IV. Selection of New Area Code Plan

Having determined that a new area code must be implemented, we now select the plan that best meets the prescribed criteria. We have before us two alternative proposals for 909 area code relief as presented by the industry at the Local Jurisdiction and Public Meetings: (1) either an all-services overlay or (2) some version of a geographic split.

As a basis for evaluating the alternatives, we consider the criteria that have traditionally been utilized in selecting previous relief plans.⁸ The criteria are:

1. Minimize end users' confusion;

2. Balance the cost of implementation for all affected parties;

3. Provide that customers who undergo number changes shall not be required to change again for a period of eight to ten years;

4. Not favor a particular interest group;

5. Cover a period of at least five years beyond the predicted date of exhaustion; and

6. Provide that all of the codes in a given area shall exhaust about the same time in the case of splits. In practice, this may not be possible, but severe imbalances, for example, a difference in NPA lifetimes of more than 15 years, should be avoided.

7. Comply with state and federal statutes, rulings and orders.

We have also formulated policies regarding area code relief through a series of decisions in this rulemaking since 1995. In D.96-12-086, dated December 20, 1996, we evaluated the relative merits of splits versus overlays in terms of consumer impact. In particular, we reviewed consumer surveys concerning preferences for overlays and geographic splits as a means of creating new area codes. In that decision, we concluded that, at least for the near term, customers were better served with the geographic split option, and directed that splits be used for relief plans taking effect at least through the year 2000. Since the currently proposed 909 NPA relief plan would take effect after the year 2000, the policy in D.96-12-086 favoring geographic splits would not automatically preclude adoption of an overlay.

In D.97-08-065, we required that an overlay be evaluated in reference to the same criteria applicable to a geographic split. In D.96-08-028, we required that any overlay must be competitively neutral, and established two prerequisites at a minimum for competitive neutrality. These were: (1) mandatory 1+10-digit dialing for all calls within the service areas subject to the overlay,⁹ and (2) the full implementation of permanent LNP within the service area subject to the overlay. We determined that a further record needed to be developed regarding the relative merits of overlays versus splits once anticompetitive impediments could be overcome.

In D.96-12-086, we further developed the necessary conditions to be met in order to justify approval of an overlay. We required that a customer education program be instituted at least 12 months before any overlay would take effect. We also required that upon approval of any overlay, the code administrator and telecommunications industry members were to:

a. Notify the nationwide industry, the national code administrator, and customers of the proposed dialing plan change;

b. Educate customers, industry, and internal employees on the dialing plan change;

c. Correct signage for dialing instructions on payphones and in directories;

d. Perform switch translation work for implementing mandatory dialing (12 weeks prior to cutover); and

e. Simultaneously with the cutover, institute customer instructional announcement for misdialed seven-digit calls.

In addition to requirements that we imposed, the FCC issued its own requirements in FCC Order 96-333 with respect to overlays. The FCC required mandatory 1+10-digit dialing for an overlay. The FCC also prohibited overlays from being applied only to specific telecommunications services, but required that overlays must apply to all services.¹⁰

The overlay avoids the problems involved with the geographic splitting of local communities by leaving existing boundaries intact. As the geographic area covered by the 909 NPA faces the prospect of further shrinkage in the current proposal before us, we note the increasing difficulty of drawing boundaries that minimize splitting local communities, consistent with Pub. Util. Code § 2887(a), and of balancing the projected lives of the old and new area codes.

The overlay also avoids the need for existing customers to change their area code. Business customers, in particular, face economic hardships resulting from having to notify customers of area code changes, and to change business cards, letterheads, catalogs, etc.

While avoiding these problems, the overlay is not without its own issues. For example, customers who seek additional lines at the same location after the overlay takes effect may only be able obtain the additional lines under the new area code and thus be left with two area codes for multiple lines at the same location.

Moreover, while the area code boundaries would not change with an overlay, the boundaries would no longer define a single area code, but two (or more) area codes. Thus, one of the advantages of having geographically-defined area code boundaries (i.e., as a means of common identification) over time becomes less meaningful as a common bond of local communities of interest.

Another significant drawback of an overlay is customers' loss of seven-digit dialing. With the overlay, existing customers retain the 909 area code, but must submit to mandatory 1+10-digit dialing and lose the unique geographic identity presently provided by the 909 area code. Under a geographic split, by contrast, all customers in the 909 area code retain seven-digit dialing and a unique geographic area code identity, but more customers must take a new area code. The high value customers place on seven-digit dialing was reflected in the consumer surveys reviewed in D.96-12-086, in which respondents expressed preferences for splits or overlays

Customers would need a sufficient transition period to acclimate themselves to the changes resulting from an overlay associated with 1+10-digit dialing and loss of geographic-specific area code identification. An effective customer education program would be essential in mitigating negative reaction to a mandatory 1+10-digit dialing requirement and other novel features of an overlay. In proposing an overlay for the 909 area code, however, the industry group failed to provide any details as to the nature, extent, and funding of any customer education program.

We previously authorized a customer education program in connection with the plan to implement an overlay in the 310 area code in 1998. Despite the level of effort and funding that went into that education program, however, it was unsuccessful at overcoming significant negative public reaction to mandatory 1+10-digit dialing. This negative public reaction was instrumental in our ultimately rejecting the overlay and adopting instead a geographic split as a back up plan for the 310 area code pursuant to D.00-09-073. The current 909 area code overlay proposal does not address how a successful customer education program should be designed to overcome such negative reaction as was experienced with the 310 area code overlay effort. This deficiency in the proposal gives us additional reason to favor a traditional geographic split for the 909 area code without the uncertainties of a massive customer education program of an entirely new dialing concept.

Given the uncertainties associated with design of an effective customer education plan, coupled with past customer survey preferences favoring splits, we conclude that a geographic split is the preferred choice for the 909 area code in this instance. Of the various geographic split options formulated by the industry group, we conclude that Alternative #1 is the best overall.

Although the industry group recommended Alternative #7, we conclude that Alternative #1 offers a better overall choice, particularly in view of input received at the local jurisdiction and public meetings on 909 area code change options.

Alternative #1 essentially splits the area code along the boundaries of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, thus enabling all San Bernardino County residents to retain the 909 area code. The southern area covering Riverside County would take the new 951 area code. Alternative #1 includes the City of Calimesa in the 909 area code, since Calimesa, Yucaipa, and the communities of Oak Glen, Forest Falls, and Angelus Oaks make up the "Calimesa Rate Center." While Calimesa, located in Riverside County, would have a different area code from the rest of Riverside County, it is a small city of approximately 7,300 residents. The City of Yucaipa, on the other hand, is the largest city in the rate center with approximately 45,000 residents. Alternative #1 includes Yucaipa with its neighboring communities in San Bernardino County, all of whom will keep the 909 area code. San Bernardino residents make up the vast majority of the "Calimesa Rate Center."

Alternative #7, on the other hand, would separate Yucaipa from much of San Bernardino County by placing a small portion of western Yucaipa in an area code separate from the rest of the community, creating two area codes within the city. Alternative #7 disrupts both residents and businesses, and disassociates Yucaipa from those with whom they conduct on-going business. Historically, Yucaipa has been considered a part of the "East Valley" of San Bernardino County. Residents' travel/commute patterns are generally to the West, not to the South. We conclude that Alternative #1 would therefore adversely impact fewer residents than Alternative #7. Accordingly, we adopt Alternative #1 and order its implementation to proceed to relieve 909 NPA code exhaust pursuant to the schedule set below. The affected boundaries and rate centers are depicted in Appendix A.