STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OPINION NO. 97-18
CASE 96-C-1158 -Proceeding on Motion of the Commission,
Pursuant to Section 97(2) of the Public Service
Law, to Evaluate the Options for Making
Additional Central Office and/or Area Codes
Available in the 212 and 917 Area Codes of New
York City.
OPINION AND ORDER
CONCERNING NEW YORK CITY AREA CODES
Issued and Effective: December 10, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
THE ISSUES 6
The Nature of the Issues 6
1. Degree of Relief 7
2. Effects on Customers 7
3. Effects on Competitors 8
The Staff Paper 8
General Positions of the Parties and the Public 10
PARTIES' COMMENTS 10
New York Telephone 10
Teleport 13
AT&T 17
MCI 20
Time Warner 22
BANM 22
Consumer Protection Board 23
New York City 25
Manhattan Borough President 26
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 26
Formal Public Statement Hearings 26
Informal Outreach and Education 27
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 28
Need for Relief 28
Comparing the Remedies 30
1. The Geographic Split 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2. The Overlay 32
3. Overlay Conditions 33
Conclusion Regarding 34
New Area Code Implementation
Interim Number Conservation Measures 37
Other Matters 37
1. Use of the 917 NPA 37
2. Eight-Digit Dialing 38
ORDER 38
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS:
John F. O'Mara, Chairman
Maureen O. Helmer
Thomas J. Dunleavy
CASE 96-C-1158 -Proceeding on Motion of the Commission,
Pursuant to Section 97(2) of the Public Service
Law, to Evaluate the Options for Making
Additional Central Office and/or Area Codes
Available in the 212 and 917 Area Codes of New
York City.
OPINION NO. 97-18
OPINION AND ORDER CONCERNING
NEW YORK CITY AREA CODES
(Issued and Effective December 10, 1997)
BY THE COMMISSION:
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Telephone numbers within New York City (the City) now
bear one of three area codes (technically known as "numbering
plan areas" (NPAs)): 212 is assigned to landline service in
Manhattan; 718 is assigned to landline service in the remaining
boroughs, and 917 is assigned primarily to wireless service
throughout the City. The 212 area code is expected to run out
of available central office codes as early as the first quarter
of 1998; the 718 code is now expected similarly to exhaust early
in 1999; and the 917 area code is expected to exhaust in fall of
1999.
In an order issued December 31, 1996, we noted the
impending exhaustion of central office codes (NXX codes) in area
codes 212 and 917 and instituted this proceeding "to determine
the best way to provide additional central office and area codes
in New York City." We directed New York Telephone Company (New
York Telephone or the company) to file a report setting out its
proposals for achieving that goal and invited persons interested
in receiving copies of that report to submit their names to the
Secretary. The report, addressed primarily to area code 212, was
duly filed on February 27, 1997. In response to requests by
staff and a directive from Administrative Law Judge Joel A.
Linsider, New York Telephone on May 15, 1997 supplemented its
report to provide additional proposals related to area codes 917
and 718, recognizing that 718 was not in imminent danger of
exhaust.
To state the matter most generally, New York Telephone
discussed two methods for providing the needed relief: a
geographic split, which would divide the 212 area into two
regions, and an overlay, which would assign all new central
office codes in Manhattan to the new area code once 212 had been
exhausted. New York Telephone favored the overlay.
On March 5, 1997, a notice was issued convening an
administrative conference to structure the proceeding; the notice
was served on all parties who had requested copies of New York
Telephone's report or had otherwise expressed interest in the
case. The conference, held in New York City before Judge
Linsider on March 25, 1997, was attended by representatives of
the company; the New York City Mayor's Office and the New York
City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications
(the City); AT&T Communications of New York, Inc. (AT&T
Communications); Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Wireless
Services (AT&T Cellular); Teleport Communications Group, Inc.
(Teleport); MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro
Access Transmission Services, Inc. (MCI); Bell Atlantic NYNEX
Mobile (BANM); and David Bronston, pro se. Staff of the
Department of Public Service (staff) participated, as it has
throughout the case, in an advisory capacity.
At the conference, in response to suggestions by
various parties that the case involved factual issues warranting
discovery and perhaps evidentiary hearings, the Judge invited
parties to submit lists of issues on which they might want to
conduct discovery. Four parties (MCI, Teleport, AT&T
Communications, and BANM) did so. In the ensuing Scope Ruling,
he determined that the case involved primarily policy issues and
that, while policy judgments could not be made in a factual
vacuum, no need had been shown for evidentiary hearings. At the
same time, he recognized the need for parties to exchange
information, and he therefore authorized the commencement of
discovery, which continued throughout the case and elicited
considerable information. He also invited written comments
critiquing New York Telephone's report and proposing alternative
arrangements, as well as replies to those comments, and he
scheduled a collaborative conference of the parties, hoping
thereby to achieve some consensus. Finally, with regard to the
scope of the case, the Judge noted that in instituting the
inquiry, we had sought to provide additional number resources
throughout New York City, in area code 917 as well as 212. As
already noted, therefore, he directed the company to respond more
substantively than it had to a request from staff that it
supplement its report with regard to 917 relief.
Initial comments were duly filed by the City, the State
Consumer Protection Board (CPB), BANM, MCI, Sprint Communications
Company L.P. (Sprint), and AT&T Communications jointly with AT&T
Cellular (jointly, AT&T). Replies were filed by the City, BANM,
MCI, AT&T, Teleport, and New York Telephone. The collaborative
conference, held in New York City on June 16 and 17, 1997, was
attended by New York Telephone, BANM, AT&T Communications, AT&T
Cellular, MCI, Sprint, Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.
(Time Warner), Teleport, the City, the Manhattan Borough
President's Office, and Alan Flacks, pro se. Judge Linsider
facilitated the conference and staff representatives participated
as advisors. Although no consensus could be reached on the
fundamental issue, the parties' discussions clarified many of
the issues and underlying concerns, and most of the parties
regarded the process as a useful one.
Following the conference, staff prepared an options
paper (the Staff Paper), in which it reviewed the parties'
positions and offered its own evaluation. A copy of the Staff
Paper is Attachment A to this opinion and order. On July 22,
1997, Judge Linsider issued the Staff Paper for comment; comments
were filed by New York Telephone, AT&T, MCI, Teleport, Time
Warner, BANM, CPB, the City, and the Manhattan Borough President.
Public Statement hearings were held before Judge
Linsider on July 23, 24, 29, and 30, 1997. Two such hearings
were held in Manhattan and one in each of the other boroughs; a
total of 18 people (other than active parties) spoke. Their
comments are summarized below.
In addition to the formal proceedings just described,
the Consumer Services Division conducted, over the course of the
case, a City-wide outreach and education program. The program,
described more fully below, provided an opportunity both to
inform the general public about their issues and to receive their
opinions in a context less formal than that of a public statement
hearing.
