p. 2 (Jan. 23, 2006) ("Wireline Group Reply Comments").

¹⁷³ Wireless Carriers Opening Comments, p. 8.

¹⁷⁴ The Wireless Carriers provide extensive evidence of the level and effects of competition in the telecommunications marketplace. 99.8% of Californians live in counties that have three or more facilities-based wireless carriers, and 98.5% live in counties having five or more providers. Wireless Carriers Opening Brief, p. 13 (citing FCC data). Implementation of number portability has further enhanced competition among these carriers. Id. The Wireless Carriers have indicated that there is good reason to believe that these competitive pressures have benefited California consumers. In the last six years, wireless prices have dropped at a faster rate in California than on average in the rest of the nation. Katz Opening Testimony, p. 23. The size of the rate drops has been very significant, with prices decreasing by 42% in the four largest California cities. Id. And even as rates have dropped, the number of wireless minutes has risen dramatically: Average monthly minutes of use doubled from 125 in 1996 to 255 in 2000, and more than doubled again to 600 by the second quarter of 2005. Testimony of Mark Lowenstein, p. 12. Competition has resulted in lower service prices, simplified rate plans, continued high levels of investment, consistent advancement in enhanced features and devices, a real time service activation process, and robust and efficient number portability. Wireless Carriers Opening Brief, pp. 14-15.

¹⁷⁵ AG Opening Comments, p. 14 (also observing that § 2892 "provides similar requirements for wireless carriers).

¹⁷⁶ Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2883(a).

¹⁷⁷ This provision also makes our rule more consistent with federal E911 law, which also recognizes technical limitations. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.

¹⁷⁸ Given that seventy-nine percent of small businesses in the state of California have less than ten employees, we define a small business for the purposes of this rule as "a business or individual that subscribes or applies for not more than ten telephone access lines from any single carrier." See Responses of Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba SBC California to the Questions Set Forth in the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling of March 10, 2005, p. 3 (Mar. 25, 2005) (citing a 2003 California Chamber of Commerce study). Extending the definition of "small business" to one T-1, which can serve 24 lines, is unwarranted. See id. (making multiple arguments in support of this conclusion).

¹⁷⁹ Id. ("The Decision [04-05-057] correctly recognizes that it would be counterproductive to apply the consumer protection rules to large business entities, which have relatively greater knowledge of telecommunications options and do not need or rely on standardized consumer disclosures."); Alexander Direct Testimony, p. 4 ("My comments are directed primarily to the interaction between telecommunications providers and residential applicants and customers, although many of my recommendations apply to small business customers as well. Generally, a different set of concerns and policies apply to a utility's interactions with larger business customers."). See also Consolidated Opening Comments of the Wireline Group on Alternate Proposed Decision of Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich, pp. 12-13 (Feb. 14, 2006) (providing guidelines on how best to define what a "small business" is).