BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1741
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 23, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Carole Migden, Chairwoman
SB 1741 (Bowen) - As Amended: July 3, 2000
Policy Committee: Utilities and
Commerce Vote: 9-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
request authority from the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to require telephone corporations to establish technology
specific area codes and permit seven-digit dialing within the
technology specific area code and the underlying pre-existing
area code.
FISCAL EFFECT
Absorbable costs to the PUC to seek the specified authority.
COMMENTS
1)Background and Purpose . Chapter 809, Statutes of 1999 (AB
406, Knox), required the PUC to develop and implement any
available conservation measures to efficiently allocate
telephone numbers. In April 1999, the PUC sought authority
from FCC to implement certain conservation measures and also
sought a waiver federal regulations in order to implement a
technology-specific or service-specific area code. In
September 1999, FCC granted the PUC with authority to
implement conservation measures, but as yet has taken no
action on the technology specific waiver petition.
The author has introduced this bill in furtherance of the
relief sought by that petition in order "to provide relief
from unnecessary and inconvenient area code proliferation."
This bill requires CPUC to seek further authority from FCC to
implement technology specific area codes and to permit
seven-digit dialing within that code and the underlying
SB 1741
Page 2
pre-existing area codes. In its pending filing with the FCC,
the PUC 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.
1)Opposition . Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC)
believes that the "technology specific overlay does not offer
a viable solution to the problem of telephone number scarcity
throughout the state." CCAC further asserts that "it is
anti-competitive and discriminates among communication
technologies and would result in consumer nightmare relative
to the reprogramming of millions of wireless phones."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)319-2081