Following our initial consideration of this case at our
session on September 30, 1997, staff and various parties met on
several occasions, pursuant to our directive, to give further
consideration to matters related to number pooling and number
portability. (These terms are defined and discussed below.) The
meetings, held at our New York City offices on October 9,
October 23, and November 7, 1997, were attended by staff, New
York Telephone, BANM, AT&T, MCI, Time Warner, and Lockheed Martin
IMS. (The first two meetings were a direct outgrowth of this
case; the third was under the auspices of the New York Local
Number Portability Steering Committee.) The meetings resulted in
the formation of several subcommittees that will expedite the
implementation of number pooling, as discussed below.
Because the Staff Paper fully describes the basic
alternatives and their pros and cons, as well as staff's reasons
for favoring an overlay, we do so here only briefly, in a
description of the issues. We then consider the reaction to the
Staff Paper, on the part of both the parties and the public, and
present and discuss our determination that area code relief
should be provided via suitably conditioned overlays.
THE ISSUES
The Nature of the Issues
General background on the North American Numbering
Plan, and on the exponential growth in demand for telephone
numbers, were set forth in the staff memorandum that recommended
institution of this proceeding; for the reader's convenience,
pertinent excerpts from that document are reproduced as
Attachment B. As already noted, the two forms of code relief
under consideration are a geographic split, which divides the 212
NPA into two areas, one retaining the 212 code and the other
designated 646; and an overlay, which would superimpose the 646
code on the entire 212 area and assign newly issued phone numbers
to 646 once 212 was exhausted. It should be noted that the
overlay would apply to all telephone numbers, regardless of
service, in contrast to the existing 917 overlay, which applies
almost exclusively to wireless service; Federal Communications
Commission regulations currently preclude service-specific
overlays. (Analogous arrangements would be made for the 718
code, via split or overlay, in time for its exhaust.)
In the comments that preceded the collaborative
conference, and at the conference itself, New York Telephone's
overlay was supported only by BANM. The competing local exchange
companies (CLECs) for the most part favored a geographic split.
In reaching their positions, the parties identified three
principal groups of issues: the degree of relief provided by each
alternative, the potential for imposing inconvenience, confusion,
and expense on customers, and the potential for anticompetitive
effects on New York Telephone's competitors in the local service
market.
1. Degree of Relief
For a geographic split to provide the maximum degree of
relief, the two zones into which the original area is divided
must reach exhaustion at the same time; otherwise, a further
split (or other relief) will be required in one area before it is
needed in the other. Achieving that result requires accurate
estimates of growth in each area and is subject to the associated
forecasting pitfalls. An overlay avoids that issue entirely, in
that a further additional code would be assigned only when growth
throughout the entire area so required. New York Telephone
emphasized that advantage of an overlay; parties opposing it
maintained New York Telephone had underestimated the degree of
relief available through geographic splits, thereby overstating
the advantage of an overlay. No one, however, contested the a
priori point that the relief provided by a split could not exceed
that of an overlay.
2. Effects on Customers
Both alternatives entail potential inconvenience,
confusion, and expense for customers; when compared, they
sometimes emerged as mirror images in this regard. For example,
geographic splits are said to provide a recognizable boundary
between the zones, preserving their identity and avoiding the
confusion of an overlay's potential assignment of different area
codes to residents of the same building. But the same comparison
is expressed, from the point of view of an overlay advocate, by
saying that the overlay treats all customers equally, avoiding
potentially invidious geographic divisions that can be seen as
red-lining. Similarly, advocates of a split spoke of preserving
the ease with which a caller knowing the location of the party
being called can determine the area code; overlay advocates
pointed to the meaninglessness of a Manhattan street boundary to
most callers from out-of-town and many even within the City.
Other points of comparison included the need for forced
number changes (none under an overlay; many area code changes and
some entire-number changes under a split); and the need for 11-
digit dialing (only from one NPA to another under a split;
universally, even within the same NPA, under an overlay, given
current FCC requirements). The parties disputed the
significance of the expense and inconvenience that might be
occasioned by the alternatives.
3. Effects on Competitors
A fundamental concern in the case was the claim that an
overlay could disadvantage CLECs by making it more likely that
their customers would be assigned to the putatively less-
desirable 646 NPA than to 212. The concern arises because new
entrants are said to have a disproportionately large share of
their numbers in the new area code, assignments to which would be
chronologically rather than geographically determined.
The Staff Paper
After reviewing the alternatives, the Staff Paper
concluded that an overlay suitably conditioned to mitigate
anticompetitive effects offered the best form of relief, for "it
appears to provide greater relief with less disruption and
inconvenience." The conditions proposed in the Staff Paper
were strict adherence to the provisions of the central office
code (NXX) assignment guidelines that bar discrimination among
carriers; universal 11-digit dialing (as already required by
the FCC), which would mean that no customers would be more likely
than any others to have to use 11 digits for a local call; and
the availability of Local Number Portability (LNP), which
enables a subscriber of one LEC to retain its telephone number
even upon moving to another. The Staff Paper noted that LNP was
scheduled to be available in New York City by the end of the
first quarter of 1998. If that deadline were missed, the Staff
Paper would require some other mechanism to ensure that all
central office code users had equal access to any remaining 212
numbers. It suggested, as one possibility, reserving unused
numbers in 212 for use by existing customers at existing
locations.
Should an overlay be rejected in favor of a geographic
split, staff would favor dividing Manhattan at 23rd Street. That
dividing line, not among those considered in New York Telephone's
initial report, was proposed by AT&T and quickly became widely
recognized as the geographic split that stood to provide the
greatest degree of relief and impose the least disruption on
customers. AT&T had suggested that the 212 NPA be retained north
of 23rd Street and that 646 be assigned to the south; the Staff
Paper, however, suggested 212 be retained south of 23rd Street
and 646 be introduced to the north.
Looking beyond the 212 NPA, the Staff Paper would
continue to assign new wireless customers City-wide to the 917
NPA until it, too, was exhausted. From that point on, no
distinction would be drawn between new wireline and new wireless
customers with regard to NXX assignment.
Once the 718 NPA became exhausted, a four-borough
overlay (NPA 347) would be applied. Should a geographic split be
preferred, staff would divide The Bronx and Queens on the one
hand from Brooklyn and Staten Island on the other. Because the
Bronx NPA had been changed as recently as 1992, staff would
assign the new 347 NPA to Brooklyn and Staten Island.
Finally, the Staff Paper pointed out that regardless of
which alternative were selected, it would be necessary to ensure
that all callers to Directory Assistance bureaus, City-wide,
receive all the information they need (including area codes) to
complete their calls. To this may be added the universal premise
that no area code change within New York City would have any
effect on rates, a sound assumption not only on policy grounds
but also because Public Service Law 91(2)(b) requires it.
General Positions of the Parties and the Public
The parties filing comments on the Staff Paper fall
into four groups: those favoring an overlay (New York Telephone,
BANM, Time Warner, Manhattan Borough President); those regarding
it as acceptable if suitably conditioned but otherwise favoring a
split (MCI, AT&T); those favoring a geographic split and
apparently regarding an overlay as problematic under any
circumstances (Teleport); and those emphasizing the interest in
examining ways to postpone any form of code relief, (New York
City, CPB).
Public sentiment in general tended to favor the
overlay, though some support was expressed for the split as well.
