ALJ/TIM/t93 DRAFT CA-3
6/28/2001
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ KENNEY (Mailed 5/21/01)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion Regarding Commission Policy on Area Code Relief. |
Rulemaking 98-12-014 (Filed December 17, 1998) |
INTERIM OPINION DENYING PACIFIC BELL'S
PETITION TO MODIFY DECISION 96-12-086
This decision denies Pacific Bell's (Pacific's) Emergency Petition to Modify Decision (D.) 96-12-086.
1. Background
In D.96-12-086, the Commission adopted a statewide policy that required the use of geographic splits to relieve exhausted area codes1 through the year 2000, with the possible exception of the 310 NPA.2
On October 15, 1998, Pacific filed a petition to modify D.96-12-086 (petition). In its petition, Pacific requests that D.96-12-086 be modified to allow the use of overlays to relieve exhausted area codes through the year 2000.3 Pacific also requests that the Commission adopt a policy that favors overlays to relieve exhausted area codes in regions with any of the following characteristics: (1) the region already has an overlay area code or mandatory 1+10-digit dialing, (2) the previous geographic split failed to provide sufficient relief to comply with industry standards for the minimum length of relief, and (3) the demand for telephone numbers in the region is at a premium (i.e., in high growth, densely populated regions of the state).4
On November 16, 1998, the following parties filed responses to Pacific's petition: the Allied Personal Communications Industry Association (Allied), the California Telecommunications Coalition (the Coalition),5 the California Small Business Association and California Small Business Roundtable (Small Business), GTE California Incorporated (GTE), Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (LA Cellular), the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), Paging Network, Inc. (Paging Network), and RCN Telecom Services of California (RCN). Allied, Small Business, GTE, and Paging Network support Pacific's petition. The Coalition, ORA, and RCN oppose Pacific's petition. LA Cellular supports Pacific's request to allow the consideration of overlays, but opposes Pacific's request to adopt a policy that favors overlays.
On November 30, 1998, Pacific, with the permission of the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), filed a reply to the responses to its petition.
On December 21, 1998, the Commission issued Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) 98-12-014 which established the instant proceeding for the purpose of considering whether the primary means for relieving exhausted area codes should be geographic splits, overlays, or some combination of these two options. Although Pacific's petition was filed in the Local Competition docket,6 the Commission concluded in OIR 98-12-014 that Pacific's petition raised issues directly related to the matters being considered in this proceeding. Consequently, the Commission consolidated Pacific's petition into this proceeding.7
1 There are presently two options to relieve an area code in which the supply of telephone numbers is nearing exhaustion. Under the geographic split option, the Numbering Plan Area (NPA) served by the exhausting area code is split into two regions, with one region keeping the existing area code, and the other region receiving a new area code. Under the overlay option, the NPA served by the exhausting area code is "overlaid" with a new area code, resulting in two area codes (i.e., both the existing area code and the new area code) serving the same NPA. 2 D.96-12-086, Ordering Paragraph No. 1. 3 Pacific does not request the retroactive consideration of overlays for area codes that were implemented after the issuance of D.96-12-086 but prior to the effective date of today's decision. 4 Pacific did not specify a time limit for how long its proposed policy should last. We assume that Pacific seeks a policy that would favor overlays indefinitely. 5 Joining in this response were AT&T Communications of California, Inc., AT&T Wireless of California, Inc., Redding Cellular Partnership, Santa Barbara Cellular Systems, Ltd., MCI Telecommunications Corp., the California Cable Television Association, Sprint Communications Company L.P., MediaOne Telecommunications of California, Inc., NEXTLINK of California, ICG Telecom Group, Inc., and Time Warner Telecom of California, LP. 6 The Local Competition docket consists of the consolidated dockets of Rulemaking (R.) 95-04-043 and Investigation (I.) 95-04-044. The Local Competition docket is referred to hereafter as R.95-04-043/I.95-04-044. 7 OIR 98-12-014, mimeo., pp. 25-26.
