[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19255-19257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9186]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[IAD File No. 94-102, FCC 95-19]
Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by
Ameritech--Illinois
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Declaratory ruling and order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Declaratory Ruling and Order (Order) responds to a
Request for Declaratory Ruling and Order (Petition) filed with the
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) on August 4, 1994,
jointly by Mobilemedia Communications, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and
Page Mart, Inc. (Petitioners). Petitioners objected to a plan developed
by Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) to relieve an anticipated telephone
number shortage in the part of Illinois covered by numbering plan area
708. Petitioners contended portions of the Ameritech plan violate the
Communications Act and industry guidelines. In the Order, the
Commission found the Ameritech plan was unreasonably discriminatory and
otherwise unjust and unreasonable in violation of the Communications
Act.
In the Order, the Commission declared the importance of
modernization of telecommunications infrastructure, the introduction of
new technologies, the promotion of competition, and the encouragement
of new interstate and international services to meeting its goals under
the Communications Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurence Povich, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
(202) 418-0953.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Declaratory Ruling and Order in Common Carrier Bureau, IAD File No. 94-
102, adopted January 12, 1995, and released January 23, 1995, with
Commissioner Barrett issuing a statement.
The complete text of the Order and the statement is available for
inspection and copying between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM during normal
business days in the Public Reference Room, Industry Analysis Division,
Common Carrier Bureau, located on the Plaza Level at 1250 23rd Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. and may also be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, at 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. Telephone: 202-857-3800.
Synopsis of Declaratory Order
1. Background
As the largest local exchange carrier in northern Illinois,
Ameritech serves as the administrator of numbering plan area (NPA) 312
(serving Chicago) and NPA 708 (which covers an adjacent suburban area).
NPAs are more popularly known as ``area codes.'' In early 1994,
Ameritech announced that the supply of central office codes within NPA
708 was nearing exhaustion and later presented its plan for relief of
the anticipated shortage. Central office (CO) codes are the three-digit
numbers that follow the NPA and precede the four-digit line number.
Accordingly, each CO code represents about 10,000 telephone line
numbers.
The Ameritech plan included the following elements: Ameritech would
cease providing CO codes in NPA 708 to cellular and paging carriers and
such wireless carriers would be required to ``give back'' to Ameritech
NPA 708 CO [[Page 19256]] codes currently assigned to them. NPA 708 CO
office codes returned by wireless carriers would then be used by
Ameritech to assign NPA 708 CO codes to its own customers, to customers
of competitive access providers, and to other wireline customers.
Ameritech would utilize a new NPA (630) to create an overlay NPA.
This new overlay would cover the same geographic area as the existing
NPAs 708 and 312. With such an ``overlay'' arrangement, a customer in
NPA 708 or 312 could be served by both the new overlay NPA (630) and by
its existing NPA.
Until the new NPA (630) became available, wireless customers
requesting CO codes for NPA 708 would have to accept CO codes from NPA
312. When the new NPA (630) became available, wireless carriers would
then be able to obtain CO codes from either NPA 312 or 630 but not from
NPA 708.
Ameritech petitioned the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) on July
29, 1994, for approval of its plan. Petitioners filed their Petition on
August 4, 1994. The Commission issued a Public Notice seeking comment.
At the release of the Order, the ICC had not yet acted upon Ameritech's
petition.
2. Federal/State Jurisdiction
The Commission explained that the Communications Act establishes a
dual regulatory system of telephone service by granting to the
Commission authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in
wire and radio communication while reserving to the states jurisdiction
with respect to intrastate communications service. While there was no
need for the Commission to take such action in this case, the
Commission did note there might be future situations in which a state's
regulation of a local exchange carrier's numbering activities could
raise the issue of preemption. However, in this case, the Commission
declined to await the outcome of the ICC proceedings because of the
impact on interstate and foreign telecommunications; because of
violations of the Communications Act in parts of Ameritech's plan; and
because of the strong possibility that defects in the Ameritech plan
might be repeated in the relief plans being drawn elsewhere.
3. Federal Policy Objectives
As indicated above, the Commission declared the importance of
modernization of telecommunications infrastructure, the introduction of
new technologies, and the encouragement of new interstate and
international services to meeting its goals under the Communications
Act to make available to all the people of the United States a rapid,
efficient, Nation-wide, and world wide wire and radio communications
service.
The Commission identified competition as the best means for
achieving these objectives and noted that a uniform national system of
numbering is essential to the efficient delivery of telecommunications
services. Because of the importance of such a numbering system, the
Commission declared that NPA codes and related central office codes
should be viewed as essential resources to be shared as fairly and
equitably as possible by all carriers who require such codes to offer
telecommunications services.
In addition, the Commission noted that administration of the NANP
significantly affects the ease with which new telecommunications
services are introduced by existing carriers and that it should also
facilitate marketplace entry of new carriers by making numbering
resources available on an efficient, timely basis.
The Commission, also stated that successful number administration
should not unduly favor or disadvantage any particular industry segment
or group of consumers, that number administration should be largely
technology neutral, and that, as a result, it should not unduly favor
one technology over another.
The Commission further determined that number administrators must
treat all applicants for codes in an impartial manner by providing
telephone resources to them in accordance with the Act. Accordingly,
each carrier's number administration practices and services must be
just, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.
Measured against these principles, the Commission found the
Ameritech plan to be deficient because it would unreasonably
discriminate against wireless carriers and would, therefore, violate
these principles.
4. Unreasonable Discrimination
Petitioners alleged several parts of Ameritech's plan to be
unreasonably discriminatory in violation of Section 202(a) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 202(a): Ameritech's proposal to continue
assigning NPA 708 codes to wireline carriers while excluding paging and
cellular carriers from such assignments (``exclusion proposal'');
Ameritech's proposal to require only paging and cellular carriers to
take back from their subscribers and return to Ameritech all 708
telephone numbers previously assigned to them while wireline carriers
would not be required to do so (``take back'' proposal); and
Ameritech's proposal to assign all new numbers to paging and cellular
exclusively from the existing NPA 312 and the new NPA 630 while
wireline carriers (and perhaps others) may continue to receive such
assignments from NPA 708 (``segregation proposal'').
While acknowledging such impacts on paging and cellular carriers,
Ameritech denied its plan would result in any unjust or unreasonable
discrimination. On the contrary, Ameritech claimed its proposals were
necessary and reasonable because the largest proportion of recent
demand for NPA 708 numbers had come from wireless carriers; transfer of
such carriers to NPA 312 and later NPA 630 from NPA 708 would most
significantly decrease demand for increasingly scarce NPA 708 numbers,
and that such transfer of carriers would not have a significant impact
on either their customers, the network or the dialing plan. Ameritech
also contended its plan did not unreasonably discriminate because the
plan treats alike all providers of wireless services, including
Ameritech's cellular affiliate, and because having such wireless
carriers utilize NPA 312 CO codes instead of NPA 708 CO codes was, in
Ameritech's view, the only feasible conservation measure. Because their
customers' wireless terminals do not have a fixed (hard-wired) location
on the public switched telephone network, Ameritech argued that paging
and cellular carriers, unlike wireline carriers, are able to utilize
NPA 312 CO codes within the NPA 708 geographical area.
The Commission found that Ameritech's ``exclusion,''
``segregation,'' and ``take-back'' proposals violate the prohibition in
the Act against unjust or unreasonable discrimination.
5. Unjust, Unreasonable Conduct
Petitioners also contended that Ameritech's ``exclusion,'' ``take
back,'' and ``segregation'' proposals would constitute unjust and
unreasonable practices in violation of Section 201(b) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 201(b). They further contended that
Ameritech's plan violated applicable industry guidelines because it did
not provide affected parties with a meaningful opportunity to
participate in formulating the plan and because Ameritech failed to
give adequate consideration to the impact of the plan on paging
carriers and their customers. Ameritech asserted that it followed
applicable guidelines in formulating its plan but that if the
Commission finds that the plan conflicts with such
[[Page 19257]] guidelines, Ameritech argues that those guidelines give
it authority to refine conservation procedures as necessary to achieve
code relief. Ameritech also contended that in an emergency situation
such as the one faced in NPA 708, ``first-come, first-serve'' policies
must be suspended. The United States Telephone Association contended
any conflict with such guidelines would not be relevant because such
guidelines have not yet been formally adopted and that, even if formal
guidelines had been adopted, compliance would be voluntary.
The Commission found that Ameritech's ``exclusion,'' ``take-back,''
and ``segregation'' proposals represent unjust and unreasonable
practices under Section 201(b) of the Communications Act and therefore
would be unlawful if implemented. Specifically, the Commission found
that these three facets of Ameritech's plan prevent that plan from
achieving three important objectives: (a) optimal dialing plan; (b)
minimal burden and (c) an uninterrupted supply of codes and related
numbers. The Commission also found that Ameritech's justifications were
not persuasive because those justifications could not override the fact
that these facets of the plan would inhibit competition in the
interstate access market.
6. Delegated Authority
To facilitate future supervision of numbering issues, the
Commission delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau to resolve
future number resources allocation disputes. That Bureau was directed
to resolve such issues in coordination with the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and other Bureaus of the Commission.
7. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 1, 4(i), 201-205, and 403 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201-
205, ad 403, and pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47
CFR 1.2, it is ordered that the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed by
Mobilemedia Communications, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and Page Mart,
Inc., is granted in part and is otherwise denied as set forth herein.
8. It is further ordered that Ameritech's Motion to accept late-
filed comments is hereby accepted.
9. It is further ordered that the Request for Interlocutory Order
filed by Mobilemedia Communications, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and
Page Mart, Inc., is denied as set forth herein.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9186 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M