BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1741
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1741 (Bowen)
As Amended July 3, 2000
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-13
UTILITIES & COMMERCE 9-3 APPROPRIATIONS 14-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wright, Calderon, |Ayes:|Migden, Alquist, Aroner, |
| |Cardenas, Mazzoni, Papan, | |Cedillo, Corbett, Davis, |
| |Reyes, Villaraigosa, | |Kuehl, Papan, Romero, |
| |Vincent, Wesson | |Shelley, Thomson, Wesson, |
| | | |Wiggins, Wright |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Pescetti, Campbell, |Nays:|Campbell, Ackerman, |
| |Maddox | |Ashburn, Brewer, |
| | | |Maldonado, Runner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the 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 :
) Declares legislative intent that when CPUC has no reasonable
alternative other than to create a new area code that it do so
with the least inconvenience for customers.
2)Requires CPUC request authority from FCC not later than March
31, 2001 to require telephone corporations to establish
technology specific area codes.
3)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.
4)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.
SB 1741
Page 2
5)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.
6)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
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.
2)Prohibits an area code from being assigned solely on the
provision of a specific type of telecommunications service or
use of a specific authority.
3)Requires 10-digit dialing for all telephone calls within and
between all area codes covered by an area code overlay.
4)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
FCC.
5)Requires CPUC to obtain utilization data from the NANP
Administrator for any area code for which relief is proposed,
prior to adopting a plan for, or setting a date for, relief.
FISCAL EFFECT : Absorbable costs to CPUC to seek the specified
authority.
COMMENTS : In 1947, California was assigned three 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
SB 1741
Page 3
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
provide relief from unnecessary and inconvenient area code
proliferation."
FCC has historically prohibited service-specific and technology
specific overlays on the grounds that it would be unreasonably
discriminatory and would unduly inhibit competition. Recently,
however, 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."
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. 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 service-specific overlay in its next Report and Order.
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.
SB 1741
Page 4
Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC) believe 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 : Carolyn Veal-Hunter / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
FN: 0006170