BILL ANALYSIS
AB 818
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 818 (Knox)
As Amended August 25, 1999
2/3 vote
ASSEMBLY: 70-6 (May 27, 1999) SENATE: 35-1 (August 25, 1999)
Original Committee Reference: U. & C.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to develop and implement any available measures to
efficiently allocate telephone numbers to California's citizens.
The Senate amendments :
1)Require CPUC to consider the cost effectiveness of any
measures it develops to efficiently allocate telephone numbers
within prefixes.
2)Establish that among the measures that should be considered
are rate center consolidation and allocation of numbers in
blocks smaller than 10,000 and unassigned number porting.
3)Require CPUC to direct the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) to obtain utilization data for any area
code for which a relief plan is proposed, prior to adopting a
plan for, or setting a date for, relief.
4)Clarify that CPUC must define the terms "in use" and "not in
use", as part of its request that each telephone corporation
provide information regarding the numbers in their possession.
5)Require CPUC to require a telephone corporation to return any
blocks of numbers for reassignment if CPUC or an authorized
federal agency establishes a process to allocate telephone
numbers in blocks smaller than 10,000.
6)Require CPUC to direct NANPA to seek the return of blocks of
numbers smaller than 10,000 that are not in use. CPUC shall
define what "not in use" means for purposes of this
requirement.
7)Require that this bill be implemented as an urgency measure.
AB 818
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) that
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has exclusive
jurisdiction over the provision of telephone numbers pursuant
to NANPA.
2)Provides for NANPA to notify the telephone industry when area
code relief is required and to initiate and develop an area
code relief plan.
3)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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Required CPUC to develop specified measures aimed at
efficiently allocating telephone numbers.
2)Required CPUC to request that FCC delegate specific authority
to the states for the purpose of enabling CPUC to implement
specified measures that would assist in the efficient
allocation of telephone numbers.
3)Required CPUC to request that telecommunications providers
provide information relating to the number of used and unused
numbers in all telephone prefixes that they posses.
4)Required CPUC to institute, as an interim measure, that
telecommunications providers assign numbers to their customer
first from prefixes that are more than 25% used, and only from
prefixes with less than 25% use when numbers are not otherwise
available.
FISCAL EFFECT : CPUC estimates first-year costs from the Utility
Reimbursement Account of $235,000, including one-time costs of
$150,000 for programming, and costs of $170,000 in the second
and third years for three staff positions to collect and analyze
data for the required audit and to review company performance
for compliance with CPUC rules on assignment of telephone
numbers.
COMMENTS :
AB 818
Page 3
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.
2)As this bill left the Assembly, it required CPUC to request
certain relief measures from FCC. In an effort to address
these issues at the earliest possible opportunity, CPUC has
already filed a petition to FCC seeking authority to pursue
several telephone code conservation measures and efficient
number use practices, consistent with the relief sought by the
author of this bill. CPUC, in its desire to seek additional
relief has also filed a petition that seeks a waiver to
implement a technology specific area code. FCC has not yet
acted on either of those petitions. FCC is currently involved
in a rulemaking where it is seeking to develop comprehensive
solutions to the numbering exhaust problems. FCC has as the
goal of its proceeding to:
a) Minimize negative impacts on consumers;
b) Ensure sufficient access to numbering resources for all
service providers; avoid premature exhaustion of numbers;
impose the least societal costs;
c) Ensure that no class of carriers are unduly favored;
and,
d) To minimize incentives for carriers to build large
inventories of numbers for which the have no need. Many of
the issues pending in California will be addressed in FCC
proceeding.
3)Additionally, Assemblyman Knox, on behalf of a variety of
civic groups and residential associations, filed a petition
seeking to halt the overlay plan for the 424 area code and to
end 10-digit dialing in the 310 area code. While CPUC has not
yet issued a final decision, a Draft Decision was issued
earlier this month denying the petition. CPUC in that draft
AB 818
Page 4
decision indicated that an extended suspension of the 424 area
code opening would jeopardize the availability of numbers
within the 310 area code and the ability of carriers to offer
new telephone lines to their customers. Commissioner Hyatt
has indicated that he will issue an alternate decision on this
matter. The entire CPUC is expected to issue a rule on
September 16, 1999.
4)While in the Senate, the author had included language in this
bill that would have required a suspension of the 424 overlay
and 10-digit dialing. CPUC indicates, however, that if they
were required through legislation to halt the overlay and
10-digit dialing, that they would be forced to implement an
area code split. At present, CPUC remedies are limited to the
following:
a) Ordering an area code split;
b) Ordering an overlay; or,
c) Realignment of an existing area code.
5)Section 7032 of the Public Utilities Code establishes the
public planning process for area code relief. The process
from its implementation takes approximately 36 months. If the
Legislature is to require any actions that will require
implementation of an area code split, it will be important to
exempt CPUC from the initial steps that have already been
completed. A modified notification process should be
implemented since CPUC estimates that we are approximately 10
months away from running out of numbers in the 310 area code.
6)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." This bill
establishes a process whereby CPUC can work with the NANPA to
seek the return of numbers that are not in use. This bill
also directs NANPA to obtain utilization data prior to
adopting any future relief plans. CPUC indicates that based
AB 818
Page 5
on experiences in other states, many carriers will return full
blocks of 10,000 numbers upon being asked to provide
utilization data. The ability to return numbers in blocks
smaller than 10,000 in conjunction with the utilization study
will provide significant relief for future areas designated
for area code relief.
7)A technical amendment is needed to clarify that CPUC should
coordinate its efforts with the North American Numbering Plan
Coordinator. FCC has exclusive jurisdiction to direct NANPA.
Analysis Prepared by : Carolyn Veal-Hunter / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
FN: 0002619