PARTIES' COMMENTS
New York Telephone
New York Telephone continues to press strongly for
adoption of an overlay. It begins with the argument that an
overlay would provide relief for at least as long as any possible
geographic split and for longer than any split that fell short of
constructing two areas that would exhaust simultaneously--a
difficult task at best, and one made harder by the absence of
readily available information on the CLECs' projections of
demand. Noting the staff estimates that a 23rd Street geographic
split would provide five years of relief, in contrast to the six
and one-half years of relief provided by an overlay, New York
Telephone emphasizes the importance of code longevity, given the
increasing demand for telecommunications services.
Turning to effects on customers, New York Telephone
notes that an overlay would permit all existing customers to keep
their current telephone numbers. In contrast, a geographic split
would require approximately 1.1 million customers in Manhattan to
adopt new area codes and approximately 25,000 "pocket" customers
to change their seven-digit telephone numbers as well. New
York Telephone notes the expense that would be incurred by
customers in changing their printed materials and advertising and
to the difficulties the change would impose on customers who are
handicapped or speak little or no English. It suggests the
geographic split is favored by the "winners," who keep their
existing area code, but that the benefit to them is outweighed by
the expense and inconvenience imposed on the "losers."
Pointing as well to the difficulty of drawing boundary
lines within Manhattan, which lacks easily recognized geographic
or political boundaries, New York Telephone asserts that a
geographic split would divide communities and entail a risk of
perceived red-lining of the area to which the new code is
assigned. Moreover, it continues, an overlay could be more
easily replicated than a geographic split once further relief is
needed, particularly given Manhattan's small size and lack of
internal natural boundaries.
Recognizing the universal 11-digit dialing associated
with an overlay, New York Telephone notes that it has asked the
FCC to reconsider this requirement. But, it continues,
universal 11-digit dialing is not so onerous as to warrant
abandoning an overlay. It notes, as did the Staff Paper, that
approximately one-third of all intraLATA calls originating in
Manhattan already require 11-digit dialing, inasmuch as they
terminate in area codes other than 212; that 11-digit dialing may
someday be required on all calls; and that its effects are often
mitigated by such devices as speed dialers and voice dialing.
And, like staff, New York Telephone believes any confusion
associated with an overlay can be mitigated by effective outreach
and education.
New York Telephone points as well to successful
experience with overlays, pointing to the 917 wireless overlay in
New York City and more recent overlay decisions in Maryland
(statewide), Georgia (the Atlanta area), and Colorado (the Denver
area). It cites, among other things, a reported statement by the
chairman of the Georgia Commission, that "I don't believe we can
continue to carve up Atlanta. This is the long-term solution.
When area codes are needed in the future, the overlay establishes
the framework to add a new area code without debate or
disruption."
Finally, New York Telephone disputes the concerns
regarding the overlay's potential anticompetitive effects. It
asserts that carriers obtaining new numbers will be treated on a
non-discriminatory basis (regardless of whether the carrier is
seeking additional numbers for customer growth in general or for
a particular customer that requires a large block of additional
numbers) and that New York Telephone's competitors would have no
greater or lesser access to 212 numbers than New York Telephone
itself. It points to the forthcoming availability of LNP, which
will provide all carriers equal access to all previously assigned
numbers as well as to related reserved numbers. Number
portability, according to New York Telephone, obviates Sprint's
suggestion, made during the course of the proceeding, that any
unassigned central office codes in the 212 area code be reserved
for use by CLECs; it adds that Sprint's suggestion is
inconsistent with industry guidelines precluding such
reservations. New York Telephone also objects to any suggestion
that returned telephone numbers be pooled. It notes that number
pooling is being considered on a national basis under the
auspices of the North American Numbering Council with the
cooperation of the INC, and it warns against the risk of adopting
state standards that conflict with national guidelines that might
be set later.
New York Telephone adds that an overlay is consistent
with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and that the parties
objecting to it on competition-related grounds are simply unable
to accept the limitations that exist on numbering resources. It
adds that a geographic split creates competitive inequity among
telephone users, by burdening enterprises that are forced to
change their phone numbers while exempting those of competing
enterprises remaining in the 212 area code.
Teleport
In starkest contrast to New York Telephone's view is
that of Teleport, which strongly disagrees with the Staff Paper's
tentative preference for an overlay. In its view, the Staff
Paper gave inadequate weight to the extremely serious
anticompetitive consequences of an overlay and underestimated the
overlay's attendant confusion and customer dissatisfaction.
According to Teleport, only a geographic split assigns
customers to area codes on the competitively neutral basis of
geographic location. An overlay, in contrast, by and large gives
customers of the incumbent LEC access to the pre-existing area
code while stigmatizing customers of new firms by assigning them
the new, assertedly inferior, code. Citing expressions of
concern on this score by the FCC and noting recent geographic
splits in Illinois, California, and Massachusetts, it warns that,
given the need to change its area code, "a business would be very
reluctant to switch local carriers or choose a competitive
carrier as the initial service provider."
Relatedly, Teleport suggests that an overlay would make
it more difficult for a CLEC to serve additional demand within
the original area code. Even if a customer could use number
portability to retain the numbers for its lines already in use,
the CLEC would be unable to accommodate that customer's growth by
assigning additional numbers within the original area code.
Teleport suggests that the ILECs' recent enthusiasm for overlays
is tied to the advent of competition in the local exchange
market.
Teleport disputes the value of the measures identified
by staff as mitigating the anticompetitive effects of an overlay.
While staff saw the problem as alleviated by "strict adherence to
the nondiscriminatory provisions of the central office code
assignment guidelines," Teleport is less concerned about future
code assignments than about New York Telephone having retained
for its own use a very large portion of the numbers in the 212
area code, thereby making it much more likely that a new customer
now could obtain a desirable 212 telephone number if it took
service from New York Telephone instead of taking it from a CLEC.
It suggests that New York Telephone has misused its scarce
numbering resources in order to provide itself this advantage,
and that it has "a vast warehouse of numbering resources at [its]
disposal," "enough numbers to assign customers well into the 21st
century."
Teleport acknowledges that staff's second ameliorating
measure--universal 11-digit dialing--would mitigate one
anticompetitive effect but notes once again the disadvantages of
such dialing.
Staff's third ameliorating measure--implementation of
permanent number portability during the first quarter of 1998--is
derided by Teleport as unduly optimistic. It sees no basis for
the premise that LNP will be implemented on schedule and argues
that "the economic survival of competitors cannot be left hanging
on the assumption that New York Telephone will accomplish the
implementation antithetical to [its] own best interests." It
cites delays in similar projects; questions whether portability
would be available throughout the territory; and notes the
provision in the applicable FCC rules for up to a nine-month
delay in the implementation deadline. Relatedly, Teleport
asserts that staff has confused permanent number portability with
number pooling. It explains that LNP applies solely to the
transfer of numbers previously used by a New York Telephone
customer, and that only number pooling would allow unreserved or
unassigned telephone numbers to be obtained for use by any
carrier. In the absence of pooling, this could be achieved only
by having a would-be CLEC customer first subscribe to the
additional numbers from New York Telephone, at considerable
service connection expense, and then port to the CLEC the numbers
it had been assigned. In Teleport's view, eliminating the
anticompetitive effects of an overlay would require, in advance
of the overlay, both LNP and number pooling; but there are no
plans to introduce number pooling before the proposed effective
date of the overlay.
