28924.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE APPROVAL OF NUMBERING PLAN AREA RELIEF FOR THE 208 AREA CODE. )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-T-00-36

ORDER NO.  28924
On November 9, 2000, NeuStar - the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (Administrator or NANPA) – filed a petition requesting the Commission approve a plan to add a new area code to the existing Idaho 208 Numbering Plan Area (NPA). In Order No. 28902, the Commission found that Idaho does not need a new area code if the requisite tools (e.g., number pooling) are made available to the Commission so that it can conserve existing telephone numbers before the projected exhaust date. In the event that Idaho is not permitted to timely optimize existing telephone numbers, the Commission found it appropriate to geographically split Idaho into three area code regions. Given that it has the shortest projected exhaust and the fastest growth rate, the Commission ordered that the southwestern region retain the 208 area code while northern and southeastern Idaho each receive new area codes.
Following the issuance of Order No. 28902, the Commission received five Petitions for Reconsideration or Clarification from telecommunications providers. Taken together, they generally suggest the Commission reconsider its decision: 1) not to order an all-services overlay; 2) to approve a three-way geographic split without additional industry comment; and 3) not to allow the voluntary grandfathering of wireless numbers. The petitions also collectively request clarification of: 1) the Commission’s position on extended permissive dialing for wireless customers; 2) which parties will bear the cost of area code relief public education; and 3) whether number pooling will be required in independent telephone company exchanges. Having fully reviewed the petitions and the record in this matter, the Commission denies the petitions for reconsideration except in regard to requests for extended wireless permissive dialing, which are granted. The Commission further clarifies Order No. 28902 as set forth below.

I. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION/CLARIFICATION
A. Petition from Verizon Wireless
Citing unnecessary use of scarce numbering resources, unbalanced relief and a disproportionate burden on wireless carriers, Verizon Wireless urges the Commission to reconsider its decision to order a geographic split instead of an all-services overlay. The Company is particularly concerned that the three-way split ordered by the Commission “violates applicable statutory and procedural rule requirements” and “deprives all parties of due process by failing to allow presentation of evidence and cross-examination.” Verizon Wireless Petition at 5. Should the Commission continue to order a geographic split, Verizon Wireless asks that 1) an extended permissive dialing period be adopted for wireless carriers to reprogram wireless handsets and 2) the telecommunications industry be allowed to review and analyze any proposed split options in consultation with Staff and NeuStar.
B. Petition from VoiceStream Wireless
VoiceStream Wireless requests the Commission reconsider its decision not to allow voluntary grandfathering of telephone numbers assigned to Type 2 wireless carriers outside southwestern Idaho. According to VoiceStream, grandfathering would avert the unnecessary and disproportionate hardship on tens of thousands of Idaho wireless customers who will be required to change their phone numbers and have their handsets reprogrammed to support the new area codes. VoiceStream asserts that voluntary grandfathering of wireless customers “is reasonable, within the public interest and will not subsequently increase any burden of the relief on Idaho customers or any segment of the industry.” VoiceStream Wireless Petition at 2. It also noted that several state utility commissions, including Virginia, New York and Arizona, have allowed for voluntary grandfathering of wireless numbers for these reasons. Id. If the Commission does not authorize grandfathering of wireless customers, VoiceStream requests an extended permissive dialing period for wireless customers beyond the wireline permissive dialing date to allow customers to get their handsets reprogrammed. Id. at 5.
C. Petition from Qwest Corporation
Qwest Corporation requests reconsideration “by means of consideration of additional comments from the affected parties” for several reasons. Qwest Petition at 1. First, Qwest seeks reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to adopt a three-way geographic split. Qwest does not contest the geographic split itself, only the decision to split Idaho into three area codes. Qwest argues that this inefficiently uses the nation’s area codes and creates severe Numbering Plan Area (NPA) imbalances. The recent NANPA denial of the Commission’s request for two new relief area codes underscores that an FCC appeal is not a wise use of limited Commission resources and jeopardizes the efficient implementation of numbering plan relief measures for Idaho. Id. at 5-6. Thus, Qwest suggests that the Commission adopt one of the two-way geographic splits proposed in Order No. 28819.
