BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 818|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONFERENCE COMPLETED
Bill No: AB 818
Author: Knox (D), et al
Amended: Conference Report No. 1, 9/3/99
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 8-1, 7/13/99
AYES: Bowen, Alarcon, Baca, Hughes, Peace, Solis, Speier,
Vasconcellos
NOES: Kelley
NOT VOTING: Brulte, Mountjoy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-0, 8/23/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Johnson, Karnette,
Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata, Vasconcellos
NOT VOTING: Escutia
SENATE FLOOR : 35-1, 8/25/99
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Baca, Bowen, Brulte, Burton,
Chesbro, Costa, Dunn, Figueroa, Hayden, Hughes,
Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight,
Leslie, Lewis, McPherson, Monteith, Mountjoy, Murray,
O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Poochigian, Rainey,
Schiff, Sher, Solis, Speier, Vasconcellos
NOES: Wright
NOT VOTING: Escutia, Haynes, Morrow, Polanco
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-6, 5/27/99 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : New area codes: telephone number assignment
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
AB 818
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill requires the California Public
Utilities Commission to develop and implement available
measures to efficiently allocate telephone numbers and to
address the proliferation of telephone area codes.
Conference Committee Amendments (1) remove the urgency
clause and add a co-author, (2) prohibit the California
Public Utilities Commission from implementing new area
codes until a study is completed, (3) rescind temporarily
any split or overlay and 10-digit dialing in the 310 number
plan area, as specified, and (4) require the California
Public Utilities Commission to establish an education plan
on area codes.
ANALYSIS : Current federal regulations require telephone
numbers to be handed out in a certain manner and preclude
states from assigning area codes and prefixes based on a
technologically specific use.
Current state law prescribes a process for soliciting and
accepting public input regarding the creation of new area
codes and for implementing a new area code once a
determination has been made that a new area code is
necessary.
This bill makes legislative findings about area code
proliferation and its detrimental effect on society,
declares that area codes should be preserved for as long as
possible and calls on the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) to stop area code proliferation.
This bill requires the CPUC to develop and implement any
available measures which efficiently allocate telephone
numbers. The CPUC shall consider the cost effectiveness
before requiring implementation.
This bill requires the CPUC to obtain the number of
telephone numbers in the possession of, and used by,
telephone companies and attempts to compel telephone
companies to cooperate. Using this information, the CPUC
is required to submit to the Legislature a study of
telephone number use rates by July 1, 2001.
AB 818
Page
3
This bill requires the CPUC to require telephone companies,
if possible, to assign numbers to their customers from
prefixes which are more than 25% in use.
The bill provides that if the CPUC, or an authorized
federal agency establishes a process to ensure that
telephone numbers can be allocated in blocks smaller than
10,000, the CPUC shall require that a telephone corporation
return to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
blocks of telephone numbers for reassignment, in a quantity
determined by the commission.
The commission shall direct the coordinator to seek the
return of blocks of numbers smaller than 10,000 not in use.
The bill prohibits the CPUC from implementing new area
codes until a study of specified utilization information is
completed and certain findings are made, including
demonstrating that a new area code is needed. The bill
provides that the CPUC shall request a waiver from the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the requirement
for the 10-digit dialing in area code overlays.
The bill, until September 1, 2000, rescinds any split or
overlay and 10-digit dialing in the 310 number plan area
until (1) the CPUC directs the coordinator to obtain
utilization data for the 310 number plan area, (2) the CPUC
reviews the data to determine how many unused telephone
number exist that could be distributed to consumers in need
of numbers, and (3) the CPUC determines, based on the
utilization data, that without implementation of a split or
overlay within the 310 area code, consumers will be unable
to receive telephone service in a timely manner.
The bill requires the CPUC to develop and implement a
consumer education plan to alert consumers to the need for
area code relief and provide consumers with information
regarding how they can participate in the decisionmaking
process.
The bill requires the CPUC to develop a comprehensive plan
to alert consumers, including homeowner organizations and
small business groups, to information regarding the type
and timing of any proposed area code relief plan.
AB 818
Page
4
Background
Coming Soon: Your Own Personal Area Code . After starting
with three area codes in 1947, California had 13 area codes
in 1992, which mushroomed into 23 area codes by the end of
1998. At the current pace, the CPUC expects California to
have 41 area codes by the end of 2002. The Los Angeles
area has been at the leading edge of area code expansion,
with the number of area codes tripling since the early
1980's. The San Francisco Bay Area is not far behind - it
has four new area codes set to take effect by the end of
next year.
The growth of area codes have a number of practical
implications in people's every day lives as phone users are
forced to adapt to new dialing habits, re-program their
telephone devices, dial more calls using 11 digits rather
than the traditional seven, and more. Businesses are often
forced to change stationery and advertisements, as well as
lose any "equity" they may have built up with their
long-standing telephone numbers.
Reasons Behind The Area Code Explosion . The growth in the
demand for new area codes can be attributed to three basic
realities:
First, deregulation and the emergence of new telephone
companies has dramatically increased the demand for new
telephone numbers, as these new companies all need their
own numbers to sell to customers. For example, in the
early 1980's there were only a handful of telephone
companies needing telephone numbers in the 310 area code.