Teleport adds that staff gave insufficient weight to
the overlay's other disadvantages, such as universal 11-digit
dialing. It notes that communities of interest based on
geographical proximity mean that under a geographic split, much
seven-digit dialing would remain. It also challenges staff's
reliance on New York Telephone's allegedly self-serving estimates
of relief duration; asserts that an overlay, which would assign
different area codes to customers in the same street or building,
would divide communities more than would a geographic split;
argues that adoption of a split now would not rule out an overlay
in the future, thereby belying staff's reliance on the asserted
replicability of an overlay; and contends that the 917 precedent
does not mean that New York City customers already are familiar
with overlays, inasmuch as the 917 code is limited to wireless
service, readily identified as distinct.
Turning to the geographic split, Teleport asserts that
the Staff Paper overstates its disadvantages. It argues that
businesses are constantly reprinting stationery and other
materials and that the expense of informing callers of the area
code change would be reduced by the public education program and
the general alertness of business customers. Teleport regards
the successful implementation of splits elsewhere as a response
to staff's concern about "pocket" customers; and it sees less
likelihood of confusion in connection with the geographic split
than with an overlay, inasmuch as calling parties will be able,
in most cases, to associate the called party's locations with a
particular NPA. As already noted, Teleport challenges staff's
reliance on New York Telephone's estimates of when geographic
splits will require further relief, and it attributes to the
general increase in telecommunications usage, rather than to the
use of a split instead of an overlay, the faster-than-anticipated
exhaust of many new area codes recently established.
Finally, Teleport supports AT&T's specific geographic
split (that is, a 23rd Street boundary with customers north of
the line retaining the 212 code) rather than staff's variation
that would have assigned 212 to customers south of the line.
Teleport notes that allowing the northern zone to retain 212
would mean changing the area codes of only about 40% of Manhattan
customers, and that the sophisticated businesses south of 23rd
Street would be better able to manage the change. It suggests,
among other things, that "the very size of the business community
in southern Manhattan will make the association between that
geographical location and the new area code readily recognized
both within the City and throughout the country."
AT&T
AT&T favors a geographic split, maintaining that it
would best serve customers, competition, and the public interest.
It asserts that the split is supported by an "array of parties
representing diverse interests," in contrast to the overlay,
supported most strongly by New York Telephone and its affiliate,
BANM. The Staff Paper, in its view, misconceives and
mischaracterizes both the overlay and the geographic split.
AT&T first challenges staff's judgment that the overlay
is simple, convenient, and efficient. It denies that the overlay
would provide substantially longer relief, maintaining that its
six and one-half years should be compared to the six years AT&T
calculates for a 23rd Street split rather than to staff's
assertedly erroneous five-year calculation. It sees no advantage
with regard to replicability, noting that a split could be
followed by an overlay more readily than an overlay could be
followed by a split; and, like Teleport, it denies that a 917
service-specific overlay has familiarized New Yorkers with the
operation of an overlay in general.
More serious, in AT&T's judgment, is the Staff Paper's
underestimation of the anticompetitive effect of the overlay.
AT&T sees local number portability as insufficient to insure that
all carriers have equal and non-discriminatory access to
telephone numbers and, like Teleport, insists that number pooling
is needed to achieve that result. AT&T suggests that the Staff
Paper confuses the two and notes that while LNP is a technology
needed for number pooling, pooling requires, in addition, various
rules and procedures that the Commission may adopt. Although
AT&T believes the schedule for numbers portability can be met, it
sees no indication that it will be met and it warns against
relying on it. Finally, AT&T notes that the Staff Paper suggests
no mechanism for enforcing New York Telephone's adherence to the
FCC's Central Office Code Assignment Guidelines and no
explanation of how discrimination in those assignments would be
prevented or deterred. Nor, it adds, are enforcement mechanisms
specified for implementing permanent number portability.
Turning to the geographic split, AT&T acknowledges that
the Staff Paper correctly identifies most of its advantages but
charges that it exaggerates its disadvantages. It first corrects
the potential implication, already noted, that AT&T had proposed
to retain the 212 area code south of 23rd Street and stresses
that the split AT&T in fact proposed would require only 40%,
rather than 60%, of Manhattan customers to change their area
code. AT&T also expresses uncertainty about the Staff Paper's
estimate of 70,000 pocket customers, noting that the figure
developed at the collaborative conference when the 23rd Street
split was discussed was only 25,000. AT&T goes on to discount
the Staff Paper's statement that a geographic split would
diminish the value of permanent number portability inasmuch as
numbers would be portable only within the new smaller area codes;
it notes that, in any event, even within an area code a number is
portable only within a rate center. Finally, AT&T sees no need
for concern that customers outside New York City would be
confused about which side of the boundary a particular party is
on. It notes that distant customers would be unlikely to
recognize any geographic boundaries and either know the number
they are calling or do not; meanwhile, customers within New York
are likely to be able to tell whether a particular party is north
or south of 23rd Street.
Notwithstanding its strong preference for a geographic
split, AT&T propounds a series of conditions that would have to
be imposed on an overlay plan, were we to adopt one, "to preserve
and promote opportunities for local exchange competition." At
a minimum, AT&T would call for the following:
permanent number portability throughout
Manhattan by the end of 1997, rather
than by the current deadline of
March 31, 1998, in order to allow
adequate lead time for implementation of
an alternate plan if the deadline is
missed
procedures for number pooling to be in
place by the end of 1997; initially,
pooling would take the form of assigning
numbers to carriers in blocks of 1,000
rather than 10,000, and, in the longer
term, any unassigned number in any NXX
code should be available to any carrier
arrangements for the assignment, to any
requesting carrier, of at least one
NXX-X Code (i.e., a block of 1,000
numbers) within the 212 area code for
each rate center within Manhattan, and
strict enforcement of number assignment
guidelines with the possibility of
ordering a geographic split if the
guidelines are violated
fees charged by the Central Office Code
Administrator for opening a NXX code to
be limited to forward-looking
economically-efficient costs of
numbering administration
mandatory 11-digit dialing, consistent
with FCC requirements
the overlay to apply equally, "both on
its face and in its operation," to all
carriers and services
In regard to the final point, AT&T notes the Staff
Paper's provision that only after the 917 area code was exhausted
would new wireless and wireline customers be assigned to the same
area code. But because the 212 area code will be exhausted
before 917, the 646 code overlaid on 212 would be available, as a
practical matter, only to wireline carriers until 917 ran out.
During that interval, 646 would be a technology-specific area
code (limited to wireline), in violation of the FCC rules
precluding such arrangements. AT&T suggests we avoid the problem
either by ordering an all-services overlay of 212 with 917,
followed by an all-services overlay of 646 once 917 ran out, or
by an immediate all-services overlay of 212 with 646, reserving
the remainder of 917 for a non-technology-specific use, such as
an all-services overlay of 718 when it is needed.
