II. Parties' Position

A. Position of the City

The City petitions the Commission to modify D.00-01-023 to return to the 858 NPA permissive dialing period and implement a seven-digit overlay as a temporary relief measure to allow sufficient time to explore and implement other less disruptive area code relief in the San Diego region. The City claims that mandatory dialing of the 858 area code was implemented prematurely. D.00-01-023 denied the Petition for Modification of D.98-06-018 filed by Kuczewski (Kuczewski Petition). The Kuczewski Petition asked the Commission to modify D.98-06-018 which implemented a geographic split in the 619 NPA in two phases. Kuczewski had proposed a seven-digit overlay and asked the Commission to suspend implementation of mandatory dialing in the newly created 858 NPA (Phase 1 of the 619 Decision).

The City argues that a new area code should not be required until after the Commission has conducted audits of number usage, number availability has been determined, number conservation and pooling instigated, number allotment methodology and procedures have been revamped, the report submitted to the Legislature as mandated under the "Consumer Act,"² and other less disruptive number relief measures implemented. The City expresses concern that relief plans have been implemented in the absence of a comprehensive code utilization audit being competed for the San Diego region. Before any changes were made in the San Diego region, the City argues that its citizens should have been afforded an opportunity to review and benefit from the studies mandated by the Consumer Act.

The City also notes that since the 619 NPA relief plan was adopted, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted the Commission's petition to implement number conservation (FCC  Ruling).³ The FCC Ruling included authority to institute 1,000 block number pooling, require the submittal of number utilization data, and reclaim unused and reserved NXX Codes.

The City calls upon the Commission to immediately implement number conservation and number pooling measures in the 619 NPA pursuant to the FCC delegation of authority. Relying on the addition of the 858 NPA, the City claims that the 619 NPA was put near the "bottom of the list" for implementation of the conservation measures. The City asks the Commission to petition the FCC to allow for a temporary seven-digit overlay in the 619 NPA as was done in New York in order to provide the time necessary to implement number pooling and conservation measures to extend the life of the NPA.

The City further argues that the public has been outraged by the addition of the 858 area code which was implemented without the required six months of a public information recording during the permissive dialing period. In view of the Commission's decision to suspend implementation of relief plans in other areas of California and number conservation procedures being implemented therein, the City argues that the public is extremely displeased that San Diego has been forced to deal with a third area code.

The City further claims that subsequent to D.00-01-023, additional information has come to light about the degree to which citizens in San Diego were outraged by the 858 split and that they support an overlay as an area code relief measure. The Mayor and City Council convened a public hearing on the proposed 935 split, at which citizens raised concerns about the 858 split and the proposed 935 split. In addition, the City has initiated an informal survey where individuals can provide the City with input about their concerns with the 858 split. The City claims the results are overwhelmingly against the 858 split.

The City concurrently filed an "Emergency Motion" seeking a Commission Order to Revert to Permissive Dialing in the 858 Area Code, to Modify the Auction for NXX codes in the 619 Area Code, to Order an Open Season, and to Act on the City of San Diego's Petition to Modify D.00-01-023 (Emergency Motion). Due to the extremely short time before the next auction of NXX codes in the 619 NPA, the City claims there is an unforeseen emergency situation requiring immediate Commission action, where time is of the essence. (See Rule 81(f).) Therefore, the City requests that the Commission immediately take all steps necessary to give customers in the current 858 NPA the option to obtain their old telephone number in the 619 NPA and to implement a seven-digit overlay.

The City understands that there are fewer than 20 NXX codes in the geographic area covered by the 619 NPA. These remaining NXX codes (as well as the NXX codes that were released as a result of the 858 split) are being allocated to carriers under a lottery process overseen by the Commission. In order to assure that customers who were part of the original 858 split have the option to return to the 619 NPA, the City argues, it is imperative that new customers in the 619 NPA not be assigned the numbers held by the original 858 customers. This would mean that NXX codes in existence in the 619 NPA at the time of the 858 split would not be reallocated in the 619 NPA until a seven-digit overlay could be implemented.

