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