MCI
MCI, which earlier in the proceeding favored a
geographic split, emphasizes in its comments the conditions that
would make an overlay acceptable and says it would favor a
geographic split if those conditions were not met. It
acknowledges that its first two conditions--universal 11-digit
dialing and permanent number portability on schedule--are
included in the Staff Paper's recommendations. But MCI disputes
the Staff Paper's suggestion that permanent number portability
insures that all carriers have equal access to numbering
resources and obviates pooling, noting that "number portability
only allows carriers to access assigned numbers serving existing
customers. Number pooling, on the other hand, allows more than
one carrier to access unused and unassigned numbers in an NXX."
Without pooling, it continues, CLECs, with their limited supply
of NXX codes in the 212 area code, would be disadvantaged in
their ability to serve new customers and existing customers
wanting to add lines.
MCI goes on to explain that under current practices, a
carrier may reserve a block of 10,000 numbers and leave many of
them unused. Number pooling would permit more than one carrier
to use phone numbers from a single NXX block and, according to
MCI, is regarded by the INC Central Office Code Assignment
Guidelines as a device that should be considered when an area
code is in a jeopardy situation. It suggests that the Central
Office Code Administrator be required to assign numbers to
carriers in blocks of 1,000 rather than blocks of 10,000 and that
carriers holding assigned blocks of 10,000 numbers share unused
or underutilized numbers in blocks of 1,000. Doing so would
provide CLECs access to more numbers in the existing area code,
thereby mitigating the competitive disadvantages of an overlay.
MCI recognizes that pooling is being examined at the national
level but notes that it is also being examined at the state level
in Georgia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, among others. It urges
us to order carriers to develop a number pooling plan in New York
City, noting our role in bringing carriers together at the state
level to work on number portability and suggesting that we could
play the same role with respect to number pooling.
MCI therefore urges that the Staff Report overlay plan
be amended to include number pooling and that, in adopting any
area code relief measures, we order all telecommunications
carriers with NXX codes in the 212 and 718 area codes to develop
a number pooling plan.
Time Warner
Time Warner offers "qualified support" for the Staff
Paper overlay plan. Noting that it generally objects to overlays
because of their anticompetitive attributes, Time Warner
recognizes that the absence of natural boundaries within
Manhattan makes a geographic split more difficult to carry out
and suggests as well that the comparatively advanced state of
competition in New York City provides a basis for qualified
support of the overlay.
Time Warner goes on to explain that, as a facilities-
based new entrant with a network in Manhattan, it is concerned
about the effects of a geographic split on its own customers,
many of whom would be required to undergo a telephone number
change a second time (with respect, at least, to the area code if
not to the entire seven-digit number), having only recently done
so in becoming a Time Warner subscriber.
While it supports the Staff Paper's overlay given the
conditions in New York City, Time Warner, like other CLECs,
emphasizes the need to ensure that it is competitively neutral.
It favors not only universal 11-digit dialing and number
portability but also number pooling, given the widespread belief
that 212 numbers will remain desirable.
BANM
BANM favors an overlay, citing the various arguments in
its favor offered in the Staff Paper. It asserts that
competitive fairness is ensured by universal 11-digit dialing, as
required by the FCC, and by the FCC's determination that
"allowing every telecommunications carrier [serving in an area
code] to have at least one NXX in the existing NPA will also
reduce the potential anticompetitive effect of an area code
overlay." BANM notes that the FCC declined to require
permanent number portability as a prerequisite to an overlay but
that the availability of that device renders moot any
anticompetitive claims. It adds that the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission recently approved an overlay and, in so
doing, noted that anticompetitive effects could be alleviated by
a combination of permanent number portability, proper
conservation and management of remaining NXX codes, universal 11-
digit dialing, and NXX set asides. It asserts as well that
certain CLECs, though given the opportunity, refused, in
interrogatory responses, to provide evidence supporting a claim
of competitive harm.
BANM goes on to endorse the arguments against a
geographic split presented in the Staff Paper, noting the burdens
of changed phone numbers. It also cites the burdens that would
be imposed on cellular customers in the 917 area code if they
were not grandfathered in their existing numbers.
Finally, BANM cites the overlays adopted in Maryland,
Georgia, and Colorado. It notes, among other things, the
Colorado Commission's observation that an overlay promotes code
conservation, inasmuch as it uses NXX codes with the new area
code for growth purposes only, in contrast to a geographic split,
where new codes need to be assigned earlier to allow for a
permissive dialing period.
Consumer Protection Board
CPB would favor a suitably conditioned overlay if a new
area code were adopted, but it urges that we first determine
whether new technologies can postpone the need to do so. It
believes that staff's projected exhaust dates may fail to take
account of the degree to which number pooling may permit fuller
use of numbering resources and to which local number portability
will reduce the demand for new telephone numbers. Suggesting
that more than 1.5 million available telephone numbers in the 212
NPA have not yet been assigned to customers, CPB calculates
that even assuming annual access line growth of 10% a year, a
higher rate than actually exists, enough telephone numbers remain
to satisfy demand for at least a year. It surmises that the
large number of unassigned numbers results from numbers being
allocated in blocks of 10,000 and that pooling, which would
permit assignment of numbers in much smaller blocks, could use
numbers more efficiently and forestall the need for area code
relief. CPB notes in this regard that the Pennsylvania
Commission recently ordered the industry to adopt number pooling
as soon as local number portability is available and that the
Colorado Commission recently required new telephone numbers to be
distributed in blocks of 1,000.
CPB disputes staff's suggestion that an accelerated
schedule for number pooling should not be considered in New York
and that a national determination should be awaited. Noting New
York's leadership in removing barriers to competition, CPB urges
us to continue that lead by considering an accelerated schedule
for number pooling, which would permit postponing the
dislocations associated with an area code change.
CPB also objects to introducing a new area code for the
current 718 area before the expected exhaust date of 2000. It
sees no justification for the Staff Paper's suggestion that the
new area code be introduced in 1998, even though telephone
numbers would not be assigned from it until the old code were
exhausted. CPB expresses concern that introducing a new area
code so long before it was needed would be confusing to
customers.
Finally, if a new area code were needed, CPB would use
an overlay. It notes the dislocations and expense associated
with the telephone number changes that would be occasioned by a
geographic split, as well as the absence of natural boundaries in
Manhattan. To mitigate the anticompetitive effects of an
overlay, CPB would require, as prerequisites, local number
portability and number pooling. And to insure that local number
portability and number pooling were implemented on schedule, it
would have us determine that New York Telephone's failure to meet
the schedule would cause all remaining telephone numbers in the
212 area code to be reserved for CLECs, while New York Telephone
would be required to assign new customers only from the new area
code.
New York City
Taking no position on the relative merits of an overlay
and a geographic split, New York City strongly urges us to
consider other options, including number pooling, unassigned
number porting, rate center consolidation, and eight-digit local
dialing, that would forestall the need for new area codes and the
dislocations they entail. It disputes the Staff Paper's premise
that such matters must be considered on a national level; regards
it as "unfair to consumers that a significant number of telephone
numbers remain unused because of a lack of industry consensus on
number pooling"; and urges us to implement a pooling scheme as
soon as possible.