Second, Qwest requests the Commission reconsider its denial of wireless carriers’ requests that they be allowed to grandfather certain numbers within the 208 area code for the same reasons articulated above by VoiceStream Wireless. The Company asserts that the Commission’s attempt to uniformly implement 7-digit local dialing “represents an overly zealous effort to effectuate the public’s preference for 7-digit dialing.” Id. at 7. While it respects the public’s wish to retain 7-digit dialing within a geographic area code, Qwest argues that the 10-digit dialing associated with voluntary grandfathering of wireless numbers applies only to calls destined to another area code and is a better alternative to forcing the reprogramming of all wireless handsets. Id. at 7-8.
Qwest generally supports the Commission’s decision to require a Staff/Industry collaborative effort to develop a plan for area code relief and implementation. However, the Company believes all parties concerned need an updated NANPA 208 exhaust estimate to allow for a clear understanding of the required timing for area code relief in light of prefix recovery efforts and number conservation efforts. Qwest further urges the Commission and its Staff to work with independent companies, wireless carriers and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) as well as major wireline carriers to ensure that the responsibility for and cost of educating Idaho customers is shared by all telecommunications service providers. Id. at 9. Qwest also seeks clarification of which parties will bear the cost of public education and argues that all telecommunications service providers proportionately share the expense. Id.
D. Petition from Citizens Telecommunications
Citizens’ Petition for Reconsideration/Clarification focuses on the Commission’s discussion of thousand-block number pooling in Order No. 28902. Its petition states that “in the event the Order was intended to indicate that certain decisions regarding number pooling have already been made, Citizens would respectfully request an opportunity for further proceedings, clarification and/or request reconsideration.” Citizens Petition at 2. Citizens is concerned that number pooling is being considered in Idaho because it estimates that the cost to buy the requisite Local Number Portability (LNP) equipment is between $250,000 and $350,000 with no return on investment. Id. at 3. Given these high costs, Citizens requests clarification/ reconsideration to confirm that number pooling will not be required in the independent telephone company exchanges. Id. Finally, Citizens suggests that the Commission employ number pooling on an exchange-by-exchange basis to determine whether it will be necessary and cost effective. Id.
E. Petition from AT&T Wireless
As previously stated in its comments, AT&T Wireless supports the industry-endorsed all-services overlay plan, but does not necessarily oppose the implementation of a two-way geographic split with the Boise area retaining the 208 area code. However, AT&T Wireless strongly believes the Commission should reconsider its decision to implement a three-way geographic split for several reasons. First, a three-way split is not an efficient use of numbering resources and contributes to a premature exhaust of the North American Numbering Plan. AT&T Wireless Petition at 1. NeuStar’s projections do not take into account the number of conservation measures the Commission is pursuing and even so, the projected lives of these codes do no justify the simultaneous adoption of two additional area codes. Id.
AT&T Wireless also states that the Commission should reconsider its three-way split decision because it does not conform to industry guidelines and thus the Commission will have to petition the FCC to implement it. This in turn will jeopardize timely implementation of area code relief in Idaho.
Finally, AT&T Wireless argues that the Commission should reconsider its decision because it did not provide parties with an adequate opportunity to comment on a three-way geographic split. Id. at 2. The Company notes only one three-way split was proposed in the Notice (Option #8), which was different from the three-way split ultimately adopted by the Commission. After the Commission preliminarily rejected the only proposed three-way geographic split, the Notice directed commenters to focus on the two-way geographic split Options 1 and 2. Because the Commission never issued a subsequent request for comments on the three-way geographic split that was ultimately adopted and AT&T Wireless “strongly believes it is inappropriate to implement a three-way geographic split in Idaho,” the petition asserts that the Commission must allow parties an adequate opportunity to comment on the proposal if the Commission wants to pursue this option. Id.
II. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
A. Standards for Reconsideration
Reconsideration provides an opportunity for an aggrieved person to bring to the Commission’s attention any issue previously determined and provides the Commission with an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Idaho Code § 61-626; Washington Water Power v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.2d 122 (1979). The Commission’s Procedural Rule 331.01 requires that Petitions for Reconsideration must include “a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument that the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Rule 331.03 provides that Petitions for Reconsideration must state whether the petitioner requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories. IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03.
While none of the petitions requested reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, briefs or interrogatories, Qwest requested reconsideration by “consideration of additional comments from the affected parties.” Qwest Petition at 1. However, Qwest did not elaborate on which issues should be the subject of such comment. The petitions of Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless did not explicitly request reconsideration in the form of additional comments but rather implied that comments were necessary only if the Commission wishes to pursue the three-way geographic split plan or one not specifically raised in prior Notices. Verizon Wireless Petition at 1, 2 and 5. AT&T Wireless Petition at 2.
In instances where an aggrieved party asks the Commission to reconsider its decision, it may do so based upon the record. Accordingly, the Commission will review its Order No. 28902 based upon the record and the arguments contained in the Petitions for Reconsideration.
B. All-Services Overlay
Verizon Wireless claims that the Commission’s decision to approve a three-way geographic split was made without sufficient factual support in the record and overlooked the attributes of an all-services overlay. Verizon Wireless Petition at 3 and 5. The Commission does not deny that an all-services overlay has its advantages. As has been previously argued by the industry, the positive by-products of an all-services overlay include leaving current telephone numbers unchanged, maximizing the life expectancy of the new NPA and eliminating the need for wireless handsets to be reprogrammed.
Like all area code relief plans, the all-services overlay has its drawbacks. The chief overlay complaint is that it will require 10-digit dialing for local calls. Although the industry commented that an overlay is easier for customers to understand, public comment indicated that an overlay would actually cause confusion by making it difficult for customers to distinguish between local and toll calls. Even though the industry argues that an overlay would allow subsequent relief projects to be implemented more easily, some commenters considered it advisable for Idaho to keep its future area code relief options open rather than commit itself to overlays in perpetuity. Although much has been made of the burden a geographic split will create for wireless carriers, private telephone system owners have indicated that an overlay would create a substantial reprogramming burden for them as well.
Although our decision is not “based solely on some consumers’ preference for a split” as was suggested by Verizon Wireless’ Petition, the Commission does afford substantial weight to the wishes of customers who must live with this relief plan for the foreseeable future. It is the responsibility of the Commission to weigh conflicting testimony. Although we received conflicting testimony regarding whether an all-services overlay or a geographic split was preferable, we accord greater weight to public testimony and comments given that area code relief is primarily an issue of convenience and not revenue.
Moreover, the Commission finds that there is value in having area codes represent distinct areas rather than intermingling them in each locality. Although the FCC may require national 10-digit dialing in the future, the Commission finds the majority of Idahoans want to enjoy 7-digit local dialing while it lasts. While geographic splits can be undone if overlays are subsequently desired or national 10-digit dialing is implemented, implementation of an overlay now would eliminate any flexibility in future Idaho area code relief. For these reasons, the Commission finds that there is sufficient factual support to justify implementation of a geographic split as opposed to an all-services overlay.
C. Criticism of the Three-Way Split
Verizon Wireless, Qwest and AT&T Wireless requested that the Commission specifically reconsider its decision to impose a three-way geographic split to achieve area code relief. These petitioners primarily argue that reconsideration is necessary because the three-way split requires inefficient use of national area codes, creates imbalanced NPA lives and jeopardizes timely Idaho area code relief by necessitating an FCC waiver of industry guidelines.
