VII. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of ALJ Thomas Pulsifer in this matter was mailed to parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on December 5, 2005 and reply comments were filed on December 12, 2005. We have reviewed the comments and taken them into account in finalizing this order.

Findings of Fact

1. In D.96-12-086, customers were required to dial the prefix "1" followed by the three-digit area code and seven-digit line number for all calls within an overlay region (referred to as 1+10-digit dialing).

2. Douglas Carlson's Petition for Modification of D.96-12-086 seeks to eliminate the necessity to dial the prefix "1" before the area code and line number for calls within an overlay region (referred to as 10-digit dialing).

3. Carlson seeks to have the proposed modification at least adopted for the implementation of the 310/424 area code overlay approved by D.05-08-040, even if not adopted prospectively at this time for all future overlays.

4. Because of the manner in which switches are programmed, currently at least some wireline carriers' systems need 1+10-digit dialing for all calls within an overlay region. Although wireless carriers' systems are not equally subject to such technical constraints.

5. The need for customers in California to dial the prefix "1" before an area code is a function of the manner in which ILECs programmed their networks when the industry began using area codes without a "0" or "1" as the middle digit. They decided that dialing the prefix "1" would be the preferred approach over experiencing a delay when making calls. Although, they never sought approval from the Commission to implement this approach.

6. Currently, the prefix "1" needs to be dialed to deal with the number of "conflict codes" (i.e., area codes and prefix codes assigned the same digits).

7. Certain carriers claim that to resolve the issue brought on by conflict codes without mandatory 1+dialing, a call timing delay of four to eight seconds may have to be programmed into affected switches to allow the completion of dialing during the Permissive Dialing Period.

8. Certain carriers claim that the additional switch reprogramming required to implement 10-digit dialing may increase system busy times for calls to affected numbers, thus creating additional cost and potential customer confusion.

9. There is insufficient time left to implement changes in the dialing pattern, 1+10-digit requirements for the 310/424 overlay without unreasonably risking delay or disruption in implementation of area code relief in the 310 NPA.

10. Forced modification of switches to eliminate the prefix "1" requirement could create more problems than it solves, particularly in the 310/424 area code overlay.

11. Carlson's proposed modification would introduce an added complexity into customers' adjustment to the new 310/424 area code overlay since customers would have to figure out whether dialing the prefix "1" dialing is needed depending on where the "called area code" is located.

12. Although 10-digit dialing is employed in the majority of other states where overlays have been implemented, that fact does not, of itself, dictate the dialing patterns for California.

13. Within California, customers are already accustomed to 1+10-digit dialing and the Public Education Plan, with instructions about 1+10-digit dialing, is in the process of implementation for the 310/424 area code overlay.

14. It could potentially create more, not less, confusion for customers within 310/424 area code overlay region to start learning new dialing rules since the implementation of the Public Education Plan is already underway.

Conclusions of Law

1. In view of the previous directive in D.01-11-043 that decisions regarding the 10-digit dialing issue should be made in the context of circumstances at the time that an overlay is implemented, Carlson's Petition to Modify D.96-12-086 should be deemed timely filed.

2. The fact that the Commission has issued a decision on the 310/424 overlay does not preclude consideration of additional information relating to prospective statewide dialing pattern.

3. Although TCLA characterizes its motion as seeking to "reopen" the record to receive evidence regarding the 10-digit dialing issue, the record in R.95-04-043 regarding area code policy has not been "closed."

4. Although the Commission issued D.05-08-040 implementing the 310/424 area code overlay, the underlying proceeding in which statewide area code issues are addressed remains open.

5. The motion of TCLA should be granted to the extent it is interpreted as a request to consider the attachments to its motion in addressing the Carlson Petition for Modification as part of the ongoing proceeding in R.95-04-043.

6. The Petition of Douglas Carlson to modify the 1+10-digit dialing requirements has not been shown to be justified at this time. The request to implement 10-digit dialing for the 310-424 area code overlay should be denied, but further consideration should be given to adopting 10-digit dialing for future overlays. The Commission, however, reserves the option of considering a future revision in dialing requirements applicable to the 310/424 area code overlay, as warranted, to promote consistency with future overlays that may be implemented subject to different dialing requirements.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Petition of Douglas F. Carlson to modify Decision 96-12-086 is hereby denied in part, to the extent that it seeks to implement 10-digit dialing for the 310/424 overlay at the present time.

2. A final ruling on the petition to modify as it may apply to future overlays is deferred pending further review.

3. 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.

4. The Motion of TCLA is granted to the extent that the requested attachments shall be incorporated as part of the formal file and given appropriate weight in disposing of the Carlson Petition for Modification.

This order is effective today.

Dated December 15, 2005, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page