Like CPB, the City urges that area code relief not be
specified now for the 718 area code. It recognizes that 718 will
exhaust in two or three years, but suggests, again, that
technological solutions may prolong its life.
Finally, the City urges us to authorize a survey,
independent of New York Telephone but funded by it as code
administrator, "to discern residential and business preferences
for the traditional relief options of geographic split and
overlay, giving survey respondents updated information regarding
area code options such as technological solutions to forestall
area code relief and the truer, longer exhaust periods for the
split option."
Manhattan Borough President
The Manhattan Borough President's Office concurs with
the Staff Paper and supports the overlay. It acknowledges the
potential anticompetitive effects of an overlay but believes they
are effectively dealt with by the mitigating measures described
in the Staff Paper and that competitive considerations must be
balanced against other effects on business and residential
customers. In this regard it notes the forced number changes
associated with the geographic split, the absence of natural
boundaries within Manhattan, the division of existing communities
by a geographic split, and the cost and confusion associated with
these consequences. It suggests that the inconvenience of
11-digit dialing may be unavoidable, regardless of the choice
made here; and it notes that constituents who have contacted the
Borough President's Office have generally preferred an overlay,
noting that it does not favor one community over another.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Formal Public Statement Hearings
As noted earlier, six formal public statement hearings
were held, attracting a total of 18 speakers; representatives of
three parties also made statements. Two were held in Manhattan
(an afternoon hearing at our offices and an evening session at
Mt. Sinai Hospital) and one in each of the remaining boroughs
(afternoon hearings in Brooklyn and The Bronx; evening hearings
in Queens and Staten Island.)
Of the 18 speakers, 15 favored the overlay, one favored
the geographic split, and two expressed no clear preference.
(One, Mr. Alan Flacks, noted the importance of maintaining City-
wide Directory Assistance.) The speakers favoring the overlay
stressed the difficulties that new telephone numbers would cause
for senior citizens and visually impaired telephone users, as
well as the costs they would impose on small businesses. The
advocate of a split (a representative of the Brooklyn Borough
President) noted the usefulness of maintaining an NPA's
geographic identity, the burdens of universal 11-digit dialing,
and the competitive implications. He argued, however, that in
any split, Brooklyn should be permitted to retain 718.
Informal Outreach and Education
Consumer Services Division (CSD) Outreach and Education
staff, assisted by other staff members, conducted a comprehensive
consumer outreach and education program in the five boroughs of
New York City. The primary objective of the program was to
inform the affected customers of the need for additional area
codes, explain the pros and cons of the various relief
mechanisms, and gain an understanding of their preferences.
During the course of the proceeding, staff made more
than 15 presentations to large groups of leaders of residential
and business organizations in Manhattan and the other boroughs.
In addition, staff participated in eight meetings of community
and small business leaders, observed focus group meetings
sponsored by NYNEX, and provided information at two large
expositions in New York City (the Getting Down to Business Fair
and the Black Expo).
Staff also arranged for the widespread dissemination of
literature on the proceeding. Two Consumer Alerts describing the
NYNEX proposal were distributed throughout the City, via the
offices of the five Borough Presidents, all the Community Boards,
and every public library branch. The Office of External Affairs
issued press releases that led to extensive media coverage,
including a number of interviews on local television and cable
stations.
Staff also publicized the availability of the
Department's toll-free Opinion Line and the web site Customer
Comment Forum address as means by which consumers could offer
their comments, suggestions, and preferences. Finally, staff
held informational forums before each of the six scheduled public
statement hearings in the five boroughs.
A large majority of persons who expressed preferences
at public events and through the Opinion Line favored the
overlay. The overlay choice was largely based on the desire of
most current customers to retain their 212 area code. Those who
favored the split felt that an area code should define a
particular geographic part of Manhattan. Comments called
repeatedly for us to take the lead in developing a long-term
solution to area code exhaust and noted the need for a
comprehensive consumer education and advertising campaign and a
long permissive dialing period after a decision is made.
Attachment C summarizes the public comment resulting from this
process.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Need for Relief
The City, CPB, and Teleport all suggest that the need
for an additional area code, and the burdens associated with any
means of providing it, could be forestalled by other measures,
such as more efficient administration by New York Telephone of
the resources available in New York City's existing NPAs,
including number pooling. But while these parties point to the
correct threshold question, no one has shown any error in our
initial premise (on which we acted in instituting the proceeding)
that relief in 212 would be needed during the first half of 1998
and relief in 917 would be needed in the second half of 1999.
The Staff Paper speaks, in this regard, of staff's
general satisfaction with New York Telephone's management of
numbering resources, noting that its number utilization (i.e.,
the percentage of numbers within an assigned NXX actually in use)
approaches 80%, among the highest such factors in the country;
that its demand growth forecasts are conservative; and that
needed NXX code assignments often exceed projections. Teleport
questions the significance of the 80% use factor, suggesting it
may be tied to the comparatively low number of rate centers in
the 212 NPA, and noting that at some central offices, such as
Broad Street, the utilization factor is considerably lower. But
while a paucity of rate centers can indeed elevate number
utilization data, implying that the 80% is overstated, other
factors may cause it to be understated and therefore less likely
to be subject to increase by the company's efforts. For example,
the 80% figure does not reflect lines recently vacated by
customers and still intercepted; such lines cannot be assigned to
new customers until the intercept period expires, and taking
account of them in the computation would increase the factor even
further. Relatedly, the Broad Street central office is one
characterized by very large customers. A single customer
discontinuing service (such as by moving to New Jersey) may
vacate a large number of lines, significantly depressing the
utilization factor. Moreover, the CLECs, for the most part, have
substantially lower number utilization rates than New York
Telephone and correspondingly more available 212 numbers in
proportion to their much smaller shares of the market.
We see no basis for any suggestion that more efficient
number resource administration could significantly delay the need
for a new area code in Manhattan, and the potential disruption of
telephone service in Manhattan is too high a price to pay for a
small delay in the relief date. Given the unthinkable
consequences of being unable to provide telephone service in
Manhattan promptly, a new area code is better provided slightly
too soon (should that in fact be the case) than slightly too
late.
That said, we must recognize that recent months have
seen a precipitous drop in the number of NXX codes remaining
available for assignment in the 212 NPA (as well as some others).
This drop appears due, in large measure, to CLECs increasing the
pace of their requests for NXX assignments. In these
circumstances, steps are needed to ensure that assignments are
made in a manner that properly conserves available resources,
and, as discussed below, we are directing counsel to examine the
steps that may be taken.
Comparing the Remedies
1. The Geographic Split
With limited recent exceptions, NPAs have been
geographically defined, and an overlay would represent a novel
departure. (Contrary to the Staff Paper's suggestion, the 917
overlay cannot really be cited as precedent; as a primarily
service-specific overlay, it seems to have a clear definition
that, like a geographic boundary, can easily be recognized.)