In response to the argument that the two new area codes necessitated by the three-way split constitute an inefficient use of a “scarce” resource, the Commission notes that a recent FCC Order cites an October 16-17, 2001 NANPA report to the North American Numbering Council (NANC). Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration at 3, FN 2, 2001 WL 1658101 (CC Docket 99-200)(December 28, 2001). In its recent study, the NANPA estimates that the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) exhaust is likely to occur well beyond 2020 and will not likely occur before 2025-2034 with the introduction of thousand-block number pooling. Id. Under the two-way split options considered by the Commission, Idaho may still need a third area code in this timeframe anyway. Since Idaho will need a third area code, the Commission finds it reasonable to implement a comprehensive area code relief plan now in the form of a three-way split rather than initiate this process again in a few years.
As explained in Order No. 28902, the Commission approved the three-way geographic split for several reasons. It became obvious to the Commission in the course of public comment and testimony that considerable support existed for a three-way split, even though it was not an option under serious consideration when the Commission issued its Notices for comment. It recognizes the three regions that naturally comprise the State of Idaho and is consequently a relief plan that customers can easily relate to. The Commission favored a three-way split because it achieves area code relief that will last longer than the eight or ten years found in a two-way split. This is consistent with the public’s desire for area code stability and a comprehensive solution to Idaho’s “number shortage.” In the event that additional area code relief is necessary, future relief plans can be limited in scope to just the area that will likely need it – southwestern Idaho. We found these arguments to be reasonable and in Idaho’s interest in December when we issued Order No. 28902, and continue to find them persuasive today.
For these reasons, we believe the Commission’s finding that a three-way geographic split will create 208 area code relief, is in the public interest, and is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Based upon our review of the record, the written comments, and the testimony offered at our four public hearings, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to support our conclusion to adopt a three-way geographic split relief plan. Idaho Code § 62-305.
D. Opportunity to Comment on the Three-Way Split
Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless (and possibly Qwest) contend that the Commission did not give interested parties adequate opportunity to comment on the three-way split option ultimately adopted in Order No. 28902. Verizon Wireless Petition at 1-2; AT&T Wireless Petition at 2. The Commission’s Notice and Order Nos. 28819 and 28859 sought comments on area code relief options and the latter specifically solicited public input addressing which of two two-way geographic splits was preferable. The Commission focused upon these two two-way geographic splits in part because the record had not been adequately developed regarding whether the greater Twin Falls area should be included in southwest or southeast Idaho – unlike the merits of an all-service or technology-specific overlay. Consequently, the Commission issued a Notice of Extended Comment Deadline soliciting written comments “which of the two proposed geographic split options should be adopted, and if split, which region should retain the 208 area code.” Order No. 28859 at 6.
Although the Commission did not specifically seek comments and testimony regarding a three-way split, neither did it prohibit or reject the submission of comments or testimony addressing a three-way split. Indeed, twenty-one (21) written comments and seven (7) public witnesses specifically addressed the merits of a three-way split. Order No. 28902 at 6. In addition, seven pubic witnesses testified on the need for a three-way split. Id. at 7. Neither Verizon Wireless nor AT&T Wireless objected to any of the written comments or public testimony on the need for a three-way split. Indeed, AT&T Wireless did not attend any of the public hearings and Verizon Wireless was present only at the hearing in Coeur d’Alene. Although given the opportunity, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless did not cross-examine witnesses nor request the opportunity to submit additional evidence or post-hearing briefs. Finally, the Commission has had the benefit of industry comment on the concept of a three-way split. A three-way geographic split was first proposed by the telecommunications industry at its September 28, 2000 meeting with NeuStar to discuss area code relief alternatives. Although not identical to the three-way split adopted by the Commission, the industry-proposed three-way split was roughly similar in that it divided the major populations centers into three regions and placed the greater Twin Falls area in the southeastern region. This three-way split proposal was present as Alternative “I-9” in NeuStar’s Application and as Option #8 in Commission Order No. 28819. Industry members had the opportunity to comment on the three-way split both orally and in writing.
