X. SPC Discussion

A. Ownership of SPCs

Control of a property is directly related to property ownership. If a property owner does not have reasonable control of the property, the owner cannot ensure that the property is properly operated and maintained. This applies to SPCs as well.

If a utility is allowed to have ownership and, therefore, control of SPCs, it could place restrictions on access to SPCs. If the restrictions are unreasonable, competition could be adversely affected. However, we have the authority and jurisdiction necessary to correct problems if they arise. Property owners already have control over access to the utility facilities on their property. They too have the ability to place restrictions on access whether or not they own the SPCs. However, unless we were to exert jurisdiction over the property owners, we may not have sufficient ability to directly address problems that may arise if the property owners were allowed to own SPCs. In addition, facilities-based carriers have the expertise necessary to properly operate and maintain SPCs while property owners do not. Therefore, facilities-based carriers should own the SPCs. Resellers are not authorized to own facilities such as SPCs. Therefore, in the case of customers served by resellers, the SPCs shall be owned by the underlying facilities-based carrier.

B. Applicability

Some of the comments received seem to be based on the assumption that these rules would apply only to ILECs. No party has demonstrated why ILECs should be treated differently from CLCs. Therefore, these rules should apply to all local exchange carriers.

C. Transition Process

Since we have decided to have SPCs owned by facilities-based carriers, it is necessary to develop a transition process for existing SPCs not owned by the facilities-based carrier that provides service to the customer. No party has proposed that the facilities-based carrier that provides service to the customer needs to acquire any existing SPCs it does not own. Such acquisitions could result in, among other things, numerous eminent domain proceedings that would cost more than the SPCs are worth. In addition, costs would be incurred to change out the existing SPCs for no other reason than the imposition of a new rule regarding ownership. We believe that it is more reasonable to allow for the change to occur during the normal course of business. Therefore, we will not require a change of ownership of them. Rather, we will require that when a customer transfers to a new carrier or orders any changes to his or her service that would require movement or removal of existing SPCs, the facilities-based carrier that provides service to the customer shall replace any existing SPCs it does not own. In addition, if existing SPCs must be removed for maintenance, repair, or other legitimate purposes, they shall be replaced with the serving facilities-based carrier's SPCs.

D. Notice of Disconnection of SPCs

Verizon recommends that 48 hours' advance notice of disconnection of SPCs be provided to allow sufficient time to update the customer's records. Verizon also recommends that the phone number where such notice would be made be available only during regular business hours.

Cox states that billing adjustments routinely occur after the fact and, therefore, there is no reason to delay customer transfers as suggested by Verizon.

No other utility supports Verizon's recommendations. If after the fact billing adjustments were a problem, we would expect unanimous support from the other utilities. Therefore, we will not adopt Verizon's recommendations.

Cox recommends that the rules should be revised to allow notice of SPC disconnection by electronic means where such means exist. Our intention is that a phone number be available to provide notification as a minimum. There is no reason that other means cannot be used. We will revise the rules accordingly.

The purpose of the notification requirement is to allow the loosing carrier 24 hours' notice of the disconnection of its SPCs so that it may take any actions it believes are necessary to protect its facilities. In the normal course of transferring customers from one carrier to another, the loosing carrier is notified of the change. There is no reason that there should a separate notification regarding SPCs provided that existing SPCs are disconnected no sooner than 24 hours after the notice is given. Likewise, the requirement that carriers have a phone number available to receive such notices 24 hours per day does not mean that the number cannot also be used for other purposes. We will revise the rules accordingly.

E. Technical Requirements for Disconnection of SPCs

Verizon recommends several technical requirements for disconnection of SPCs. No other party has proposed such requirements with one exception. Cox agrees that SPCs should be tagged. The tags would identify the carrier to which they belong. Tagging to reflect utility ownership appears to be a good idea. If it is in the utilities' best interest to do so, we expect that they will. We see no need to make this a requirement. As to the other recommendations, we would expect much broader support by the other utilities if such requirements were needed. There is no such support. Therefore, we will not adopt them. However, we believe that it is important that a carrier's removal of existing SPCs be done safely, and in a manner that will not result in damage to another carrier's facilities. Therefore, will require that whenever a utility removes another carrier's SPCs, it do so in a safe manner that causes no harm to another carrier's facilities.

F. Property Owner Access to SPCs

Cox recommends that the utility have the right to limit access by the property owner to SPCs. This would prevent the property owner from making unnecessary alterations. Only Cox raised this as an issue. If it was a significant problem, we would expect broader utility support. Therefore, we see no reason to address it in the rules.

G. Bridge Clips

Cox recommends that bridge clips be treated in the same manner as SPCs. Pacific states that a bridge clip is merely a type of SPC. No party objected to bridge clips being treated as SPCs. We will do so.

H. D.92-01-023

Cox asks that the holdings of D.92-01-023 be affirmed except to the extent they are modified herein. It is not our intent to address the entirety of D.92-01-023. The rules we address in this proceeding are prospective and supersede previous Commission decisions only to the extent that the previous decisions are contrary to the rules we adopt herein.

I. Public Utilities Code Section 2883

Section 2883 provides, among other things, that telephone utilities shall provide every existing and newly installed residential telephone connection with access to 911 regardless of whether an account has been established. Such service may not be discontinued for nonpayment of a delinquent account or indebtedness to the telephone utility.

DOD recommends that the last utility serving a tenant location be responsible for satisfying the requirements of Section 2883. Implementation of Section 2883 involves much more than just SPCs. Therefore, except as it applies to SPCs, it is beyond the scope of this proceeding. We address it by directing that utilities may not remove or disconnect SPCs if doing so will result in a violation of Section 2883.