ORDER NO. 99-286
ENTERED April 26, 1999
This is an electronic copy. Appendices and footnotes may not appear.
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF OREGON
UM 924
| In the Matter of the Investigation of the Appropriate Method of Providing Number Relief for the 503 Area Code. | ) ) ) |
|
DISPOSITION: NEW AREA CODE APPROVED
Summary
In this order the Commission approves a new area code plan for area code 503; adopts an overlay plan under which a new area code is imposed over all of the present area 503 with the exception of the immediate coastal area; and establishes a permissive dialing period during which telephone numbers can be dialed using either the new or the old area code. The new area code will be implemented on July 11, 1999. The permissive dialing period (during which both the old and the new numbers will work) will extend from that date until January 30, 2000.
Procedural History
On January 19, 1999, Lockheed Martin IMS, the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), presented to the Commission the telecommunications industry’s recommendation to introduce a second area code covering the northwest portion of the state of Oregon. The report presented two possible proposals: a geographic split of the existing 503 area code or an overlay of a new area code over the existing 503 area code. The overlay was the report’s preferred solution. At its February 2, 1999, Public Meeting, the Commission directed its staff to conduct an investigation to seek the views of the public regarding the date and method of implementation of an area code relief plan for the 503 area code (See Order No. 99-105).
As part of its investigation, Staff sought to inform the public of the issues and to receive comments. Staff and the industry informed the public through news releases, bill inserts, and newsletters. Staff representatives also met with civic, government, and business leaders in several locations throughout the affected area. In addition, public comment hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge in Gresham, Beaverton, Portland, and Oregon City. The Commission also held a Special Public Meeting on April 1, 1999, in Salem to receive further comment from the public and the industry. The Commission also received several written comments on the issues.
The Commission Staff presented its recommendation to the Commission at its April 20, 1999, Public Meeting. The Commission reviewed and approved the recommendations in the Staff Report. A copy of the Staff Report is attached to this order as Appendix A and incorporated by this reference.
Background
The existing 503 area code needs a new area code because the supply of unassigned prefix numbers has become sharply limited. The maximum capacity of an area code is 796 prefix codes. Currently, there are only about 100 unassigned prefixes in the area. Under current growth projections, the available prefixes will be exhausted by the end of 1999 or early in 2000. At that point, no more prefix codes could be assigned and the expansion of communications facilities in area code 503 would cease. The imminent exhaustion of the available prefixes is attributable to a number of factors, including an influx of new residential and business customers, expansion by existing business customers, a high rate of growth in cellular and paging services, and the introduction and use of new services, equipment, and features.
Issues
The following issues were presented in this proceeding:
Whether a "split" or "overlay" method should be used to implement a new area code for the 503 area code in Oregon.
If the split method is selected, where should the boundary line be drawn?
If the split method is selected, which area should retain the current 503 area code?
Would a "technology overlay," in which wireless telecommunications devices receive the new area code, be an appropriate solution?
What is the proper time frame for implementation?
The Industry Proposal
The Telecommunications Industry Group, under the direction of Lockheed Martin NANPA, evaluated eight different area code relief alternatives. Five of the alternatives considered were splits and three were overlay options. From this list of eight, the industry selected one split and one overlay as the industry’s recommendation. The industry’s preferred action is to implement a complete overlay of a new area code over the existing 503 area code. The proposed new overlay would be activated July 11, 1999. A six-month permissive dialing period would follow, extending the final implementation of the new code to January 30, 2000. During the six-month permissive dialing period, both seven-digit and ten-digit dialing would complete a local call. After January 30, 2000, ten-digit dialing would be mandatory.
If a split were adopted, the Telecommunications Industry Group recommends that the Portland rate center (basically coterminous with the city of Portland) receive the new number while the remainder of the 503 area retains the 503 code. That recommendation is based on the policy that when an area code is split, the portion expected to grow more slowly (in this case the city of Portland) should receive the new code so that the more rapidly growing area does not have to change codes twice in a relatively short time period. If this split were adopted, a local call from Gresham to Portland would require ten-digit dialing while a call from Gresham to Beaverton would require seven-digit dialing.