For these reasons, we do not believe that Verizon Wireless or AT&T Wireless were prejudiced or disadvantaged. The Commission has reviewed the analyses of the Commission’s three-way split in the Petitions for Reconsideration from Verizon Wireless, Qwest and AT&T Wireless and addressed their concerns previously in this Order. The Commission is convinced that it would not benefit from any further comment on this matter. Consequently, the reconsideration requests from Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless and Qwest regarding a perceived lack of opportunity to comment are denied.
E. Grandfathering of Wireless Customers
Qwest and VoiceStream Wireless petitioned the Commission for reconsideration of its decision to deny the voluntary grandfathering of 208 wireless telephone numbers. Voluntary grandfathering would allow wireless customers outside southwestern Idaho to choose whether to have their telephone reprogrammed to the new area code or to maintain their existing 208 area code. VoiceStream argues that unless Order No. 28902 is revised, “all of the pre-implementation date wireless customers in the southeast and northern regions of Idaho will have to return their phones to change their telephone numbers.” VoiceStream Petition at 2. Moreover, its Petition states that grandfathering these customers’ telephone numbers “is reasonable, within the pubic interest and will not subsequently increase any burden of the relief on Idaho consumers or any segment of the industry.” Id. Qwest characterizes the Commission’s decision to allow wireless grandfathering as “an overly zealous effort to effectuate the public’s preference for 7-digit dialing.” Qwest Petition at 7.
Although the Commission wants to honor the public’s desire to maintain 7-digit local dialing, the Commission finds that grandfathering wireless telephone numbers will create confusion and thus burden the dialing public. If wireless customers outside southwest Idaho are allowed to keep their 208 telephone numbers, callers will not know when to dial seven or ten digits unless they can differentiate between: 1) cellular and wireline prefixes, and 2) which wireless customers have chosen to be grandfathered. In effect, grandfathering would create area codes that will no longer be exclusively associated with a geographic area. Similarly, the dialing public would not readily know if a call was local or long distance by looking at the area code.
Rather than accommodate area code relief, the Commission also finds that grandfathering wireless customers would actually hamper it. A major drawback of voluntary grandfathering is that two matching sets of prefixes (one in 208 and one in the new area code) must be assigned to the wireless service provider so it can offer the customer the choice to keep 208 or adopt the new area code. This would eliminate approximately 100 prefixes from assignment availability in both 208 and the new area codes. For example, this would increase the existing demand for 208 prefixes by setting aside nearly 1 million numbers and thus shorten its projected life, which is already shorter than those of the new area codes. The potential effect of voluntary grandfathering is not included in NANPA’s projected lives for 208 and the new area codes, so there is no official estimate of how much those projected lives would be shortened by voluntary grandfathering. Given the magnitude of the numbers that would be tied up by voluntary grandfathering, the projected lives of each region would likely be shortened by a number of years.
The Commission is cognizant of the inconvenience some wireless customers and providers will experience in order to manually reprogram wireless handsets. Although wireless carriers argue that this is a “disproportionate burden,” wireline customers in northern and southeastern Idaho have a comparable burden in that they must also change their telephone numbers and dialing habits. Nearly one in four Idahoans is a wireless customer, yet only 10 of the 314 individuals who filed written comments wanted an overlay and its 10-digit dialing requirement. One cannot avoid the conclusion that a significant portion of the 314 commenters are both wireline and wireless customers. Consequently, the Commission infers that these wireline/wireless commenters prefer the 7-digit dialing that accompanies a geographic split and are willing to suffer the inconvenience of reprogramming their wireless handsets to achieve this result.
For the above reasons, the Commission finds that it is not appropriate to grandfather the current 208 telephone numbers of wireless customers located outside the southwestern Idaho region. VoiceStream Wireless requested in the event the Commission denied reconsideration of wireless grandfathering that it allow for an extended permissive dialing period for wireless customers beyond the wireline permissive dialing date. We now turn to that issue.

