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."159
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.160 They declare that the rules "cover issues that are important to consumers."161 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. . . ."162 The Consumer Groups, however, state that the public safety rules are some of the "least helpful" rules from the original General Order.163
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."164 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.165 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."166
The Wireless Carriers directly criticize these two rules. They argue that the identification rule is unneeded and "largely duplicates" P.U. Code §§ 708 and 2889.9.167 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."168 More generally the Wireless Carriers argue that "duplicating existing laws is superfluous at best" and that at "worst, it creates uncertainty and confusion."169
The Wireless Carriers also maintain that the rules "address subject areas which are being adequately addressed in the marketplace."170 They reason that competition in the telecommunications industry is robust,171 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,"172 the AG overlooked the fact that § 2883 only imposes this requirement "to the extent permitted by existing technology or facilities."173 Our inclusion of an identical qualification in our rule maintains consistency with governing state law.174
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 considerations highlighted in the record, however, convinces us that we should modify the proposed identification rule in one respect. Upon further review, 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. Thus requirements, for both wireline and wireless carriers, will go beyond those imposed by the original "Employee Identification" rule.
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, and we modify the worker identification rule so that it applies to carriers' employees and contractors alike.
159 DRA Reply Comments, p. 2,
160 Consumer Groups Comments, p. 9.
161 Id.
162 Id. at 10.
163 Id. at 9.
164 AG Opening Comments, p. 13.
165 Id.
166 Id.
167 Wireless Carriers Opening Comments, p. 7.
168 Id. at 8
169 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 Public Utilities Code Section 2883." Wireline Group Reply Comments, p. 2.
170 Id.
171 The Wireless Carriers provided 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. Id. at 40. Implementation of number portability has further enhanced competition among these carriers. Id. at 13 (citing FCC data). 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, prices have dropped at a faster rate in California than on average in the rest of the nation, and 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 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.
172 AG Opening Comments, p. 14 (also observing that § 2892 "provides similar requirements for wireless carriers).
173 Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2883(a).
174 This provision also makes our rule more consistent with federal E911 law, which also recognizes technical limitations. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.