DT 99-603
North American Numbering Plan Administrator
Petition for Area Code Relief Plan
Order Approving Interventions and
Establishing a Procedural Schedule
O R D E R N O. 23,199
April 19, 1999
Appearances: Kimberly D. Wheeler on behalf of the Petitioner,
Lockheed Martin (North American Numbering Plan Administrator or
NANPA); Victor D. Del Vecchio, Esq. on behalf of Bell
Atlantic-New Hampshire (BA-NH); Frederick J. Coolbroth, Esq. on
behalf of Granite State Telephone, Inc., Merrimack County
Telephone Company, Inc., Contoocook Valley Telephone Company,
Inc., Wilton Telephone Company, Inc., Hollis Telephone Company,
Inc., Dunbarton Telephone Company, Inc., Northland Telephone
Company of Maine, Inc., Bretton Woods Telephone Company, Inc.,
and Dixville Telephone Company (collectively referred to herein
as the Independent Companies or the ICOs); Curtis L. Groves, Esq.
on behalf of MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI); James A. Sanborn on behalf
of Union Telephone Company (Union); Stacy L. Parker, Esq. on
behalf of MediaOne; Kenneth Ira Spigle, Esq. on behalf of Sprint
Spectrum L.P. dba Sprint PCS (Sprint); Kath Mulholland on behalf
of BayRing Communications (BayRing); Nathan T. Foose, Esq. on
behalf of Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.
(Nextel); Robert Aurigema, Esq. on behalf of AT&T Communications
of New Hampshire, Inc. (AT&T); Teresa L. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
Cellco Partnership dba Bell Atlantic Mobile (BA-M); William
Homeyer, Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA)on behalf of
residential utility customers; and Larry S. Eckhaus, Esq. on
behalf of the Staff (Staff) of the New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission (Commission).
I. Procedural History
Pursuant to Order No. 23,166 (March 19, 1999), on April
7, 1999, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) held a duly noticed Prehearing Conference regarding
the NANPA's Petition for approval of an area code relief plan.
Since November 6, 1998, when NANPA declared an Extraordinary
Jeopardy Situation for New Hampshire's 603 area code, NANPA
conducted state-wide telecommunications industry meetings at
which the industry reached an "industry consensus" on an area
code relief plan. NANPA's petition requests the Commission
approve the industry consensus to implement an overlay solution
to the area code exhaust projected by NANPA to occur in the
fourth quarter of the year 2000.
II. Interventions
In addition to the appearances noted above, timely
filed petitions to intervene were received from the Business and
Industry Association of New Hampshire, the Greater Portsmouth
Chamber of Commerce, NEVD of NH, Rep. Jeb E. Bradley and Vitts
Networks, Inc. There being no objection to the interventions,
the Commission grants full intervention to all parties who
appeared who filed petitions to intervene.
III. Positions of the Parties and Staff
At the Prehearing Conference, all parties and Staff
outlined their respective positions regarding area code relief.
The parties offered two main solutions to the problem: (1) an
overlay, or (2) a geographic split relief plan, to provide a new
area code when one becomes necessary. In addition, there was
discussion as to whether numbering conservation efforts should be
undertaken before beginning to implement a relief plan.
An overlay plan may be for all services or for specific
services. Under an all services overlay plan as proposed by
NANPA, all existing customers would retain the 603 area code and
number changes would not be required for existing customers.
However, ten-digit local dialing would be required. When the 603
area code exhausts, all code assignments would be made in the new
overlay area code, which would be assigned to the same geographic
area as the 603 area code.
The geographic split relief plan would divide the State
geographically into two, as yet undetermined, area codes
Numbering Plan Areas or NPAs which would have different area
codes. Existing customers in one NPA would be assigned new
ten-digit numbers. While seven digit dialing would be required
within an NPA, ten-digit dialing would be required between NPAs.
The NANPA described its role as facilitating the New
Hampshire the New Hampshire telecommunications industry to reach
consensus to recommend a single relief plan for the 603 area code
to the Commission. As the neutral third party administrator,
Lockheed Martin has no independent view regarding the relief
option selected by the industry.
Generally, the ICOs, BA-M, Nextel, Union and Sprint
either favor, or do not object to, a state-wide all-services
overlay. MCI, and MediaOne support a geographic split. AT&T
would support either option which is more likely to make numbers
available on a timely basis. BayRing supports a geographic split
but does not expect to oppose an overlay plan. The OCA and Staff
expressed no preference at this time.
