IV. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the ALJ Thomas Pulsifer in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules and Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on September 9 and 13, 2004 We have taken the comments into account in finalizing this order.

In comments to the Draft Decision, the Joint Wireless Carriers (JWC) argue that instead of the geographic split, the Commission should approve and implement an all-services overlay that would be triggered by the allocation of the last NXX code to the pooling administrator for assignment to carriers. The JWC propose that before the general assignment of numbers would take place under a 424 area code overlay, carriers be required to conduct a minimum three-month period of customer education.

The JWC express awareness of only one objection to the overlay, namely, the potential inconvenience of mandatory 10-digit dialing for all numbers within the same area code. The JWC claim that customer education would readily alleviate this concern. Also, they claim that the Commission can order implementation of the overlay while consider whether or not to pursue a temporary FCC waiver from the 10-digit dialing requirement applicable to overlays.

While we make no judgment in this order concerning the theoretical merits of an all-services overlay for some future area code relief implementation, an overlay is not an appropriate solution for relief in the 310 area code at this time. The JWC advocacy for an overlay, first of all, is procedurally defective. The question of the appropriate form of relief plan to adopt for the 310 area code is not before the Commission in this order. That question was previously decided in September 2000, by D.00-09-073, with the adoption of the 310/424 area code geographic split backup plan, identified as Alternative 1A. The only limited question before the Commission in this order is the timing of any implementation of the previously adopted backup relief plan.

The proper procedural forum in which to revise the adopted form of area code relief would be through a petition for modification of D.00-09-073, seeking to replace the geographic split with an all-services overlay as the adopted backup plan. Under the statutory requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 1708, however, parties must be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Commission could be in position to consider amending D.00-09-073 to substitute an all-services overlay for the adopted geographic split. No party has yet filed any such petition for modification of D.00-09-073, nor have parties been noticed that such a revision is before the Commission.

Moreover, the JWC focus on claimed benefits of an overlay, but do not adequately address all of the problems involved with an overlay that were reviewed at length by the Commission in prior decisions, particularly in D.00-09-073 where the Commission selected the geographic split as preferable to an overlay. Likewise, the JWC's proposal for a minimum three months customer education plan for an overlay is in conflict with the Commission's previously stated policy. The requirement to dial 10 digits for all numbers in the same area code, even to one's next-door neighbor, would be a major change in dialing patterns. We previously approved an overlay of the 310 area code in D.98-05-021, and ordered a customer education program to acclimate the public to the changes in dialing patterns with an overlay. We required a minimum 12-month customer education program as a condition for implementing any all-services overlay, as discussed in D.98-07-093 in which we adopted a customer education plan for the previously approved overlay of the 310 area code. We recognized that the new dialing patterns for an overlay would require a concerted public education and outreach effort. We also adopted certain minimum requirements concerning the funding and extent of media coverage for such a customer education program.

Notwithstanding these measures, the inadequacies of that customer education program underlying that original 310 area code overlay plan were evident in our observation that "1+10-digit dialing and the prospect of an overlay have caused substantial customer confusion and inconvenience." (D.99-09-067 at 1.) That overlay was ultimately suspended and replaced with a geographic split as a backup plan. Thus, the JWC have not adequately addressed all of the difficulties with an all-services overlay that led us to suspend its implementation five years ago, nor considered the time, cost, and planning of an adequate public education plan for an overlay.

A consideration of all-services overlays would require revisiting all of the relevant concerns that have previously been raised in our prior deliberations concerning statewide area code relief policies, including whether it makes sense to implement dialing plan disparities in different parts of the state. In other words, implementation of mandatory 1+10-digit dialing only the 310/424 area code would isolate this region from the rest of the state which has no such dialing requirement for calls within the same area code. In the alternative, a uniform statewide policy of mandatory 1+10-digit dialing would likewise have major ramifications to be carefully considered. In view of all of these considerations, and given the limited remaining time in which to implement area code relief to avoid running out of numbers, we disagree with parties' claims that an overlay should be implemented instead of a geographic split of the 310 area code at this time.

We have also reviewed the comments of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), Supervisor Don Knabe, and Congresswoman Jane Harmon (collectively, the "Coaltion"). In their comments, the Coalition argues that splitting the 310 area code is premature at this time, and does not build on the successful conservation measures that the Commission has already adopted. Instead of an immediate split, the Coalition calls for enforcement of the 25% contamination threshold, the establishment of new six-month number inventory guidelines and bringing all available numbers into the pool by including pager and intermediate carriers.

We disagree with Coalition that further delays in implementing the 310 area code split can be accommodated without jeopardizing the continued availability of numbering resources, particularly after January 2006 (the earliest date that new numbers would become available if implementation of the split starts now). We have managed to extend the life of the 310 area code an additional five years since suspension of the overlay relief plan in 1999. We have taken all reasonable measures to defer the opening of a new area code. During the process of implementation of the new area code, we will continue to enforce all available measures to economize the use of numbers. Nonetheless, even with these measures, the fact remains that certain rate centers either have already depleted available number supplies or are close to depletion. In order to meet our obligation to provide for an adequate supply of numbering resources so that consumers have access to competitive choices, the geographic split must begin implementation now.