BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1741
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Roderick Wright, Chair
SB 1741 (Bowen) - As Amended: July 3, 2000
SENATE VOTE : 22-13
SUBJECT : Telecommunications: technology specific area codes.
SUMMARY : Requires California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
to request authority from the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to require telephone corporations to establish technology
specific area codes and to permit even digit dialing within the
technology specific area code and the underlying pre-existing
area code. Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares Legislative intent that when CPUC has no reasonable
alternative other than to create a new area code the it do so
with the least inconvenience for customers.
1)Requires that CPUC request authority from FCC not later than
March 31, 2001 to require telephone corporations to establish
technology-specific area codes.
1)Requires CPUC to request authority from FCC to permit 7 digit
dialing within the technology- specific area code and the
underlying pre-existing area code or codes.
1)Requires CPUC to perform a telephone utilization study,
implement all reasonable conservation measures, and implement
the technology specific area code, if authorized, prior to
authorizing further area code relief in an affected area.
1)Requires CPUC to establish technology specific area codes
unless it finds that a) exercising such authority would be
more disruptive to customers, or b) it will not adequately
extend the life of the area code.
1)Prohibits CPUC from implementing any authority granted by FCC
in a manner that impairs number portability.
EXISTING LAW
1)Provides in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) that
SB 1741
Page 2
FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the provision of telephone
numbers pursuant to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP),
except for that authority FCC specifically delegates to the
states.
1)Prohibits an area code from being assigned solely on the
provision of a specific type of telecommunications service or
use of a specific authority.
1)Requires 10 digit dialing for all telephone calls within and
between all area codes covered by an area code overlay.
1)Requires CPUC to develop and implement specified conservation
measures to efficiently allocate telephone numbers based on
its authority and pursuant to its delegated authority from the
FCC.
1)Requires CPUC to obtain utilization data from the North
American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) for any area
code for which relief is proposed, prior to adopting a plan
for, or setting a date for, relief.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
1)In 1947 California was assigned 3 area codes. By 1992 that
number had expanded to 13 codes and in recent years has grown
significant to where by the end of 1999, California had 25
area codes. At the current pace, California was expected to
have 41 area codes by the end of 2002. Last year Assembly
Bill 406 (Knox), Chapter 809, Statutes of 1999, required CPUC
to develop and implement any available conservation measures
to efficiently allocate telephone numbers. In April 1999,
CPUC sought authority from FCC to implement certain
conservation measures include mandatory pooling, the ability
to seek data to conduct utilization studies of telephone
corporations among other things. At that time, CPUC also
sought a waiver of Section 52.19(c)(3) of Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations to implement a technology-specific or
service-specific area code. In September 1999, FCC granted
CPUC's authority to implement specified conservation measures.
No action has yet been taken on CPUC's technology specific
waiver petition. The author has introduced this bill in
furtherance of the relief sought by that petition in order "to
SB 1741
Page 3
provide relief from unnecessary and inconvenient area code
proliferation."
1)In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued June 2, 1999,
issued in response to CPUC's waiver petition along with
requests from the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, FCC
noted that while
"FCC has prohibited service-specific and
technology-specific overlays, initially in the
Ameritech Order and then more broadly in the Local
Competition and Second Report and Order, . . . we
rejected a wireless-only overlay plan on the
grounds that it would be unreasonably
discriminatory and would unduly inhibit
competition. . . . We found that Ameritech's plan
would place paging and cellular companies at a
distinct competitive disadvantage because their
customers would suffer the cost and inconvenience
of having to surrender existing numbers and go
through the process of reprogramming their
equipment, changing over to new numbers and
informing callers of their new numbers. We also
found that any numbering optimization benefits
from this plan outweighed by the disproportionate
burden that the plan would place on paging and
cellular carriers."
1)In its NPRM, FCC indicated that "though it continues to
believe that service-specific or technology-specific overlays
raise serious competitive issues that must be carefully
considered, in light of the increased urgency of the numbering
crisis, it is appropriate at least to reexamine FCC's policies
and consider whether to modify or lift the restriction on such
area code relief measures." The various issues FCC outlined
to be considered in its rulemaking include: whether such
relief would yield numbering resource optimization benefits,
the extent to which discriminatory impacts could be mitigated
if such relief were prospective and did not involve taking
back of numbers, whether implementing calling party pays is a
viable option, and whether there are particular services or
technologies that could be assigned numbers from a technology
or service-specific code without raising competitive concerns.
FCC further indicated that it would consider: whether such
relief should be implemented on an expanded or regional basis,
SB 1741
Page 4
whether there is any relationship to number pooling and other
resource optimization methods, whether exceptions should be
granted on a case-by-case basis or through general rules and
guidelines, and whether such relief should be granted at the
federal level or be delegated to states to establish such
overlays within federal rules and guidelines.
1)This bill requires CPUC to seek further authority from FCC to
implement technology specific area codes and to permit 7 digit
dialing within that code and the underlying pre-existing area
codes. As described above, CPUC has already filed a waiver
petition and FCC is currently involved in a rulemaking to
consider that petition. In that filing, however, CPUC did not
seek authority to waive the 10 digit dialing requirement for
all telephone calls within and between all areas codes covered
by an area code overlay. It is not clear whether the author
desires CPUC to issue file a another petition or if this bill
is intended to direct CPUC to modify its current waiver
petition to address the 7 digit dialing request. In that the
FCC Docket on this matter is ongoing, it would be most
expedient for CPUC to introduce these very important issues in
response to the Further Notice in that proceeding. FCC issued
a First Report and Order in March 2000 where it failed to
address the use of technology-specific overlays or 10 digit
dialing among other issues. FCC stated its intent to address
those issues in subsequent orders regarding number resource
optimization. Thus, FCC should be able to incorporate the
request to waive its 10 digit dialing requirement solely for
purposes of implementing a technology-specific or
service-specific overlay in its next Report and Order.
1)This bill further establishes the framework under which CPUC
would operate if the requested authority is received from FCC.
Specifically CPUC is directed to consider further impacts on
the citizens of this state prior to granting the relief
requested from FCC. It is not clear whether FCC will issue
general rules or delegate specific authority to states. Thus,
it is important that these additional factors, such as the
level of disruption to customers and the extent to which the
life of the area code is extended, are considered by CPUC
prior to implementing technology-specific area codes.
1)Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC) believe
that there are two additional factors that CPUC should either
request from FCC in seeking authority to provide technology
SB 1741
Page 5
specific relief or consider prior to implementing such relief
if granted. Those factors include whether the implementation
of technology or service-specific area codes will be
anti-competitive or cause undue discrimination between
telecommunications technologies and whether it wold adversely
impact the development and prudent investment in advanced
wireless and data communications networks. While FCC has
prepared a rather exhaustive list of issues it is considering
within its current NPRM, these additional issues would provide
further insight into whether there are competitive issues to
be considered by this approach. Recently, consumers have
begun to abandon their wireline phones in favor of wireless
phones for their primary telecommunications needs. CCAC
desires that CPUC direct FCC to grant authority to provide
technology specific area codes only if FCC finds that it will
not be anti-competitive or cause undue discrimination between
telecommunications technologies. Rather than limiting FCC's
scope and authority, the author might want to consider
directing CPUC to include issues relating to the
anti-competitive issues and impacts on investment within its
petition and waiver request to FCC, without prejudicing FCC's
decision.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of Torrance
County of San Diego
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Carolyn Veal-Hunter / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083