Staff Position
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a partial overlay that excludes the coastal area now in area 503. Staff points out that an overlay relieves the necessity for forecasting growth by exchange and allocates numbers to demand on a regional, not local basis. Under the overlay proposal, Salem will have the same access to numbers as Portland. From the customer perspective, the advantage of the overlay is that no customer has to undergo a number change. All existing numbers stay the same. New numbers are assigned out of the new area code. The negative results of the overlay are that all local calls require ten-digit dialing and the geographic identification of an area code is lost. Staff believes that it is possible to leave the coastal portion of area code 503 out of the overlay because that area has not shown the same growth rate as the remainder of area code 503. Moreover, that area is not included in the Portland regional extended area service (EAS), and calls between it and the Portland area are toll calls.
Staff notes that the problem facing the Commission today in the 503 area code is very different from that existing in 1995 when the Commission chose to split the state into two area codes, with a new area code covering most of the state outside the northwest area. The traditional franchise service boundaries or territories are no longer well defined because of legal and regulatory changes, including the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The exchange boundaries defining the Portland rate center do not follow county or municipal boundary lines. Setting area code boundaries based on these exchange lines will divide established communities. The complex Portland Metro-EAS arrangements now in existence make it impossible to set area code boundaries that do not cross the EAS zones. Moreover, because of the complex EAS arrangements, an area code split would require a combination of seven- and ten-digit dialing. For example, a local call from Gresham to Portland would require ten-digit dialing while a call from Gresham to Beaverton would require seven-digit dialing. In addition, the various new competing telecommunications technologies which serve many customers are not circumscribed by traditional boundaries and reach customers far beyond the traditional definitions of exchange service areas. In this new market, geographic location is not an essential part of the network design. In Staff's view, all these factors support the overlay as the better choice.
COMMISSION DECISION
Split versus Overlay
Under the split option, the present 503 area code would be divided into two geographical areas, one retaining the current 503 area and the other receiving a new area code. Under the overlay method, existing customers’ lines would retain the 503 area code while new access lines (telephone, fax, cellular, data) would be given the new area code, regardless of geographical location.
Both options present disadvantages. Under the split method, the area to receive the new area code (Portland under the industry recommendation) would experience some of the following difficulties:
Change of existing telephone number.
Costs associated with changing stationery, business cards, catalogs, and other materials.
Reprogramming of telephone number in computer systems and cellular phones.
The primary disadvantages of the overlay method include the mandatory use of ten-digit dialing for all local calls and the loss of geographic identification.
Written and oral comments from the public tended to favor the overlay method over the geographic split. However, many of those commenting suggested that the Commission should implement what is called a "technology overlay," under which only alternative telecommunication methods such as cellular phones, pagers, and other wireless mechanisms would receive the new area code. The Commission believes, however, that that method of creating a new area code is not consistent with our policy of making alternative suppliers of telecommunications service available to Oregonians. Moreover, it might violate § 253 or other provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Act favors the development of competition in the telecommunications industry and the removal of barriers to entry. Any policy that singles out alternative technological methods of providing telecommunications for disadvantageous treatment could be contrary to the Act. While we will not attempt to make any final conclusions in this order about the legal propriety of a technology overlay, it is apparent to us that assignment of a new area code just to those carriers might be disadvantageous treatment in conflict with the law. We will not undertake that uncertain course, which would subject Oregon telecommunications customers to the possibility of harmful confusion and expense if our decision to adopt a technology overlay were later overturned.
