V. Discussion
Although Carlson claims that the added burden of dialing the "1" is the primary reason why the public objects to overlays, he offers no factual support for his contention. Carlson also ignores other characteristics of an overlay other than dialing the prefix "1," that could have an equal or greater impact on public reaction. For example, irrespective of whether the "1" is dialed, the area code and seven-digit line number must be dialed between and within area codes in the region subject to an overlay. With a geographic split, by contrast, only seven-digit dialing is required for calls within the same area code region. The public therefore must give up seven-digit dialing with an overlay irrespective of whether an extra "1" is to be dialed along with the area code. Also, with an overlay, the public cannot readily identify the affected geographic region with a unique area code. Moreover, customers may object to being assigned a new overlay area code because it may be less recognizable or associated with a less desirable geographic region than would be true with the original area code. By not addressing the extent to which such factors may provide more significant reasons for public objection to an overlay, Carlson fails to show that the dialing of a "1" preceding the area code is the primary reason for public objection to an overlay.
Similarly, the Declaration of Marc O'Krent, attached to the TCLA motion, provides no persuasive evidence that the additional dialing of the prefix "1" is the primary reason that customers object to an overlay. O'Krent merely indicates that customers expressed concerns about the 1+10-digit dialing requirement during the previous attempt of an overlay in 1999. Yet, as noted above, the overlay meant the loss of seven-digit dialing irrespective of whether or not an additional "1+" was needed to be dialed. Thus, the additional burden of dialing an area code before every number was also a reason for customers to object to an overlay, irrespective of whether the "1+" dialing the prefix "1" was also needed.
In addition, O'Krent claims that there is a customer perception that dialing a "1" indicates that the customer is making a call outside the geographic area. Yet, it is not just the dialing of the prefix "1," but also the dialing of a different area code that traditionally has signaled to a customer that the call is being made to a number outside the originating caller's local geographic area.2 With an overlay, therefore, customers will need to learn new rules for dialing irrespective of whether the prefix "1" is needed as do customers who find themselves on the boundary of a new area code split.
For this reason, the Commission implemented a Public Education Program to make sure customers understand that the dialing of an overlay area code does not mean that a different geographic area is being called. Likewise, the Public Education Program will educate customers that calls within or between telephone numbers with the 310 and 424 area codes, preceded by a "1," still remain within a single geographic region. Thus, neither the Carlson Petition nor the O'Krent Declaration support a conclusion that "1+10-digit" dialing (as opposed to 10-digit dialing) is the primary reason for customer objections to overlays. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that mere elimination of the prefix "1,"would significantly affect customer opposition to overlays or confusion about their dialing pattern. In any event, a Public Education Program would still be necessary to facilitate understanding and acceptance of the overlay.
Carlson further argues that, 10-digit dialing (i.e., a three-digit area code plus a seven-digit line number) is more logical and intuitive than 1+10-digit dialing because 10-digit dialing only necessitates the customer to dial the actual telephone number. Carlson argues that dialing the extra "1" preceding the 10 digits, by contrast, may be associated in customers' minds with calls to other area codes and long distance calls. To the extent that Carlson is correct in claiming that customers associate the dialing of a "1" with calls to another area code, callers with telephone numbers with the 310 area code dialing telephone numbers with the 424 area code would expect to dial a "1." Yet, under Carlson's proposed modification, customers with a 310 area code would dial numbers with the 424 area code without dialing a "1." Therefore, eliminating the need to dial the prefix "1" would be counterintuitive and contradictory to the familiar dialing pattern in California. With regards to the claim that customers associate dialing the prefix "1" with long distance calls, this does not apply to California since dialing the prefix "1" coincides with dialing into foreign NPAs, not making toll or long distance calls.
Thus, Carlson's proposed modification would introduce an added layer of complexity into customers' adjustment to the new 310/424 area code overlay. Customers would have to figure out whether dialing the prefix "1" is required depending on the location of the area code being called. If "the called area code" is within the geographic region of the overlay, then the prefix "1" does not have to be dialed. However, if the "called area code" was beyond the overlay region, then it does. Therefore, Carlson's proposed modification would require customers to sort out alternative rules for dialing area codes depending on the "called area code's" geographic location.
Carlson also argues that customers may object to a "1+" dialing requirement because it would be perceived as a "regulatory requirement." The implication of this argument appears to be that customers would view the "1+" requirement as a regulation without any intrinsic purpose. To the extent that customers may have a negative perception about dialing patterns associated with the overlay, the proper vehicle to address this concern is through the Public Education Plan that was authorized in D.05-08-040.
Carlson also claims that 10-digit dialing, not 1+10-digit dialing, is required in nearly every other state that has implemented an overlay. Carlson argues that the Commission can reasonably infer from policies in other states that customers derive a benefit from, and prefer, dialing 10 digits, rather than 1+10-digits. TCLA provided as Attachment A to its motion, a North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) Report showing that the majority of NPAs subject to overlays in North America utilize 10-digit dialing. The Report indicates that 67 out of 74 affected NPAs require only 10-digit dialing.
While we acknowledge the prevalence of 10-digit dialing in the majority of other states where overlays have been implemented, that fact does not, of itself, dictate, which dialing pattern is appropriate for California. Carlson presents no comparison of whether, or to what extent, the circumstances that led to 10-digit dialing in other states apply in California. Without such a comparison, we have no basis to infer that mandatory dialing policies adopted in other states necessarily warrant adoption in California. The specific effects within California of modifying the 1+10-digit dialing must also be considered.
