WASHINGTON-Area-code splits are unnecessary at this time, and the Federal Communications Commission needs to take command of state-controlled phone number allocations that need to move away from the traditional 10,000-number blocks.
The rise in fax machines, pagers and cellular phones cannot be blamed for what is being perceived as a number shortage. Rather, it is the old method of assigning number blocks that has forced half of all U.S. business and residential phone subscribers to change their numbers at least once, and that has mandated 10-digit local dialing in many regions.
“Where Have All The Numbers Gone?,” a white paper released last week by The Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee and the International Communications Association, pointed out that while fewer than 15 new areas codes were introduced between 1961 and 1994, more than 75 new area codes have been or will be implemented in the near future, bringing the total amount to 195.
“We shouldn’t accept that we are all to blame,” said Ad Hoc counsel James Blaszak. “There really are five phone numbers available for everyone in the United States, so why the problem?” Each new area code constitutes 7.7 million “new” numbers, although Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America said that only 160 million phone lines are in operation today along with some 55 million cellular phones. “Why have we given out 1.7 billion numbers when only 250 million are in use?” he asked.
Phone numbers are given to carriers in 10,000-number blocks that cover an entire central-office operating area-or rating area, for billing purposes-and could be shared by carriers; this practice, the white paper said, has been rejected by the entities allocating the blocks. Any competitor, including wireless operators, coming into a market is assigned such blocks, even though they sometimes may only need 500 to 1,000 numbers; extra numbers subsequently are warehoused instead of being returned to be redistributed.
What the white paper, researched by Dr. Lee Selwyn of Economics and Technology Inc. in Boston, suggests as solutions to continued area-code crunching are the following three proposals, which have been floated in the past:
Number pooling. This would allow carriers to draw numbers as needed (100 to 1,000 at a time) out of a general pool, which would eliminate the practice of assigning separate NXX codes for each carrier in a given exchange. Local number portability, which is expected to be going into effect in at least one major metropolitan area by May 15, will aid this plan. The report claimed that wireless operators were trying to exempt themselves from number portability.
Rate-center consolidation. Local exchanges were set up as ways to bill service by the distance between two calling points. However, expanded calling areas mean companies charge the same to connect a call, whether it is two miles or 20 miles away. Fewer rate centers could reduce the assignments of 10,000-number blocks. “Moreover, any minor revenue effects of rate-center consolidation can be easily remedied through other offsetting tariff revisions, such as through small upward adjustments to the measured-usage charges or to flat monthly usage rates,” the report added.
Overlay codes for wireless communications-Even though a wireless area-code overlay was adopted successfully in New York City, it was argued down in Chicago; wireless carriers subsequently have been exempted from overlays by the FCC, citing anti-competitiveness. “Although mobile services do not create the same degree of extreme fragmentation of number resources that is typical of geographically fixed services, the attempt to satisfy the mobile services’ voracious demand for numbers out of the geographically fixed, highly fragmented number allocation plans has been the `straw that broke the camel’s back’ on the nation’s numbering system,” the report said. “The FCC should revisit and modify its 1995 declaratory ruling to permit states to adopt mobile overlay area code relief solutions.”
Author Selwyn stands behind the mobile-overlay option as being the most feasible solution today, saying that the New York City experience held new area codes at bay for 13 years, but that Los Angeles has experienced multiple splits. A special area code would “provide the wireless industry with an identity and stability, and most users would get to keep their numbers when other area codes change,” he said.
According to Selwyn, the wireless industry has continued to fight any talk of overlays with the claim that reprogramming phones would be expensive and difficult. “Reprogramming takes less than a minute, and it could be done over the phone,” he argued. “The industry has used this as an excuse to resist change. Cellular phones don’t require a specific geographic identity.”
An entire chapter of the white paper is aimed at derailing what it calls the industry’s desire to “have it both ways,” as Selwyn believes happened when the industry was able to beat the Ameritech overlay in Chicago. “By attempting to block national efforts at number conservation and alternatives to the creation of permanent new number allocation plans and/or new mandatory dialing patterns (e.g., mandatory 10-/11-digit local dialing on all calls), wireless carriers impose costs upon users of wireline services that far outweigh those that wireless carriers may avoid if their various demands continue to be honored,” he wrote.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association disagreed with much of Selwyn’s observations. Senior vice president Brian Fontes admitted that the group would fight overlay methodologies that would force massive reprogramming, saying, “You deal with 59 million subscribers over the phone and tell me how easy it will be to reprogram them, not to mention them having to give out a new number. And some phones can’t be reprogrammed in this way.” On the other hand, if an overlay was completely new and did not require number takebacks or extra dialed digits, the wireless industry could support it, he said.
Regarding the industry’s attitude toward local number portability, Fontes was adamant that wireless carriers were seeking forbearance, not exemption. Fontes explained that new carriers must concentrate on building the networks rather than stopping to facilitate wireless-to-wireless number portability. In addition, more guidance must be provided in a number-pooling scenario to make sure wireless operators have access to the numbers they need.