Disposition
Our choice of a method of providing a new area code will take into account public and industry opinion, federal law, and our own policies. Based on these considerations, the Commission will adopt the Staff recommendation to approve a partial overlay for implementing the new area code. The overlay would provide consistent ten-digit dialing, in contrast to the confusing mix of seven- and ten-digit dialing which would be necessary throughout the 503 area code under a geographic split. Moreover, the overlay will make future changes in area codes less frequent and more easily accomplished. First, adoption of the overlay may delay the next change in area codes in northwest Oregon because the overlay contains a whole new group of 796 prefixes rather than the approximately 400 available to each new area code under a split. Moreover, when it is necessary to adopt an additional area code in northwest Oregon, it will be a relatively simple matter to overlay another area code. That process will not require substantial dislocation and confusion.
Of course, the overlay method is not without its problems. The loss of the connection between an area code and a particular locale may make the system more difficult to use at first. Ten-digit dialing for all local calls is unattractive to many people. However, we believe that people will be able to accommodate themselves to ten-digit dialing fairly quickly. Toll calling now requires 11-digit dialing. The addition of three numbers to the present seven will not be a great burden, especially since the complete numbers will be in telephone directories. For these reasons, we conclude that the overlay is the better choice and adopt it.
We also adopt Staff’s recommendation that the 14 coastal communities now within the 503 area be excluded from the overlay. We concur with Staff that nothing would be gained by including that portion of the state in the overlay. Thus, we will not extend the overlay to cover it at this time. The specific rate centers involved are set out in the attachment to this order. As Staff requests, 30 prefix codes should be reserved for future growth in those communities. An additional 18 prefix codes should be reserved for the FCC requirement to allow a 90-day period prior to the implementation of the new area code for future new service providers to enter into the 503 area code. Prefixes unclaimed during the 90-day FCC period should be reserved for future growth in the coastal 503 area.
Implementation Schedule
Staff and the industry recommend that the area code be implemented beginning July 11, 1999. Both also recommend that the permissive dialing period formally terminate on January 30, 2000. We adopt both of these recommendations. Since the overlay method does not in fact require existing numbers to be changed, a period of six months permissive dialing should be satisfactory.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
Made, entered, and effective ____________________________.
______________________________ |
______________________________ |
______________________________ |
A party may request rehearing or reconsideration of this order pursuant to ORS 756.561. A request for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed with the Commission within 60 days of the date of service of this order. The request must comply with the requirements of OAR 860-014-0095. A copy of any such request must also be served on each party to the proceeding as provided by OAR 860-013-0070. A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to ORS 756.580.
APPENDIX A ITEM NO. __4__
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON
STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC MEETING DATE: APRIL 20, 1999
REGULAR AGENDA X CONSENT AGENDA EFFECTIVE DATE: NA
DATE: April 14, 1999
TO: Bill Warren
FROM: Sterling Sawyer through Cynthia Van Landuyt and Phil Nyegaard
SUBJECT: Area Code Relief for the 503 Area Code Docket UM 924
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission reject both industry proposed area code relief plans presented by Lockheed Martin, and approve a modification to the area code total 503 area overlay plan, which would exclude the Clatsop and Tillamook county coastal region. The modified overlay plan was presented as industry alternative # 6 but offered without industry recommendations.
The dates proposed by the industry of July 11, 1999, for start of permissive dialing and January 30, 2000 for full implementation of the new area code appear to be reasonable and should be approved.
DISCUSSION:
By Order 99-105, the Commission opened docket UM 924 to seek public input regarding the date and method to implement an area code relief plan for the 503 area code. In this process, staff and the industry informed the public through news releases, bill inserts and newsletters, direct contact with municipal and community organizations, public meetings, and responds to public inquiries.
Public meeting presentations discussed the pros and cons of the split and overlay relief options offered by the industry. A third option, a partial overlay, was presented to the public as a possible alternative to the complete area overlay offered by the industry. The partial overlay was the major point of discussion in the coastal area, while the possibility of area code split boundaries was the major concern of the municipalities on, or near, the proposed area code split boundary line.
