II. Background
The traditional system for assigning telephone numbers throughout the United States was a legacy from an era in which one incumbent telephone company provided all customers with local service in a given area code. Under the traditional system, a carrier wishing to serve only a few customers in an area was allocated telephone numbers in blocks of 10,000 for each rate center4 in that area. That system worked reasonably well as long as only one incumbent local exchange carrier required telephone numbers. With the opening of the local exchange market to competition, together with the growth in the competitive market for wireless and advanced technological telecommunications services, the traditional number assignment system could no longer keep up with the growing demand for numbers from multiple carriers serving the same customer base. The traditional system did not lend itself to efficient distribution of numbers in a competitive market where numbers are assigned to multiple carriers to serve customers in each rate center.
From 1947 to January 1997, the number of area codes in California increased gradually from 3 to 13. During the next three years, however, the number of area codes in California nearly doubled. By the end of 1999, California had 25 area codes statewide, and because of inefficient management of telephone numbers, the industry then projected that the state would need more than 40 area codes by the end of 2002. Today, because of aggressive and successful conservation measures implemented since 2000, California has only added one area code (area code 951) with the split of 909 in 2004.
A. Prior Commission Actions Regarding the 310 Area Code
The 310 Area Code, or Numbering Plan Area (NPA),5 was created in 1992 to create more numbers in the geographic area previously covered by the 213 area code. The 310 area code was subsequently split in January 1997, forming a separate 562 area code in the Southeastern region of the 310 area code, again to provide additional phone numbers based solely on industry projections of future demand. On February 18, 1998, industry representatives submitted to the Commission yet another proposal for splitting the 310 area code, again claiming telephone number exhaust6.
The industry first began customer notification of the impending exhaustion of numbers in the 310 area code in May 1997 in accordance with the 24-month customer notification required by Pub. Util. Code § 7930(a). A local jurisdiction meeting for city and county government representatives was held on August 27, 1997 and public meetings were held throughout the 310 area code by November 1997.
On May 7, 1998, the Commission issued D.98-05-021, approving the implementation of the first area code overlay in California. In conformance with federal and California rules, the overlay plan also required the implementation of mandatory 1+10-digit dialing within the 310 area code and the newly created 424 area code.
On June 9, 1999, shortly after implementation of mandatory 1+10-digit dialing in the 310 area code, Assemblymember Wally Knox, jointly with other parties, petitioned to modify the Commission's D.98-05-021, seeking to halt the opening of the overlay scheduled to occur on July 17, 1999, and to end mandatory 1+10-digit dialing. In D.99-06-091, issued on June 24, 1999, the Commission temporarily suspended mandatory 1+10-digit dialing in order to provide time to address the full merits of the Petition. In D.99-09-067, the Commission granted the Knox Petition, suspending the 310 area code overlay plan, eliminating mandatory 1+10-digit dialing, and instituting a program of telephone number conservation measures to extend the life of the 310 area code.
On August 2, 2000, the Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC) filed a motion asking the Commission to immediately create new numbers in the 310 area code.7 CCAC argued that in view of wireless carriers' forecasted need for triple the number of remaining 10,000-number blocks at that time, there was an unavoidable need for immediately creating a new area code.
In September 2000, the Commission took a preliminary step toward splitting the 310 area code. In D.00-09-073, the Commission, as required by the FCC, established a new 424 area code by adopting a plan for a geographic split of the 310 area code should it become necessary to implement a new area code. The split plan adopted in D.00-09-073 provided for implementation of Alternative 1A, the geographic split plan previously proposed by the industry planning group as originally described in D.98-05-021. Under the adopted plan, the northern portion of the geographic area would retain the 310 area code. The southern portion of the current 310 area code would be split off to form a new 424 area code.8 The boundary lines and rate centers covered by the new area code are depicted in Appendix A of this order.
The Commission recognized that any area code change will entail some level of disruption, particularly to those customers who are required to take the new area code. Alternative 1A was approved by the Commission, because it scored more highly in satisfying all of the designated criteria than any of the alternatives.9
On September 29, 2000, Senate Bill 1741 (Bowen) amended Pub. Util. Code § 7930. This new statute provided specific direction to the Commission regarding the creation of new area codes. Among other things, Pub. Util. Code § 7930 prohibits the Commission from approving new area code splits or overlays unless a telephone utilization study has been performed and all reasonable telephone number conservation measure have been implemented.
On December 19, 2002, CCAC sent a letter requesting that the Commission adopt and implement all-services overlays in both the 310 and 909 area codes. In its letter, CCAC reiterated its August 2002 claim that the 310 area code faces immediate need of area code relief. CCAC sent a second letter with the same request on February 6, 2003.