Once the need to provide a new NPA is recognized, therefore, the
weight of history leads one naturally to think in terms of a
geographic split. But a geographic split in Manhattan also would
be novel, in that geographic splits have historically followed
natural, political, or telephone company service territory
boundaries, none of which exist within the borough; and assigning
one area code to addresses north of 23rd Street and another to
addresses to the south (particularly avenue addresses, whose
associated cross streets are not immediately apparent) is a far
cry from assigning one to Brooklyn and another to Manhattan.
These considerations are not, of course, dispositive, but they
suggest that the overlay's novelty alone is no reason to choose
the split.
One significant drawback to a geographic split, and the
one emphasized in most of the comments on the case, is its
requirement that many subscribers change area codes and that
some, albeit relatively few, receive totally new telephone
numbers. That requirement gives rise to several concerns.
First, and emphasized most strongly by the commenting public, are
the burdens imposed by any changes of this sort on many elderly
and visually impaired people, for whom predictability can make
day-to-day living easier. Relatedly, business customers (and, to
a much lesser degree, residential customers) whose telephone
numbers are changed will incur potentially significant expense in
publicizing their new numbers and ensuring that their callers are
able to maintain contact with them. More specifically, the
supposed cachet of the 212 area code makes many subscribers,
especially businesses, reluctant to give it up, lest their
callers not recognize their Manhattan associations.
The interplay of these factors is made evident by the
disagreement between AT&T and staff over which zone would retain
212 if Manhattan were split at 23rd Street. AT&T's proposal
would have left 212 to the north and assigned 646 to the south,
thereby requiring only 40% of Manhattan customers to change their
area codes. The Staff Paper, on the other hand, would leave 212
to the south, to "minimize disruption in lower Manhattan where
information and telecommunications intensive financial service
centers are located." Meanwhile, various other comments have
suggested that the lower Manhattan financial district, because of
its sophistication, would be better able to cope with a changed
area code, or that assigning the new code to the north could be
seen as discriminatorily favoring the financial district. All of
these factors greatly complicate the use of a geographic split
and favor a mechanism that requires no subscriber to give up an
existing telephone number.
Finally, regardless of whether AT&T or staff is correct
about the duration of a 23rd Street split--and their difference
of one year becomes less significant when all other factors are
taken into account--it is true a priori that no split can provide
longer-lasting relief than an overlay, and only an unattainably
ideal split can provide the same degree of relief. All else
equal, therefore, an overlay would be preferable on these grounds
alone.
2. The Overlay
But all else, of course, is not equal, and the
proceeding identified various drawbacks to an overlay. One--its
novelty--already has been alluded to. People would no doubt find
it strange to have area codes that differed from those of their
immediate neighbors. But it overstates the matter to suggest
this would be seen as dividing communities; among other things,
there would be no clear dividing line.
More serious is the possible need for 11-digit dialing
even within the same NPA, as currently required by the FCC. This
would constitute a considerable inconvenience, even though
mitigated by the use of tone rather than rotary dialing and, for
some customers, by various forms of abbreviated dialing
equipment. The Staff Paper may be right that some day, 11-digit
dialing will be universal, but that day is not yet here. Even
though a geographic split also would cause increased 11-digit
dialing, a universal need to dial 11 digits on calls within
Manhattan would have to be seen as a drawback to an overlay. (We
discuss below the steps to be taken to avoid imposition of that
requirement.)
Finally, the competitive concerns raised by the CLECs
must be addressed. Even if those concerns are overstated (as
suggested by the CLECs' proportional advantage in numbering
resources, referred to above), the importance attached to the
212 area code requires steps to ensure that all LECs have equal
access to available 212 numbers and that 11-digit dialing is not
seen as needed to promote fair competition.
At case-end, only Teleport among the CLECs takes a
position firmly opposed to an overlay. Given adequate pro-
competitive conditions, Time Warner favors an overlay and AT&T
and MCI would find it acceptable. The conditions, therefore, are
of particular importance.
3. Overlay Conditions
The Staff Paper's first condition is that New York
Telephone, as code administrator, be required to adhere strictly
to the anti-discrimination provisions of the code assignment
guidelines. The condition is easy to impose (indeed, it should
go without saying), but it cannot, standing alone, resolve the
concerns raised about the overlay.
The second condition referred to in the Staff Paper,
11-digit dialing throughout Manhattan, poses difficulties already
discussed. Though sought by the CLECs, assumed in the Staff
Paper, and required by the FCC, 11-digit dialing represents a
substantial burden on customers. But while intra-NPA 11-digit
dialing may help the CLECs overcome the burden of having their
subscribers disproportionately assigned to the new NPA (by
subjecting calls to and from New York Telephone customers to the
same degree of 11-digit dialing), that form of protection becomes
far less important in view of the other conditions we are
imposing to ensure parity of access to numbers in 212.
Perhaps most significant is the Staff Paper's
recommendation that permanent LNP be a precondition to any
overlay. LNP is being introduced on schedule, and the process
should be completed in advance of the date on which an overlay
would go into effect. With number portability in effect, no New
York Telephone customer would have to sacrifice an existing
telephone number or area code in order to take service from a
CLEC instead.
Where the Staff Paper and the CLECs part company is on
the need for number pooling. Taking strong issue with the Staff
Paper's statement that LNP obviates pooling and will itself make
"all numbers in all NPAs . . . equally accessible to all LECs,"
the CLECs, as recounted in detail above, maintain that LNP
ensures parity only with regard to numbers already assigned to
customers, but that only pooling can make unassigned numbers in
212 equally available to CLECs. They likewise contest the view
that pooling should not be required until it is considered on a
national basis.
At our session of September 30, 1997, we directed staff
to examine, in collaboration with representatives of affected
segments of the industry, the feasibility of expedited
introduction of number pooling. Three meetings were held, at
which the participants generally agreed, first, to retain the
existing schedule for permanent LNP (a precondition to pooling),
which calls for LNP to be in place in Manhattan by April 1, 1998.
With respect to pooling itself, the participants organized a
steering committee and four working groups looking toward
expedited introduction of number pooling, with the 212 area code
to be accorded the highest priority.
It now appears that while technical limitations related
to the data bases used to route calls to pooled numbers may slow
down the full deployment of number pooling, it is not
unreasonable to anticipate that number pooling will be introduced
in Manhattan by April 1, 1998 (coincident with the availability
of permanent LNP) and extended to New York City's other boroughs
by January 1, 1999. New York Telephone has submitted a letter
committing itself to exercising its best efforts to achieve
number pooling in New York by April 1, 1998, and we fully expect
the other participants in the industry to work toward that goal
as well.
Conclusion Regarding
New Area Code Implementation
Taking account of all the factors described above, we
conclude that the advantages of an overlay in comparison with a
geographic split far outweigh its disadvantages. Its benefits
include its longevity, its avoidance of forced number changes,
its avoidance of inevitably controversial divisions, and its
apparent public support. An adequate public education program
should limit any confusion that might be occasioned by its
novelty, and the introduction of number pooling should obviate
most competitive concerns.