There were fewer public comments than the Commission received during the 1995 area code revision. The public meeting attendance in Gresham, Beaverton, Portland, and Oregon was low, ranging from 15 in Gresham to 3 in Oregon City. Direct comments to the Commission staff totaled 29. Presentations were made to four civic groups: Two Rotary clubs, one Kiwanis club, and one Chamber of Commerce, each with an attendance of about 50.
The public comments can be summarized as follows:
The public prefers an area code relief option that keeps 7-digit local dialing. After explaining that the split option in the metro area would require a combination of 7 and 10-digit dialing, some support shifted to an overlay plan. Other suggestions included the split of the area code along lines other than exchange boundaries, a geographic split based on the Willamette River, or split along municipal boundaries.
Public support for the overlay is growing. The most popular overlay option is assigning area codes by technology, i.e. one code for wire-line facilities and another code for wireless facilities.
The coastal area unanimously supports the partial overlay. The partial overlay plan would allow the coastal region to retain the existing system and not require changes driven by metro area demand.
The area code split proposed by the industry would assign Portland a new area code with the remaining 503 area unchanged. The US WEST exchange boundaries defining the Portland rate center do not follow county or municipal boundary lines. Setting area code boundaries on these exchange lines will divide established communities. This is a significant issue with suburban communities that foresee administrative difficulties with the possibility of both 7-digit and 10-digit dialing for the same city services. The combination of 7- and 10-digit local dialing also was viewed as confusing for the Portland area. This confusion diminishes as you increase the distance from Portland.
In the past, the telecommunications industry was easily divisible by physical lines. The lines were well-defined franchise service boundaries or territories without telephone service. These lines made the split of area codes easy. The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act effectively removed the protective franchise areas for many of the incumbent telecommunication providers, opening these areas to competition. The emerging competitive telecommunications market that exists today is not growing along these restrictive boundaries. The new competing telecommunications technologies are boundless and reach customers far beyond the traditional definitions of exchange service areas. In this new market place, geographic location is not an essential part of the network design. Under these conditions, the area code overlay becomes the most efficient service arrangement.
The selection of the method for area code relief should be based on a composite of public, Commission, and industry positions. The method must also be consistent with federal policy of being impartial between competing industries and should be consistent with the Commission policy of making alternative suppliers of telecommunications service available to Oregonians. Staff believes that this can be best done by the overlay area code relief alternative. Staff also believes that there are sufficient prefix numbers available to implement a coastal exclusion as an option to the overlay if the Commission so chooses. Clatsup and Tillamook counties support the overlay exclusion. Reserving 30 prefix codes should be sufficient to meet growth and new service requirements for the two county areas until the exhaust of the 541 area code.
Moving the wireless industry to a new area code, referred to as a technology overlay, is the option of choice for the majority of people who commented on the area code issue. Staff does not recommend it as an option for Commission consideration. The technology overlay, as proposed by many, would require 10-digit dialing of local calls to cellular, PCS, and pager numbers while maintaining 7-digit dialing for wire-line service. This would conflict with the non-discrimination intent of the 1996 Federal Act. I have been advised that adoption of the technology overlay may be of questionable legality. The technology overlay option would require one industry to carry the burden of all number changes. The technology overlay would also create technology barriers for both wireless and wire-line providers preventing them from implementing new technologies or combined technology services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission should order that a third area code be implemented in Oregon using an overlay procedure that excludes the fourteen (14) coastal communities. These coastal communities should remain a part of the 503 area code, but be outside of the new overlay area. Thirty (30) prefix codes should be reserved for future growth in the fourteen (14) coastal communities. An additional eighteen (18) prefix codes should be reserved for the FCC requirement to allow a 90-day period prior to the implementation of the new area code for future new service providers to enter into the 503 area code. Prefixes unclaimed during the 90-day FCC period should be reserved for future growth in the coastal 503 area.
The permissive dialing period for the new area code should commence on July 11, 1999.
Mandatory full implementation of the new overlay code shall be implemented on
January 30, 2000.
The proposed overlay area is identified as Area A on the attached Lockheed Martin, Alternative #6, Concentrated Overlay map.