B. The Commission's 2000 Utilization Study and the 2001
310 Number Audit
On March 16, 2000, the Commission's Telecommunications Division (TD) issued its "Report on the 310 NPA" (Report) presenting findings on how efficiently telephone numbers remaining in the 310 area code were actually being utilized by carriers, in compliance with the directive of D.99-09-067. Parties were permitted to file responses to the Report. As reported by TD, approximately three million unused numbers existed in the 310 area code as of November 1999.
No independent analysis had been provided, however, concerning the reliability of such forecasts or carriers' actual utilization of telephone numbers. Accordingly, in D.99-09-067, the Commission ordered the staff to undertake a study of telephone number use in the 310 area code to ascertain how efficiently carriers were actually using the 10,000-number blocks already assigned to them. The Commission stated that a full accounting of telephone numbers actually in use in the 310 area code would be required before setting any further date for the opening of a new area code.
The TD Report also recognized that, even considering the large quantity of unused numbers in 310, various constraints then existed on the ability of carriers to make use of these unassigned numbers in meeting current customer service needs. For example, a certain quantity of unused numbers are allowed by the FCC to be reserved for carriers' inventory needs. Also, in certain cases, carriers may want numbers assigned to them from a particular rate center. Even if there are unused numbers in other rate centers, a carrier may be unable to access those numbers to serve customers in a rate center where there is a shortage of number blocks.10
While the Commission approved Alternative 1A as the designated back-up plan in D.00-09-073, it deferred its implementation pending independent confirmation that carrier-reported utilization data underlying telephone number exhaust forecasts for the 310 area code were accurate and reliable as the results of the Report reflected only the representation of carriers. The Commission ordered TD staff to conduct an independent audit of the number utilization data underlying the TD Report on the 310 area code.11
Since the publishing of the Audit Report, additional NXX codes have been opened to provide inventory for the 310 area code number pool. Since the pool's inception in 2000, carriers have donated or returned over 704 one-thousand number blocks to the 310 area code pool. The TD audit report concludes that number pooling has been overwhelmingly successful in meeting the needs of pooling participants through better utilization of each area code's existing telephone numbers.
4 A rate center is a specific geographic location within a local exchange that is used to determine the rating of calls as either local or toll, depending on the distance between the rate centers serving two calling parties. Each 10,000-number block of telephone numbers is assigned to a particular rate center. 5 Area codes are assigned nationally for designated local "Numbering Plan Areas" (NPAs) by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). The supply of available telephone numbers is governed nationally by the North American Numbering Plan which prescribes the structure of telephone numbering codes. Telephone numbers throughout the United States utilize a 10-digit dialing format composed of a three-digit area code, a three-digit central office (NXX) code, and a four-digit individual line number. Each NXX code, also known as a prefix, represents a 10,000-number block of telephone numbers. Neustar, Inc. is the Pooling Administrator for all number pools in the United States. 6 Number exhaust is another term for running out of whole NXX codes in a given area code, which precipitates the need for an area code split or overlay. Carriers maintain hundreds of thousand of unused telephone numbers in their carrier-specific inventories, which are not used by customers but are unavailable for use by other carriers. 7 CCAC also filed a separate motion to file certain information contained in its pleading under seal, stating that such information was highly confidential and proprietary in nature. No party opposed the motion to file under seal. We granted the motion to file proprietary information under seal. 8 Although there was no statutory requirement to conduct additional public meetings, the Commission did subsequently hold additional public meetings during 2001, to provide updated public input regarding the 310 area code geographic split plan in view of the passage of time since the original public meetings in 1997. Public meetings were held in the cities of Carson and Redondo Beach on April 23, 2001, and in Culver City on April 24, 2001. 9 The designated criteria included factors such as the estimated life of the new area code to be created (i.e., dividing an existing area code in a way that creates two area codes that will last the longest possible time), maintaining communities of interest to the extent possible, and preserving municipal boundaries. 10 In the case of wireless carriers, however, it is technically possible to use numbers from an adjacent rate center to provide customers with numbers even if there is a shortage of 10,000-number blocks in the desired rate center. 11 The audit report findings were released on February 16, 2001. Based on the published audit findings, TD reached three overall conclusions. First, carriers did not deliberately misreport telephone number utilization data for the March 2000 Report on the 310 area code. Second, the audit authenticates the utilization data that carriers submitted for the March Report, except for certain recommended adjustments as noted in the audit report. Third, the additional telephone number adjustments noted in the audit report are relatively small compared to the twelve 1,000-number blocks available for assignment as of the date of the audit report and the codes set aside for number pooling.
