IX. Parties' Comments on the Proposed Rules

A. Pacific Bell

Pacific states that the transition process (Rule 5) is neither necessary nor feasible. Pacific represents that it does not have a tracking system for individual SPCs. Therefore, it could not carry out the transfer process for individual SPCs. Additionally, Pacific points out that Rules 6 and 7 require a process to be set up to enable carriers to tell each other when they have won a customer. Pacific says that carriers do not want to do that. Pacific says that there is no need for a transition. SPCs can immediately revert to the property owner.

Pacific states that bridge clips are nothing but short SPCs, and should be covered by the rules for SPCs.

Pacific recommends that the rules should apply to all utilities. In particular, allowing CLCs to be exempt would allow CLCs to exclude other carriers from access to customers served by them.

B. Verizon

Verizon believes that SPCs should remain the property of the utility. It states that SPCs are a crucial part of the utility's network. Requiring the utilities to relinquish ownership and control of them could compromise the integrity and security of the utility's network.

Verizon states that the 24-hour notice of disconnection of a SPC should be changed to 48 hours. This would allow sufficient lead time to ensure that customer records reflect the carrier change and that customers are not billed by the previous carrier for service after the change.

Verizon recommends that the requirement that carriers establish a phone number where advanced notice of disconnection of SPCs can be made 24 hours per day, seven days per week, should be changed to the utility's regular business hours.

Verizon proposes the following rules governing the removal of utility- owned SPCs.

· The utility must be notified by the incoming carrier at least 48 hours prior to removal of the SPC.

· To avoid continued billing for service, the utility must be notified by the end user at least 48 hours in advance of a request for disconnection of service.

· The removal of an SPC must be done in a manner that prevents harm to the network. More specifically, the SPC must be rolled up and trimmed back to within 12 inches of the utility's serving cross-connection point.

· All technicians provisioning SPCs must tag enhanced services (i.e., services other than those carried over plain old telephone service lines) so that other technicians will know not to test these lines (testing could damage equipment and impair services).

· CLCs must employ a tracking system that enables them to determine the technician that disconnected an SPC. Those technicians identified as poor performers must be removed from the utility's projects or retrained with a qualified technician.

Verizon states that the rules should apply to all utilities. In particular, allowing CLCs to be exempt would allow CLCs to make access to customers served by them more difficult and expensive.

C. Teligent

Teligent states that property owners may not have an incentive to open their facilities to CLCs if they are not allowed to receive a payment for the use of their facilities. Therefore, it recommends adding the following language:

"Utilities may make payments to property owners for access to or use of SPCs, provided that such payments are assessed and collected in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner."

D. PWWC

PWWC believe that the requirements imposed on ILECs by D.92-02-023, should not apply to CLCs. Requiring them to adhere to these requirements would preclude them from providing existing and future services in the most efficient manner, and could preclude them entirely from providing some services. They state that the purpose of D.92-02-023 was to resolve problems of ownership and control of inside wiring by the ILECs. The requirements have no reasonable applications to CLCs.

E. DOD

DOD believes that the focus of the rules regarding SPCs should be on control of SPCs rather than who owns them. It recommends the following language:

"Building owners control access to SPCs connected to their building access terminals ("BATs"), but they must provide nondiscriminatory access to all utilities serving tenants in their building."

DOD recommends that when the tenant switches to another carrier, the new carrier shall have the right to disconnect the previous carriers SPCs. It recommends that Rule 6 be amended as follows:

"When a tenant switches service from one utility to another, the new carrier shall provide at least a 24-hour advance notice to the previous carrier before it disconnects the previous carrier's SPC."

DOD also recommends that the last utility serving a tenant location be responsible for satisfying the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 2883.

F. Cox

Cox recommends that the Commission should focus on standards for nondiscriminatory control and access to SPCs rather than ownership. Cox originally viewed the question of ownership as unimportant. Subsequently, it decided that the ownership of SPCs should remain with the utilities to avoid the need to transition ownership to the property owners, and to avoid any legal challenges to whether such a transition would constitute a taking for which just compensation must be paid.

Cox believes that Rule 7 should be revised to allow notice of SPC disconnection by electronic means where such means exist. In such cases, use of a telephone call would be less efficient.

Cox states that billing adjustments routinely occur after the fact and, therefore, there is no reason to delay customer transfers by requiring more than a 24-hour notice to the former carrier.

Cox states that the Commission should move expeditiously to address "bridge clips." In instances where SPCs are not used, the ILECs use an MPOE device that has two punch-down blocks. One connects the utility's distribution cable to the MPOE. The other connects the property owner's wiring to the MPOE. Bridge clips are used to connect the utility's side of the MPOE to the property owner's side. Cox states that the ILECs treat bridge clips in the same manner as SPCs.

Cox asks that the holdings of D.92-01-023 be affirmed except to the extent they are modified herein. In that way, it would be clear that D.92-01-023 is not being replaced in its entirety.