D0108019

II. Statement of the Facts

As a basis to evaluate whether a Rule 1 violation occurred, we review the sequence of events at issue in the order to show cause.

On May 5, 2000, Sprint PCS filed an "Emergency Petition" in the Local Competition rulemaking to obtain a growth NXX code in the Beverly Hills Rate Center in the 310 NPA outside of the lottery process. Sprint PCS subsequently withdrew its formal petition and submitted instead a letter to the Director of Telecommunications Division (TD) dated May 18, 2000, informally seeking the same authority to obtain an NXX code.

In order to evaluate Sprint PCS' request for a growth NXX code, the TD staff undertook discovery concerning how many numbers Sprint PCS already held in other rate centers in the Beverly Hills local calling area. Such inquiry was necessary in light of Sprint PCS' claim that an NXX code in the Beverly Hills rate center was needed so that callers using landline telecommunications services could dial a local number in calling mobile customers of Sprint PCS, and thereby avoid landline toll charges.²

TD thus submitted a data request to Sprint PCS on June 2, 2000 (attached as Appendix A, hereto), asking for its utilization data as of May 31, 2000 for all rate centers in the 310 NPA as well as for the 213 and 818 NPAs. On June 9, 2000, Sprint PCS produced a response to the June 2 data request. Upon review of the response, TD staff determined that Sprint PCS had failed to provide requested information pertaining to number holdings in several rate centers. Rather, Sprint PCS simply responded that the rate centers had been misidentified in staff's June 2 data request as being in the 213 area code when, in fact, those particular rate centers were in the 323 area code. While pointing out the staff's error, Sprint PCS nonetheless did not produce any utilization data for those rate centers in its response.

On June 14, 2000, TD transmitted a second data request to Sprint PCS (attached as Appendix C, hereto). To ensure that Sprint PCS could not misinterpret the request for information regarding the numbers Sprint PCS held in all rate centers within the local calling area of Beverly Hills, the data request listed each rate center in the 213, 323, and 818 area codes for which TD was requesting data. The data request also asked for clarification regarding an apparent anomaly in the data Sprint PCS had provided to the Commission on June 9, 2000. On June 21, 2000, Sprint PCS submitted its response to the June 14th data request.

In evaluating Sprint PCS' data responses to the Commission, TD was unaware that Sprint PCS had obtained additional prefixes between December, 1999 and June, 2000. Since the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) actually assigns prefixes to carriers, the Commission does not routinely monitor when and where carriers obtain prefixes. The TD staff only became aware that Sprint PCS had obtained additional prefixes in the 310 NPA through reviewing an affidavit filed by Sprint PCS in a legal action brought by Sprint PCS against the Commission in U.S. District Court.³

Only by reading the Affidavit of Scott Ludwikowski, filed in that federal action, did TD learn that Sprint PCS had obtained additional prefixes in the 310 area code. Information regarding such additional prefixes had not been disclosed in the data Sprint PCS submitted to the Commission on June 9, 2000 or on June 21, 2000. In his Affidavit filed in the federal action, Mr. Ludwikowski makes the following statement:

"Within the last couple of months, Sprint PCS acquired initial NXX codes in the lottery for the Culver City and West Los Angeles rate centers. The acquisition of these codes will better avoid land-to-mobile toll charges for mobile customers living or working in those areas." (Ludwikowski Aff., at 32.)

TD notes, however, that Sprint PCS had, in fact, obtained the following prefixes in the 310 area code beginning in December, 1999, not all "within the last couple of months":

(a) In December, 1999, Sprint PCS received an initial prefix in the 310 area code, which Sprint PCS elected to assign to the Culver City rate center, immediately adjacent to the Beverly Hills rate center.

(b) In April, 2000, Sprint PCS received an initial prefix in the 310 area code, which Sprint PCS elected to place in the Inglewood rate center, within the Beverly Hills local calling area.

(c) In June, 2000, Sprint PCS received an initial prefix in the 310 area code, which Sprint PCS elected to place in the West Los Angeles rate center, within the Beverly Hills local calling area.

Thus, Sprint PCS obtained the prefix that it assigned to the Culver City rate center in December, 1999, and Sprint PCS could begin assigning numbers to its customers from that prefix in February, 2000. Similarly, Sprint PCS obtained the prefix that it assigned to the Inglewood rate center in April, 2000. Both of these prefixes were in Sprint PCS' inventory of numbers on the date that Sprint PCS submitted its data to the Commission. Yet, Sprint PCS failed to include these prefixes in its data responses to TD, even though these prefixes represent an additional twenty thousand numbers Sprint PCS holds in the 310 area code. Further, both of these prefixes fall within the local calling area for Beverly Hills. Of all the prefixes in the 310 area code where Sprint PCS holds numbers, the Culver City rate center, located only three miles to the south, is among the closest to Beverly Hills.

² Some of the rate centers included in the 310 area code fall outside the Beverly Hills local calling area, while rate centers in neighboring area codes are included in the Beverly Hills local calling area. Thus, a customer living in Beverly Hills may dial numbers within the Beverly Hills local calling area which will terminate at rate centers in three other area codes, and the customer will incur no toll charges. That same Beverly Hills customer may call a number associated with one of several rate centers located in the 310 area code but which are outside the Beverly Hills local calling area, and the customer will incur toll charges for those calls. Thus, the area code boundary is not dispositive of whether a caller to a Sprint PCS' customer will pay toll charges; rather, the scope of the caller's local calling area boundary dictates whether toll charges will apply to a particular call. ³ See Cox Communications PCS, LP vs. California Public Utilities Commission in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; Case No. 00-cv 1364-IEG (ABJ)