F. Extension of Wireless Permissive Dialing
Because Order No. 28902 was silent on the issue of extended permissive dialing for wireless customers, Verizon Wireless and VoiceStream Wireless seek “reconsideration” of this issue. The Commission acknowledges that the manual reprogramming of handsets will take time and human nature generally indictates that customers are likely to procrastinate doing so until the end of permissive dialing. Consequently, the Commission finds it is reasonable to allow extended permissive dialing to accommodate the needs of wireless providers and customers.
When issuing Order No. 28902, we anticipated that wireless providers (together with Staff and other Industry members) would recommend extended permissive dialing for wireless customers when they filed a dialing schedule with the Commission by April 1, 2002. Order No. 28902 at 16. Although the Commission cannot indicate the length of this extended permissive dialing without receiving additional exhaust and scheduling information, we currently intend to incorporate it into the area code relief implementation schedule. Thus, to the extent that this clarification constitutes “reconsideration,” the reconsideration requests of Verizon Wireless and VoiceStream Wireless are granted as to extended permissive dialing.
G. Thousand-Block Number Pooling
Although the focus of Order No. 28902 was area code relief, the Commission discussed the effect that thousand-block pooling would likely have on the need for a new area code. Because its Parma, Wilder and Homedale exchanges are within the Boise MSA, Citizens is concerned that it will be required to purchase the requisite Local Number Portability (LNP) equipment, which is quite expensive and offers no return on investment. Thus Citizens requests clarification/reconsideration to confirm that number pooling will not be required in the independent telephone company exchanges. Citizens Petition at 3.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC jurisdiction over Thousand-Block Number Pooling. 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2). Under the FCC’s current rules, certain carriers are exempted from pooling requirements, e.g., paging carriers and carriers outside of the largest 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) that have not received a request to deploy LNP from a competing carrier. Until the 2000 Census was released, Citizens would have likely qualified under the latter exemption. However, the Boise City MSA now ranks as the 97th largest MSA and its carriers are thus subject to the LNP requirements. According the FCC, “the LNP and pooling requirements extend to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they have received a specific request to provide LNP from another carrier.” Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration at 55, ¶ 124, 2001 WL 1658101 (CC Docket 99-200) (December 28, 2001). The FCC has given carriers in areas added to the top 100 MSAs “a six month period after release of the updated list to comply with LNP and pooling capability requirements.” Id. at 56, ¶ 127. Although this Commission cannot grant any relief in this regard, Citizens may wish to consider petitioning the FCC for a waiver of these requirements.
H. Cost of Area Code Relief Public Education
Qwest Corporation petitioned for clarification of several issues regarding area code relief public education. Qwest first noted its concern that “the Commission (and hence the Staff and industry members) gain a clear understanding of the required timing for area code relief by obtaining an updated estimate from NANPA that considers the Commission’s NXX recovery efforts and implementation of number conservation measures.” Qwest Petition at 9. Because this information is required to establish proper permissive and mandatory dialing periods, the Commission intends to obtain an updated exhaust estimate from the Administrator prior to giving final approval to any proposed relief implementation schedule.
Although Qwest believes that “the implementation process will be hindered if the Commission pursues the three-way geographic split that has been rejected by NANPA,” we remain hopeful that the FCC will timely grant Idaho’s three-way split a waiver from the industry guidelines. Id. The Commission recognizes the uncertainty inherent in proposing implementation schedules and educational plans given our appeal to the FCC for a waiver and the FCC’s further release of its number pooling rollout schedule. Even though we cite April 1, 2002 below as a deadline, we expect Staff will advise the Commission about the need to alter this date depending upon the decision made by the FCC or if the 208 exhaust date is pushed back.