The City, by its motion, also requests that customers who were in the 619 NPA at the time of the 858 split be given the option to revert back to the 619 NPA through an "open season" process whereby the original 858 customers are given a one-time opportunity to switch back to the 619 NPA. The City recommends that the Commission order that the open season begin within 15 days of Commission approval and that the open season not exceed 60 days in duration. By granting customers the option to return, the customer decides if the benefits that they perceive from retaining the 619 NPA would outweigh the potential costs and confusion of undergoing yet another change in NPA.

B. Positions of Other Parties

Kuczewski is the responding party who completely supports all of the measures requested by the City in both its Petition and its Motion. With the exception of Kuczewski and the City, all other parties filing comments agree that reverting to permissive dialing in the 858 NPA is not feasible at this late date. Even Pacific, which otherwise is supportive of a seven-digit overlay, concedes that no numbering resources remain with which to reverse the Phase 1 NPA relief plan. Reinstituting permissive dialing would delay area code relief from taking effect and would prevent carriers from assigning any new numbers in the 858 NPA provided as a result of the 619/858 NPA split. Federal rules, however, require the Commission to implement area code relief when necessary to avoid code exhaustion. Aside from the lack of numbering resources, parties argue that it would be disruptive and confusing for the public if the proposed "open season" were instituted where there would be no way to predict if a neighbor had reverted to the 619 or was in the 858 NPA.

Parties express differing views, however, concerning the feasibility of deferring the second phase of the 619 NPA relief plan. Pacific and UCAN both support the deferral of the Phase 2 implementation. Pacific believes that the additional NXX codes made available as a result of the Phase 1 relief implementation will probably lengthen the life of the 619 NPA to over two years, and that number pooling would lengthen the time even further. ORA proposes to defer the Phase 2 schedule at least until the Commission can examine the data from the code utilization study scheduled for June 1, 2000, and base any further decision regarding Phase 2 on the best data available.

The CCAC and the Joint Commenters oppose any deferral of the Phase 2 schedule for 619 NPA relief, arguing that the City's Petition is deficient both on procedural and substantive grounds. These parties argue that number pooling cannot be implemented soon enough to meet the strong demand for numbering resources in the San Diego region. These parties argue that because the Commission has already committed to implement three number pooling trials in the 310, 415, and 714 NPAs, respectively, during the year 2000, a pooling trial could not be initiated in the 619 NPA before the spring of 2001 at the earliest. The FCC has required that successive number pooling trials in different metropolitan regions be implemented on a staggered basis. The parties argue that many other NPAs will exhaust sooner than will the 619 NPA, and require number pooling on higher priority basis than does the 619 NPA. In any event, these parties argue that a number pooling trial that may be instituted sometime next year is not a substitute for relief that is needed now in the 619 NPA. By the time a 619 NPA number pooling trial could be inaugurated, the parties argue, the few remaining unassigned NXX codes would not be sufficient to yield a significant NPA life extension. The joint parties argue that the three-way split should be implemented without delay to provide for an adequate supply of number resources so that consumers may have their choice of carrier.

The City filed a third-round reply on March 13, 2000, in opposition to the comments of the joint parties. The City argues that the joint parties mislead in stating that the 619 NPA is behind several other NPAs in the queue for implementation of number conservation measures. The City believes that until full implementation of the 310 NPA pooling trial, implementation of other pooling trials is on hold. Given the imminent exhaustion of the 619 NPA absent the implementation of the three-way geographic split, the City argues that the 619 NPA should be the very next NPA to implement any and all possible number conservation measures. The City disagrees with the joint parties that consumers will benefit from the splitting of the 619 NPA which it views as premature or unneeded. The City supports a delay in implementing the three-way split to provide an opportunity for any and all tools to be used to address the critical shortage of NXX codes in the 619 NPA.