Carlson further argues that requiring only 10-digit dialing (with the option of dialing 1+10-digits on a permissive basis) in California would help to standardize dialing patterns in areas subject to overlays, thereby helping to reduce customer confusion. Within California, however, consumers are already accustomed to 1+10 digit dialing. The Public Education Plan (PEP), with instructions about 1+10-digit dialing has been developed and we anticipate that it will be timely implemented for the 310/424 area code overlay. Thus, it could potentially create more, not less, confusion for customers within an overlay region to start changing the dialing pattern, as already explained by the PEP.
Carlson claims that there are no technical obstacles to implementing 10-digit dialing within the geographic region covered by an overlay. In making this claim, however, he ignores any technical issues that would be involved if affected carriers were required to reprogram existing switches to accommodate his proposal.
The filings by TCLA and CALTEL indicate that at least some carriers would be able to implement 10-digit dialing without any significant technical implementation issues. SBC and Verizon claim that the conversion to 10-digit dialing would pose additional technical issues for them during the overlay implementation. In comments on the Carlson Petition, CALTEL notes that the "1+" dialing constraints only affect wireline carriers, but not wireless carriers. Thus, CALTEL argues that the "1+" dialing plan, no longer appears to be providing the dialing parity benefits that it was originally designed to ensure. Moreover, TCLA attached the Declaration of Scott Sarem stating that the switching equipment of MPower allows its customers within a geographic area served by an NPA to place calls to other numbers within the same geographic area, using 10-digit dialing with no additional switch programming required (except to eliminate seven-digit dialing), and with no post-dial delay.
SBC and Verizon indicated that they have a number of switches in the 310 area code that would require significant time and resources to implement the required translations to accommodate 10-digit dialing. However, SBC and Verizon did not provide any evidence of the actual number of switches in the 310 area code that would require the translations. They also did not support with evidence the claim that the translations would need significant time and resources to complete. Without this type of evidence, there can be no conclusion that the required translations to accommodate 10-digit dialing would actually require significant time and resources.
As stated in D.99-09-067, the need for customers in California to dial the prefix "1" before an area code is a function of the manner in which incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) programmed their networks when the industry had to begin using area codes without a "0" or "1" as the middle digit. The prefix "1" needs to be dialed before an area code is dialed to address the existence of "conflict codes" (i.e., area codes and prefix codes assigned the same digits). To resolve these conflicts without requiring, the dialing the prefix "1," the ILECs contend, mandatory 1+dialing, a call timing delay of four to eight seconds would have to be programmed into the affected switches to allow the completion of the call during the Permissive Dialing Period. SBC and Verizon express concern that the claimed call timing delay would add to the reprogramming already required for calls to accept 10-digit dialing, and could increase system busy times, thus creating additional cost and potential customer confusion. However, SBC and Verzion did not provide factual support of the extent of the increase in system busy times, added cost, and potential customer confusion.
In summary, we conclude that a modification of the 1+10-digit dialing pattern specifically for the 310/424 area code overlay has not been shown to be warranted. The risk of prolonging the implementation of the 310/424 area code overlay and creating more customer confusion during the implementation phase prevails over the potential advantages identified by Carlson. In addition, Carlson presents no analysis of the impacts that his proposal would have on customers of carriers required to make switch translations, particularly within the shortened time frame within which the 310/424 area code overlay is to be implemented.
Moreover, aside from the immediate concerns of the 310/424 area code overlay, we are not persuaded, based on the current state of the record, that carriers should be required at this time to incur the costs due to implementing 10-digit dialing for possible future overlays. We shall solicit an additional round of concurrent comments as to whether changes in the statewide dialing pattern should be modified for any subsequent, proposed area code overlays in California. Such comments shall be due 20 working days from the effective date of this order and shall provide more detailed and documented support for claims made. We shall issue a final decision on Carlson's Petition for Modification with respect to future overlays other than the 310/424 overlay in a subsequent order.
In comments on the Draft Decision, TCLA argues that if the Commission decides to revise its 1+10-digit dialing requirements for future overlays, then those revised requirements should also be applied to the 310/424 area code overlay to avoid divergent dialing patterns within California. TCLA argues that if 10-digit dialing is adopted for future overlays only, but not for the 310/424 area code overlay, the result will be customer confusion, especially in major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles where the geographic territory served by any one area code is small, numbering resources are scarce, and the possibility of future overlays is great.
In recognition of this concern, even though we decline to revise the 1+10-digit dialing requirements for the 310/424 area code overlay at the present time, we reserve the option of considering a future revision in dialing requirements applicable to the 310/424 area code overlay, as warranted, to promote consistency with other overlays that may be implemented subject to different dialing requirements in the future. We decline, however, to change the currently authorized dialing requirements for the 310/424 area code as part of the Public Education Program (PEP) that is already underway, particularly to avoid customer confusion or to disrupt or delay the schedule for the Public Education Program for the 310/424 overlay.
2 Of course, customers who live near an existing area code boundary have learned through experience that dialing into another area code does not necessarily equate to dialing outside the customer's local calling area.