BA-NH supported the all services overlay approach and
had serious concerns regarding a geographic split. In addition,
BA-NH recommended a minimum of 12 to 15 months for the
introduction of the new area code which included six months of
technical preparation and customer education, and a six month
period during which a customer could dial either the old number
or the new number.
AT&T indicated either option is acceptable to them if
certain conditions are met. For overlay, these include mandatory
ten-digit dialing and individual number portability. AT&T
opposed technology specific overlays. For geographic split, AT&T
proposed wireless grandfathering in the existing NPA, as did
BA-M. MCI supported geographic split but maintained that if an
overlay is chosen, the Commission should order unassigned number
porting.
Sprint supports an all services overlay and recommends
that the Commission consider including competition in its
definition of "consumer friendly" when deciding which option to
adopt. In addition, Sprint suggested that in the event
conservation measures are adopted and are successful in delaying
the implementation of an overlay, new numbers can be issued in
the existing NPA, while under a geographic split that would not
happen.
The OCA stated that with only about 1.5 million of 7.5
million available numbers used in New Hampshire, it should not be
necessary to add a new area code at all. At this time, the OCA
indicated that it has no firm position on either a split or an
overlay, but intends to discuss this matter with its Advisory
Board.
Staff indicated that its goals for this docket are to
identify the causes of the numbering problem, assess the impact
of every relief option, and make a recommendation that balances
the short and long term effects of any choice, as well as the
various interests that are represented and or affected. Staff
proposed that the parties file testimony supporting their
position vis a vis other options and addressing, at a minimum,
the criteria listed in the Commission's Order 23,166:
including, but not limited to, minimizing customer
disruption, cost, and confusion, conserving the total pool
of telephone numbers if a new area code is created,
minimizing geographic controversy and the chances of future
area code changes, ensuring public safety, equitable
treatment of consumers and competitive neutrality.
All parties and Staff agreed that conservation efforts
should be undertaken as soon as possible. However, Bell
Atlantic, AT&T, MCI, Union, the ICOs, Sprint, NexTel and
MediaOne, while supporting conservation, urged the Commission not
to mistake conservation as a substitute for area code relief.
The OCA, on the other hand, urged the Commission to pursue
conservation measures until a date certain in order to see if
conservation measures alone will forestall area code exhaust.
Staff also supported conservation efforts and suggested that the
Commission hold public hearings and use its website to inform and
permit comment by consumers.
IV. Commission Analysis
Because the implementation of any area code relief plan
will entail inconvenience and expense for New Hampshire
customers, we will thoroughly examine the need for and
ramifications of such a plan. Although we appreciate the efforts
made to reach an industry consensus, we do not, at this juncture,
rule out any area relief plan.
In its petition, NANPA passed on an industry request
that we issue our decision as to the choice of area code relief
by June 1, 1999, in order to allow sufficient time to implement
whatever plan is chosen. Although this proposed schedule
represents a very condensed schedule for considering such an
important issue, we find that the procedural schedule proposed by
the parties and Staff, which will approximate the requested
schedule, will be adequate.
V. Procedural Schedule
The proposed procedural schedule to be followed in this
proceeding, as agreed to by the parties and Staff at a technical
session following the hearing is as follows:
Data Requests to NANPA April 14
Data Responses from NANPA April 21
Testimony with Executive Summary,
to include demarcation of
geographic boundary if
supporting a split approach April 30
Public Hearings in Hanover,
Keene, Littleton, Laconia, between May 7
Manchester, Portsmouth and May 21
Data Requests on testimony May 7
Data Responses on testimony May 21
Rebuttal Testimony June 2
Hearings June 16-17
Briefs, if necessary TBD
Recommended Order July 8
Due to the compressed schedule, filings must be
received (rather than mailed) by the dates set forth above. In
order to expedite receipt of a filing, the parties and Staff may
consider using fax or e-mail, in addition to hard copies by mail,
to deliver the documents.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Motions to Intervene described above
are GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the proposed procedural schedule
as outlined above is GRANTED.
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New
Hampshire this nineteenth day of April, 1999.
Douglas L. Patch Susan S. Geiger Nancy Brockway
Chairman Commissioner Commissioner
Attested by:
Kimberly Nolin Smith
Assistant Secretary