Qwest urges the Commission and its Staff to work with all service providers (including independent companies, wireless carriers and local exchange carriers) to ensure that the responsibility for educating Idaho customers “is shared by all telecommunications service providers who benefit from serving Idaho.” Id. The Commission believes that public education should be a collaborative effort among Staff, local exchange carriers, and wireless providers. As we indicated in our prior Order, Staff and Industry members shall devise an implementation schedule and a plan to promote public education for submission to the Commission by April 1, 2002. Order No. 28902 at 16.
The Commission envisions a two-tiered approach to educate the public regarding these area code changes. First, the Commission finds that it is the responsibility of each carrier to advise its customers on: 1) what and where the new area codes will be; 2) when the change will occur; and 3) the dates during which permissive and mandatory dialing will occur. Carriers may wish to include a map of the three regions in Idaho and their corresponding area codes. Second, the Commission finds that a more general public notice of area code relief will occur in the form of Public Service Announcements (PSAs) and media outreach, including newspaper, television and radio. To ensure that carriers fulfill their public education obligations, local exchange carriers shall advise the Commission in writing of their individual and collective educational plans by April 1, 2002.
In response to Qwest’s request that educational costs be proportionally allocated across all telecommunications service providers, the Commission finds that educating the public regarding change in area codes is a cost of doing business. We agree in principle that it is the financial responsibility of all telecommunications service providers to inform their customers of the impeding area code change. Under Idaho Code § 62-616, the Commission has the authority to investigate and resolve telecommunication service subscriber complaints that concern the quality and availability of local exchange service. However, the Commission does not have statutory authority to collect educational funds from partially regulated or unregulated service providers. Moreover, there is no regulatory mechanism that can collect money from them for educational purposes. Given these limitations, the Commission orders service carriers that are partially regulated under Titles 61 and 62 of the Idaho Code to implement educational programs as described above. We strongly encourage the unregulated wireless providers to participate in the Staff/Industry working group that will propose a relief implementation schedule and educational plan to the Commission, but we cannot compel their participation or financial contribution.
III. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has authority under 47 C.F.R. § 52.19 to develop and recommend to the NANP Administrator an area code relief plan for Idaho’s 208 NPA.
Following our review of the Petitions for Reconsideration and the record in this case, we find that there is substantial and competent evidence to support our findings in Order No. 28902 that the three-way geographic split is the appropriate relief plan for the 208 NPA. The Commission further finds that interested parties had an adequate opportunity to comment on area code relief alternatives. Although it will temporarily inconvenience wireless providers and customers, the Commission finds that it is not appropriate to grandfather wireless telephone numbers given the subsequent area code confusion and ten-digit local dialing that would result were grandfathering implemented. However, the Commission finds that extended permissive dialing for wireless customers is reasonable and should be included in the Staff/Industry area code relief implementation proposal. Because all telecommunications providers benefit from informed implementation of area code relief, the Commission finds that the cost of educating the public regarding area code relief is an ordinary business expense to be borne by each telecommunications provider.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Verizon Wireless, VoiceStream Wireless, Qwest Corporation, Citizens Telecommunications and AT&T Wireless in Case No. GNR-T-00-36 are denied except in regards to requests for extended wireless permissive dialing, which are granted. The Petitions for Clarification by Qwest Corporation and Citizens Telecommunications are granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each telecommunications carrier shall individually advise its customers on: 1) what and where the new area codes will be; 2) when the change will occur; and 3) the dates during which permissive and mandatory dialing will occur. Individual carriers may wish to include a map of the three regions in Idaho and their corresponding area codes. To ensure that carriers fulfill their public education obligations, local exchange carriers shall advise the Commission in writing of their individual educational plans by April 1, 2002.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a more general public notice of area code relief will occur in the form of Public Service Announcements (PSAs) and media outreach, including newspaper, television and radio. Staff and Industry members shall advise the Commission in writing of their collective area code relief implementation and educational proposal by April 1, 2002.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. GNR-T-00-36 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of January 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

____________________________________
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:GNRT0036_ln4_recon

1
ORDER NO. 28924

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 11, 2002