Accordingly, we are directing the activation of the 646
area code as an overlay for Manhattan, effective April 1, 1998,
on the terms described below. To deal with these issues on a
coordinated, City-wide basis, we are directing as well that the
347 area code be activated as an overlay for Brooklyn, The Bronx,
Queens, and Staten Island, effective January 1, 1999, a date that
recognizes current estimates of when the 718 area code will reach
exhaust and that allows time for the introduction of number
pooling in the 718 NPA. These overall determinations are to be
carried out in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:
1. Outreach and Education. New York Telephone is to
conduct, after consulting with staff and taking account of
staff's suggestions, a comprehensive outreach and education
program to acquaint the public with each of the overlays and its
operation in advance of the overlay going into effect. It will
be required to submit for staff review, within 30 days of the
date of this order, its plan for the outreach and education
programs for the Manhattan overlay. A corresponding plan for the
overlay in the other boroughs should be submitted by July 1,
1998. Other carriers providing local service within New York
City should similarly provide their customers information
regarding the new area codes in advance of their activation.
2. Telephone Directories and Directory Assistance.
During its 1998 telephone directory publishing cycle, New York
Telephone is to issue, for all New York City boroughs, telephone
directories setting forth each telephone number with its area
code. Distribution of those directories is to be completed by
November 1998.
In addition, all providers of directory assistance
service in New York City shall satisfy the following requirements
(insofar as they are not already satisfied), by not later than
April 1, 1998 with respect to Manhattan and January 1, 1999 with
respect to the other boroughs: (1) the directory assistance
response for any telephone number shall include the area code if
specification of the area code is needed to enable the customer
to complete the call; and (2) a customer calling directory
assistance by dialing either of the area codes assigned to an
overlay area (or by dialing 411 from within an overlay area)
shall be able to gain information regarding every telephone
number within the overlay area, regardless of its area code.
(For purposes of this requirement, an "overlay area" means either
Manhattan or the other boroughs; directory assistance providers
are free, of course, to go beyond these requirements and provide
City-wide directory assistance regardless of which of the City's
area codes is used in dialing directory assistance.)
3. Number Portability and Pooling. Permanent LNP is to
be introduced on its current schedule, i.e., by April 1, 1998
throughout the City. The staff/industry committees working to
introduce number pooling should continue their work, and, as
noted above, we anticipate the availability of number pooling in
Manhattan by April 1, 1998 and throughout the City by January 1,
1999. (Achievement of the latter goal may be facilitated by
measures to relieve capacity demands on call routing databases,
and such measures should be examined.)
4. Rate Center Consolidation. The movement of long
distance telephone rates toward a zone structure may have made
rate centers less important than they used to be. Staff and the
industry should examine whether the consolidation of rate centers
could be a means for conserving NXX code assignments and
relieving pooled number capacity demands in New York City and in
other area codes nearing exhaust.
5. Dialing Requirements. If the federal dialing
requirements associated with overlays remain in effect, they will
best be implemented on a City-wide basis after both overlays have
been activated. That approach would avoid the confusion and
disruption occasioned by piecemeal introduction of the
requirements. Moreover, it would allow time for all telephone
service providers in the City (including customers operating
their own telephone network equipment, such as private branch
exchanges or alarm systems) to make the network and equipment
modifications necessary to comply with the requirements and to
conduct the education and outreach programs needed to introduce
the dialing arrangements in an orderly and coordinated manner.
Accordingly, April 1, 1999 (three months after the
second overlay code is activated) will be established as the date
for City-wide compliance with federal dialing requirements,
should they remain in force. All telephone carriers in New York
City whose customers would be affected by the implementation of
the federal dialing requirements, in consultation with staff,
should conduct outreach and education programs regarding those
dialing requirements during the first quarter of 1999.
Additionally, in order to ensure a smooth transition, these
carriers should introduce, no later than January 1, 1999,
permissive dialing that would allow their customers, during the
three-month transition period, the option of placing calls using
either the federally required dialing procedure or the
traditional dialing method.
Meanwhile, we will press forward in our efforts to
retain seven-digit intra-NPA dialing and to have current federal
requirements that preclude it waived or set aside.
Interim Number Conservation Measures
Recent weeks have seen a dramatic increase in requests
by CLECs for NXX assignments, not only in the 212 NPA but also in
others around the State. This trend has placed the 212 code in
extraordinary jeopardy of early exhaust and increased the
pressure on the others. Action is needed to forestall a
potential crisis by conserving NXX codes to the extent possible.
To that end, we are directing counsel to examine the steps that
may be taken, either on our own or by application to the FCC, to
ensure that NXX codes are suitably conserved.
Other Matters
1. Use of the 917 NPA
As the Staff Paper suggests, the 917 NPA should
continue to be used for wireless service City-wide until it
exhausts, at which time wireless and wireline numbers would no
longer be distinguished with respect to NPA assignment. AT&T
correctly notes that this has the effect of making 646
temporarily a landline-only code, in seeming violation of the
FCC's rule if literally applied. But that state of affairs
should be seen not as the unlawful establishment of a new
service-specific NPA but as merely the temporary fall-out effect
of the grandfathering of the service-specific 917 NPA.
2. Eight-Digit Dialing
As already noted, the schedule for this case could not
allow for full consideration of eight-digit local dialing as a
means for providing a major, long-term increase in number
resources. But the measure deserves careful consideration in New
York City (and, perhaps, other areas of very high and growing
demand) long before its projected nation-wide introduction nearly
30 years from now. Staff is directed to convene a task force to
consider it.
The Commission orders:
1. Consistent with the conditions and requirements set
forth in the foregoing opinion, New York Telephone Company (the
company) shall take the steps necessary to activate the 646 area
code as an overlay to the existing 212 area code, effective
April 1, 1998.
2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the
company shall submit to the Secretary, for review by staff, its
plan for an outreach and education program to acquaint the public
with the 646 area code overlay and its operation.
3. Consistent with the conditions and requirements set
forth in the foregoing opinion, the company shall take the steps
necessary to activate the 347 area code as an overlay to the
existing 718 area code, effective January 1, 1999.
4. By not later than July 1, 1998, the company shall
submit to the Secretary, for review by staff, its plan for an
outreach and education program to acquaint the public with the
347 area code overlay and its operation.
5. By not later than April 1, 1998 with respect to
Manhattan, and by not later than January 1, 1999 with respect to
the other boroughs of New York City, all providers of directory
assistance for telephone numbers within New York City shall
comply with the requirements of the foregoing opinion with
respect to directory assistance service.
6. All telephone carriers providing local service in
New York City shall take the steps needed to comply, by not later
than April 1, 1999, with federal 11-digit dialing requirements
related to overlay area codes to the extent those dialing
requirements remain applicable. In the event those requirements
do remain applicable, all such carriers shall introduce, by not
later than January 1, 1999, a permissive dialing arrangement that
will allow their customers, during a three-month period beginning
on that date, the option of placing calls using either the
federally required dialing procedure or the traditional dialing
method. In addition, all such carriers, in consultation with
staff of the Commission, shall conduct, during that three-month
period, comprehensive outreach and education programs related to
the federal dialing requirements.
7. This proceeding is continued.
By the Commission,
JOHN C. CRARY
Secretary