BILL ANALYSIS
AB 818
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 1999
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Roderick Wright, Chair
AB 818 (Knox) - As Introduced: February 24, 1999
SUBJECT : Telecommunications: New Area Codes.
SUMMARY : Prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) from establishing or implementing new area codes and
instead requires that separate area codes be established for
land-based and non-land-based services, such as cellular and
pager services. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the CPUC to preserve existing area codes for
land-based telecommunications;
2)Requires CPUC to apply to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for a waiver of existing regulations
prohibiting an area code from being assigned based solely on
the type of service being provided;
3)Requires CPUC to ensure that retired telephone numbers are
reestablished as usable prior to establishing new area codes
within a region; and
4)Requires CPUC to submit a report to the Legislature on or
before January 1, 2001, regarding its progress toward
implementation.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) that
the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the provision of
telephone numbers pursuant to the North American Numbering
Plan (NANP);
2)Provides for the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
(NANPA) to notify the telephone industry when area code relief
is required and to initiate and develop an area code relief
plan;
3)Prohibits an area code from being assigned based solely on the
provision of a specific type of telecommunications service or
use of a specific technology;
AB 818
Page 2
4)Requires CPUC to conduct public hearings in the affected
geographical region prior to implementing a new area code to
inform members of the public about the proposed area code
relief options;
FISCAL EFFECT : Implementation of this bill would require staff
from CPUC Telecommunications, Legal and Consumer Services
Divisions to file a waiver to the FCC and to develop the
legislatively mandated report to the Legislature. CPUC should
be able to utilize existing resources to conduct the activities
required to implement this bill.
COMMENTS :
1)California has experienced a significant increase in the
number of area codes in the last few years. In fact, the
number of area codes in California has doubled since 1991.
The increase in the number of area codes has caused confusion
and frustration among telephone customers. Additionally,
business consumers have been both inconvenienced and
financially impacted by the need to purchase new letterhead,
business cards, and notify customers and contacts of their new
telephone numbers. While there is no single reason for the
proliferation of new area codes, the increase in the number of
cellular telephones, pagers, and faxes have contributed to the
problem.
2)Within each geographic area of the United States, area codes
are assigned by an administrator that is responsible for
assigning central office codes to itself and other carriers.
Those codes are then used to distribute telephone numbers to
customers. Today, telephone numbers are only assigned in
blocks of 10,000 to the telecommunications service providers
who request them. CPUC noted that "this is true whether the
service provider has 10 customers or 9,500 customers in the
area served by that block of 10,000 numbers." Last year, CPUC
challenged an order of FCC that specifically forbade the
states from exploring opportunities to allocate numbers in a
more efficient manner. The 1996 Act delegated full
jurisdiction over "numbering " issues to FCC. FCC has
delegated to the states limited authority to implement area
code relief by doing one of the following: a) ordering an
area code split; b) ordering an overlay; or c) realignment of
an existing area code boundary
AB 818
Page 3
3)Based on the current utilization of numbers, the Southern
California area is expected to have five new areas code go
into effect by May 2000 and three more await CPUC approval at
this time. The upcoming area code split in Los Angeles, which
brings the total number of areas in the 1.9 miles of West
Hollywood to three - 313, 323 and 424, is being implemented
through an "overlay." An overlay was the preferred method of
relief so current customers did not have to change phone
numbers.
4)In 1995, Ameritech, the largest local exchange carrier serving
the Northern Illinois area, proposed to use the remaining
numbers in an area code for landline customers and assign
numbers for wireless companies to a different area code in an
attempt to minimize disruption in the Metropolitan area.
Ameritech petitioned FCC for approval of its plan and was
denied on the basis that the numbering plan, if implemented,
would be unreasonably discriminatory and constitute unjust and
unreasonable discrimination in violation of the Communications
Act of 1934. In 1996, the FCC rejected the Texas Public
Utility Commission's plan to allow landline carriers to retain
7-digit dialing, but require wireless carriers to be assigned
an area code overlay which would require their customers to
dial eleven digits.
5)This bill recognizes that the FCC has the final jurisdiction
in this area and specifically, requires CPUC to apply for a
waiver from the FCC for authority to implement separate area
codes for land-based and non-land based telecommunications
services. However, this bill restricts CPUCs' ability to
implement new area codes until a waiver is granted by FCC or
until such time that CPUC and the Legislature agree upon a
plan to alleviate the hardship created by the creation of new
area codes. This bill requires CPUC to submit a report to the
Legislature on its progress by January 1, 2001. It does
specify when CPUC-Legislative plan should be in place. Thus,
the proposed moratorium on the implementation of new area
codes would continue for an undetermined time period.
6)As noted above, within the next year at least eight new area
codes are anticipated in the near future in Southern
California. It is not clear whether the proposed moratorium
would impact implementation of those new area codes. If new
area codes are not assigned, while awaiting FCC action or the
AB 818
Page 4
CPUC-Legislative plan, providers may have to deny customers
new or additional services.
7)The assignment of telephone numbers in blocks of 10,000
prevents a real problem with respect to CPUC's ability to
ascertain actual allocation versus usage. Number availability
would be improved if providers could be assigned numbers in
blocks of less than 10,000. It would be useful, and the
author should consider seeking authorization, for CPUC to
obtain data related to actual usage of the previously
allocated numbers. The data would assist CPUC to develop
alternatives to the use of technology-specific area codes as
it pursues relief from the FCC. CPUC could also use the data
to seek more efficient usage of the prefixes already assigned.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
California Phone Owners Association
City of Riverside
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
League of California Cities
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Wallenberg Sales Corporation
4 individuals
Opposition
AT&T
Allied Personal Communications
California Cable Television Association
California Public Utilities Commission
Cellular Carriers Association of California
GTE California
Pacific Bell
Analysis Prepared by : Carolyn Veal-Hunter / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083