Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign
Mike King
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:42:00 -0800
Reply-To: news...@list.pactel.com
From: Marcia...@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint)
Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campai
<<<<NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL>>>>
Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign
For Release March 28, 1996
Contact: Dave Miller, (916) 972-2811
SAN FRANCISCO -- Californians would be denied a voice in helping
select new area code boundaries under a plan being touted by
long-distance companies, urging state regulators to circumvent
existing law.
The proposal was submitted to the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) by long-distance giants AT&T, MCI and others.
Pacific Bell, responding to the filings, believes it would undermine
the area code planning process and deny consumers their legal right
to consider and comment on the issue.
The long-distance led coalition has launched a "blatantly
anti-consumer" campaign in California to stifle public awareness and
involvement in the introduction of 13 new area codes in the state
over the next five years, Pacific Bell charged in a petition filed
this week with the CPUC.
"These companies are trying to thwart our efforts to educate
consumers about all viable area code relief options. They're
deliberately attempting to mislead regulators and manipulate the
process by twisting and distorting our position to focus attention
away from their own anti-competitive and blatantly anti-consumer
lobbying tactics," said John Gueldner, regulatory vice president for
Pacific Bell.
Gueldner's comments came after the coalition, which also includes the
California Cable Television Association and the consumer group TURN,
asked the CPUC to prohibit Pacific Bell and other companies from
proposing area code overlays as an alternative to geographic splits
at industry meetings or legally mandated public meetings to obtain
customer comments and reaction.
AT&T, MCI and the others assert that only one area code relief option
should be selected by the industry and made public under state law and
industry guidelines. But Pacific Bell and the author of the
legislation disagree, believing that the public should have the right
to learn about more than one possible area code solution.
"The law exists to ensure that Californians participate in the
process and provide meaningful input on alternatives, not just one
pre-ordained plan," said Gwen Moore, author of the legislation and
former chairwoman of the California State Assembly Utilities and
Commerce Committee, which oversees all telecommunications policy
issues in the Legislature.
Gueldner said the competitors' request to prohibit Pacific Bell from
discussing overlays is an effort "to muzzle us into silence about
this issue to achieve their own narrow, self-serving marketing goals.
They don't want consumers to know about this option. But that
violates the spirit and the letter of the state law, which encourages
public comment and involvement on area code relief options. They're
deliberately trying to stifle public involvement and participation."
The coalition filed its complaint after Pacific Bell held statewide
briefings to educate the press and public on the shortage of
telephone numbers and various ways to ease the number problem by
adding new area codes.
Today, for example, California has 13 area codes, more than any other
state. That number will need to double over the next five years to
keep up with the record growth being spurred by the high-technology
explosion and local telephone competition.
"We explained the options available for area code relief, including
geographic splits, overlays and boundary realignments. In each case,
we objectively described and discussed both advantages and
disadvantages of the various alternatives," Gueldner said. "This is
the first time a major effort has been made to educate the public."
In a geographic split, the old area code is carved roughly in half,
with half of the customers getting a new area code and the others
retaining the old one. In an overlay, a new area code is placed over an
existing area code. The resultant new and old area codes occupy the
same geographic boundaries. The new area code is given to people
requesting new phone numbers, while existing customers keep the ir old
area code.
The CPUC earlier rejected an overlay in the 310 area code, but
Pacific Bell believes the concept should be studied in other areas,
where appropriate. The coalition believes overlays should not be
considered anywhere.
"The commission ruling applies only to the 310 area code case and
does not require geographic splits or preclude overlays for area code
relief in other parts of the state," Gueldner said. "In fact,
commissioners are intrigued by overlays and want to get public
opinion on, among other things, customer interest and possible
acceptance of this new approach and other options through a statewide
survey."
The CPUC is expected to conduct hearings on this and other
numbering-related issues as part of a broader local competition case,
a move that Pacific Bell supports. In the meantime, the industry
should hold public meetings and present both split and overlay
options for public comment, the company said.
Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a San
Francisco-based diversified telecommunications corporation.
---------------------
Mike King * m...@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152
Stormy Trevino
> Forwarded FYI to the Digest:
> From: Marcia...@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint)
> Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campai
> Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign
Copious amounts of BS deleted.
Pac Bell standing up for the consumer? You've got to be kidding me.
Don't they really just want to be able to keep potential competitors
from using current NPA? Seems to me this is just more of the typical
anti-competitive behavior we've come to know and love from our
"favorite" LEC.
BTW, I called Pac Bell last week to block caller ID and at the close
of my conversation with their rep she actually said, and I quote,
"Thank you for CHOOSING Pacific Bell"???!!! I couldn't believe my
ears. If I had any choice I would have left years ago.
Stormy Trevino
Call America Business Communications
stre...@callamerica.com
Linc Madison
King) wrote:
> Forwarded FYI to the Digest:
> <<<<NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL>>>>
> [a coalition of AT&T, MCI, TURN, et al., is urging the CPUC to prohibit
> Pacific Bell from *proposing* area code overlays in California. Pac
> Bell is raising a stink and urging the CPUC to reject the proposal.]
I've got to say, this is one where I wholeheartedly agree with Pac
Bell. I did not support their overlay plan for 310/213, especially
the plan that had the new area code overlay more than one existing
area code, but I don't think they should be prohibited from proposing
one. That's lunacy. In another ten years, there will probably be a
dozen area codes wholly within Los Angeles County, at which point
overlays will make a lot of sense. An overlay of 916 now would not
make sense, because it's such a large geographic area, with an obvious
division between Sacramento and not-Sacramento. The other California
area codes outside greater L.A. are also not ready for overlays, but
a couple of splits from now they may be -- 408 is going to split in
the next two years, and it would be very difficult to split again.
The same goes for 415 and 714.
I believe overlays are appropriate where the area involved is very
small, the area has no obvious dividing lines in it, and the overlay
goes on top of exactly ONE existing area code. This business of (212
and 917) and (718 and 917), or (312 and 630) and (708 and 630), to
name two proposals, is confusing.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Tel...@Eureka.vip.best.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, 630 has ceased being an
overlay code and is now a geographic code covering Dupage County,
Illinois and the far western suburbs of Chicago. It was an overlay for
cellular/pager purposes at the time it started in January, 1995, with
312 and 708 'under' it. With the expansion of area codes and the
resulting shakedown going on here at the present time, those cell
and pager people who were 'overlaid' a year ago are welcome to remain
in 630 if they wish to do so, but unless they happen to be located
geographically in the new 630 it really does not make sense. Likewise
with the 'new' 708: from a few years ago there were lots of pagers and
cell phones in 708 around this north suburban area. Some of those
people are insisting they want to continue with a 708 number which is
fine with everyone concerned, but it now geographically places them
way out of their 'natural' area which is the south and near west
suburbs. Quite a few people are like myself and want seven digit
dialing whenever possible, so we are seeing quite a few of the 630
and 708 cellular/pager numbers now getting dumped in favor of where
the subscriber spends most of his time, i.e. 847, or 'true' 708, 630,
etc. Some users of course just fell into place naturally. PAT