Now, 53 telephone companies have the right to demand an
allocation of telephone numbers in the 310 area code alone.
Second, technology has made new forms of communications
available and affordable to people and businesses. Most
people no longer have just one home number and one work
number - they have numbers dedicated for pagers, cellular
telephones, internet service, and fax machines.
Furthermore, the "point of sale" credit card verification
terminals that have popped up at grocery stores, gas
stations, and other merchants all require their own phone
AB 818
Page
5
lines.
Third, the FCC regulations on how telephone numbers are
handed out to companies haven't kept up with deregulation
or technology. For example, the FCC only allows numbers to
be handed out in blocks of 10,000 - even if a telephone
company only has a single customer. So, as a result of the
emergence of new telephone competitors, more blocks of
10,000 numbers are being handed out (thus draining the pool
of available numbers more quickly), and as a result of
people's use of new technologies that require dedicated
phone numbers, the numbers within those blocks are being
exhausted more rapidly (based on how the FCC determines
that block of numbers has been exhausted).
The Long Arm Of The Law . California is not free to deal
with telephone numbers in any way it sees fit because
Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for telephone
number administration. Consequently, the FCC has limited
the states' discretion when it comes to dealing with
telephone numbering issues.
For example, the FCC prevents states from allocating
telephone numbers on the basis of technology (i.e. separate
area codes for cellular telephones and pagers). It also
prevents states from imposing telephone number conservation
measures designed to slow the need for new area codes.
California is not alone in its frustration with its
inability to deal with area code issues as it would like -
New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Colorado,
Maine, and Pennsylvania have also complained to the FCC
about their inability to deal with the area code
proliferation problem.
Responding to widespread public concern, including requests
from the Chair of the Senate Energy, Utilities and
Communications Committee, the author of this bill, the CPUC
and other states, the FCC announced on May 27 that it will
examine proposals to allow states to use telephone numbers
more efficiently. In its announcement, the FCC noted that
"frequent area code changes are frustrating, inconvenient,
and costly to consumers and industry, and burdensome to
communities." While this FCC proposal is encouraging, it's
unlikely to be enacted soon enough to provide meaningful
AB 818
Page
6
relief to Californians who are facing the imminent
imposition of a new area code split or overlay, such as in
the 310 area code.
Overlay vs. Split . In addition to the proliferation of new
area codes, a second controversy was created when the CPUC
decided to create a new area code in the 310 area code
territory by imposing the state's first "area code
overlay."
Historically, new area codes have been created by
geographically splitting existing area codes, which forces
people and businesses located in the "new" area to get new
telephone numbers. This is obviously inconvenient for
people and businesses that have to re-program machines, let
their friends or customers know about the new number and,
in the case of a business, reprint stationery, change
advertisements, and much more.
A long-discussed alternative way of creating a new area
code is the "overlay," where a second area code is laid on
top of an existing area code. The main advantage of an
overlay is no one is required to change their existing
telephone or fax numbers - only people getting new numbers
would receive the new area code even though they'd
physically be located in the "old" area code territory.
The primary downside is that everyone has to dial eleven
digits (1 + area code + phone number) on all telephone
calls - even when calling a person in the same area code.
More fundamentally objectionable to many people is that in
an overlay, a person could have two different area codes in
their own home, which goes against the entire concept of
what everyone understands an "area code" to be.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Prior to Conference Committee amendments:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 1999-00 2000-01
2001-02 Fund
AB 818
Page
7
Increased PUC
Oversight $530* $475
$475 Special**
*Contains one-time purchases and a $250 contract for a
number utilization
study
**PUC Utilities Reimbursement Account
There are approximately 220 companies that receive prefix
codes for 800 rate centers in the state. California
currently has 25 area codes. The costs noted above are
based on an extensive analysis by the Telecommunications,
Legal, and Administrative Law Judge Divisions of the PUC
and its Office of Ratepayer Advocates and reflect the cost
of implementing a number of new functions.
SUPPORT : (Unable to reverify at time of writing)
City of Camarillo
City of Culver City
City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
Santa Barbara City Council
Santa Monica City Council
Numerous Individuals
OPPOSITION : (Unable to reverify at time of writing)
California Cable Television Association (Oppose unless
amended)
Cellular Carriers Association of California
GTE
MCI WorldCom
Professor Bill Neill, Ret., San Diego
Pacific Bell
PUC
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Baldwin, Bates,
Battin, Baugh, Bock, Brewer, Briggs, Calderon, Campbell,
Cardenas, Cedillo, Corbett, Cox, Cunneen, Davis,
AB 818
Page
8
Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frusetta,
Gallegos, Granlund, Havice, Hertzberg, Honda, House,
Jackson, Kaloogian, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert,
Leonard, Longville, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett,
Migden, Nakano, Oller, Robert Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti,
Reyes, Romero, Runner, Scott, Shelley, Soto, Steinberg,
Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thompson, Thomson, Torlakson,
Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright,
Zettel, Villaraigosa
NOES: Aanestad, Cardoza, Correa, McClintock, Olberg, Rod
Pacheco
NOT VOTING: Floyd, Lowenthal, Mazzoni, Vincent
NC:cm 9/5/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****