California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818)
Lauren Weinstein
splits and overlays in California could be viewed as theoretically
technologically undesirable legislation, it's important to realize how
we've reached this state of affairs and why many people are now
supporting it as a stopgap measure.
I've long been a fan of overlays in most situations -- I've been
dialing 11 digits for most calls since central offices permitted local
dialing that included 1+area code. There are however many people who
really hate the idea of overlays and forced 11 digit dialing --
especially when both are viewed as really unnecessary in many
situations. For example, overlays could technically be done without
requiring 11 digit dialing for calls within the same area code. A big
deal? Not to me -- but it is to many others, and you can't just
discount these sorts of opinions. There are also competitive concerns
with overlays in some situations, with a wide range of varying
validity.
Most people now dislike area code splits -- they're a serious hassle
and expense for those who end up with the new area code, and they
often don't even solve the problems for more than a few years. But
the fight between splits and overlays has created an untenable
situation in many areas.
The story here in L.A. is representative. The CPUC's decision-making
process in this regard is difficult to fathom. First they proposed an
overlay for 310, started the forced 11 digit dialing period, then held
off on the implementation of the new code. Meanwhile, out in the
Valley, they first proposed an overlay for 818, then reversed
themselves (seemingly at the urging of Burbank/North Hollywood who all
along wanted to preserve both 7 digit dialing *and* 818 for
themselves) and decided on a split. This split has the boundary drawn
in such a way as to give the Burbank/North Hollywood folks what they
want, but to force many other nearby Valley communities (including
where I sit!) into a new area code. Such splits cause the worst of
both worlds for the people in the new code. They have all the
disruption of a split and changed numbers, *and* they end up having to
dial 11 digits on more calls anyway since their "home" area code is
smaller. (This is the irony of splits of course, the more splits, the
smaller the area codes, the more the 11 digit dialing -- that's why
such dialing has become so common in the L.A. area already.)
Outside of the obvious questions about the drawing of the split
boundary and what influenced it, the irony is that the entire written
reasoning of the CPUC report was basically unchanged from that in the
earlier overlay proposal. In essence, the CPUC said, "Here's a
detailed explanation of why an overlay is best. Our decision is
instead to do a split ..."
Now, here's the best part. Along with their 818 split decision, they
declined to set the split implementation dates at this time, instead
calling for number utilization studies--clearly implying that they are
questioning the real need to be doing either of a split or overlay.
Herein is the underlying problem, I believe. People have begun to
realize that sloppy handling of numbering resources is a key reason
for many of the problems, not just the "explosion of phone-based
technology" we hear about most of the time. The allocation of phone
numbers in 10,000 blocks for every local service "competitor" (most of
whom it seems hardly anybody in the real world has ever heard of) in
every rate center, regardless of their utilization of those numbers,
has been devastating.
There's a sense that the situation is out of control, and I believe
that's the real focus behind AB 818 -- to call attention to this issue
and to put pressure on the various parties involved to change the
current policies that are inconveniencing large populations of phone
users unnecessarily. At some point down the line we will indeed
require some new area codes (with overlays clearly the preferred
method). But number pooling (stopping the 10,000 number block
allocations) could help a lot, and technology-based area codes may
also have some positive roles to play. The current situation has
become an intolerable mess, and I think that this has now become clear
to the average phone user.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lau...@vortex.com
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz"
--- http://www.vortex.com/reality
Steven Lichter
wrote:
> I've long been a fan of overlays in most situations -- I've been
> dialing 11 digits for most calls since central offices permitted local
> dialing that included 1+area code. There are however many people who
> really hate the idea of overlays and forced 11 digit dialing --
> especially when both are viewed as really unnecessary in many
> situations. For example, overlays could technically be done without
> requiring 11 digit dialing for calls within the same area code. A big
> deal? Not to me -- but it is to many others, and you can't just
> discount these sorts of opinions. There are also competitive concerns
> with overlays in some situations, with a wide range of varying
> validity.
To me the overlay is a total waste of time and money, they should just
add an extra digit to the exchange and the number and get it over with,
they will have to do this shortly anyway. The PUC person I talked to
in a rather heated meeting in Riverside over the pending 909 A/C split
said whoever kept 909 would get an overlay in less then a year. You
wonder what state hospital these fools were released from when the
state in its cutbacks let the less dangerous loonies out. His reason
was that not all exchanges could handle this; well by requiring the
extra dialing within an area code it would require just as much
translation as not. Besides, they can just mandate the upgrading
of the exchange as they have been doing.
This reminds me of a woman in Moreno Valley, California who would call
her son in Colton, and she claimed that she never had to dial a 1
before his number; you see at that time the exchange was SATT ACCESS.
I got the trouble ticket since the complained about the toll charges
that she got when we converted to full SATT with a System 7 Director;
you see it was still step. I told her that she must have had to dial
the 1 before or she would have never gotten though. She still did not
think so, but what else could I tell her and the problem went back to
repair and to the business office. I never knew the outcome and really
did not care. Why not just go back to dialing a 1; that way you will
know it is a toll or L/D call. People in the 714 side of Huntington
Beach only had to dial 10 digits A/C and phone number to reach the old
213 side of the city, but they had to dial 8 or 11 digits if they had
to pay for it. Maybe we should just go back to the Pony Express, but
then the PUC would say we would have to dial all 11 digits to get them
also. The Hell with that, just fix it for the next 50 years not for
the next 50 minutes; what do I know I only had to work on this stuff
for the last 30 plus years.
Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the
Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server.
The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? (c)
Joseph Singer
> To me the overlay is a total waste of time and money, they should just
> add an extra digit to the exchange and the number and get it over with,
> they will have to do this shortly anyway.
You make it sound as if it's just a simple matter of adding one extra
digit to someone's switch. If you'd read any of the problem and
*immense* complexity of changing telephone numbering from the
ingrained 3+3+4 format that has been used in the NANPA since the late
40's this is no small undertaking. Something *will* have to be done,
but it's no small matter to either increase the subscriber number or
area code number length. As has been said before, it's no simple fix
to the numbering crunch that we're in.
Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA <mailto:d...@oz.net>
<http://welcome.to/dov> <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262> [ICQ pgr]
+1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX]