[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