20011226Qwest Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
Mary S. Hobson ( ISB# 2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation and
Qwest Wireless, LLP
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 ) CASE NO. GRN-T-00-36
208 AREA CODE )
)
Petition for Reconsideration
Qwest Corporation and Qwest Wireless, LLC (collectively, “Qwest”) pursuant to Idaho
Code § 61-626 and Rule 331 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (IPUC Rules of Procedure), IDAPA 31.01.01.331, petition the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (Commission) to reconsider Order No. 28902. Qwest requests reconsideration by
means of consideration of additional comments from the affected parties. The grounds for this
request for reconsideration are set out below. In addition, pursuant to IPUC Rule of Procedure
325, Qwest seeks clarification of a portion of Order No. 28902.
BACKGROUND
This matter was originally initiated by petition of the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) on behalf of the telecommunications industry for relief for the 208 area
code currently in use throughout the state of Idaho. Before filing the petition, NANPA convened
an industry meeting to review and discuss alternative forms of relief to the 208 area code. The
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
industry participants, which included Qwest representatives, reviewed various alternatives and
agreed to recommend an all-services overlay plan that would overlay the entire 208 Numbering
Plan Area (NPA) with a new area code.
In its Order No. 28819, entered August 23, 2001, this Commission asked the parties to
comment upon two geographic split alternatives that would retain the 208 area code for a portion
of the state while assigning a new area code to another portion. Qwest filed comments, dated
September 13, 2001, in which it supported the industry-preferred all-services overlay alternative.
In these comments, Qwest also discussed the two geographic split alternatives set out by the
Commission. Qwest expressed its view that Option 1, with the assignment of the new area code
to “Area A”, i.e. the north and eastern parts of the state, would also be acceptable, provided that
wireless providers in Area A were given the option to grandfather their existing 208 NXX codes.
Order No. 28902 (“the Order”) rejected the industry’s preferred alternative, which had
received support from all of the industry participants in this case. The Order also adopted a
three-way geographic split alternative that was unlike anything that had previously been
provided to the industry for comment. Finally the Order rejected the requests of wireless
providers that they either be allowed to grandfather 208 NXX codes or that other
accommodations be made for the unique problems faced by those carriers.
RECONSIDERATION DISCUSSION
Qwest seeks reconsideration of two decisions contained in Order No. 28902. The first
issue concerns the Commission’s decision to adopt a three-way geographic split. The other
concern is the Commission’s decision to deny the requests of wireless carriers that they be
allowed the option to grandfather certain NXX’s within the 208 area code. The discussion of
these points requires development of the context within which they arise.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
1. Number Optimization and the Timing of Relief.
At page eight of the Order, the Commission states that it is presently pursuing several
number conservation measures that could forestall the need for a new area code, if timely
implemented. Qwest agrees that number conservation measures could help achieve this benefit
but feels constrained to point out that these measures are not a substitute for timely area code
relief. The Commission itself acknowledged this fact in its filing with the FCC for advancement
of the Boise MSA in the national roll-out of pooling.
While 30 NXX's have been reclaimed (or are in the process of reclamation) through
the Commission’s conservation efforts, the future opportunity of identifying vast new resources
of unused NXX's is somewhat limited. These 30 codes have been recovered due to FCC
numbering resource utilization requirements enacted in late 2000 and a finer scrutiny by the
Idaho Commission during 2001 requiring all service providers to adhere to stricter utilization and
conservation standards. It is unlikely that in the future the Commission will be able to contain
the same level of success in recovering codes.
Similarly, rate center consolidation may prove to be an effective form of number
conservation, but it is unlikely that it will significantly postpone exhaust of the 208 area code.
And, although the Commission found that thousand-block number pooling has “significant
potential for promoting the efficient number usage,”1 Qwest believes it may be unrealistic to
conclude that such measures will eliminate the exhaust of the 208 area code, even if they are
implemented on an expedited schedule. Further, because the Commission may not be successful
in persuading the FCC to alter its tentative schedule for implementation of thousand-block
number pooling, this tool may not be available soon enough to significantly delay the
requirement of area code relief.
It appears that the Commission is of two minds on the subject of number conservation
measures. At the top of page ten of the Order, the Commission refers to area code relief as a
“preventable” “bureaucratic exercise.” Yet, later on page ten the Order states, “although
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
conservation measures may delay the need to implement a new area code, the FCC makes it clear
that number conservation is not a substitute for area code relief.” Qwest suggests that this
apparent uncertainty about the need for area code relief could be alleviated by requesting that
NANPA reassess the 208 NPA exhaust situation, considering such factors as implementation of
number conservation measures, as well as the impact of recently returned NXX codes. Such a
reassessment could put the Commission and the industry on the “same page” when it comes to
determining the urgency of 208 area code relief and the appropriate timeline for its
implementation.
Ultimately, Qwest believes, the best approach for the Idaho Commission to consider in
managing Idaho’s telephone number resources will incorporate both number conservation
measures and carefully planned NPA relief.
2. Three-Way Geographical Split
Qwest supports the Commission’s efforts to adopt an area code relief plan that “seek[s] to
minimize end user confusion” while balancing “cost-effectiveness, minimum customer impact,
and long-lasting relief.”2 Further, Qwest respects the efforts the Commission has undertaken to
adopt an area code relief plan that is responsive to the input of consumers, even where that input
disagreed with the industry recommendations. Nonetheless, Qwest asks that the Commission
reconsider its decision to adopt a three-way geographical split as the solution for 208 area code
relief.
As the Commission knows, the FCC mandates that relief plans result in the most effective
long-term use possible of all area codes serving a given area and that severe imbalances resulting
in a difference in NPA lifetimes of more than 10 years are to be avoided.3 Qwest asserts that the
three-way split advocated by the Commission falls short on both counts.

(…continued)
1 Order, p. 10.2 Id. at p. 2, quoting NPA Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines at § 2.4.
3 See NPA Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines § 5(h).
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
Even though proponents of a three-way split felt that it would save time and money to
divide Idaho into its three natural geographic regions, this approach overlooks the fact that
NPA’s are a national resource. As the Commission itself noted4, Idaho is the thirteenth largest
state geographically but has a relatively small population of approximately 1.3 million people.
Qwest believes that the population and growth characteristics of Idaho simply do not justify
dedicating a third NPA to this state at this time. Under the Commission’s proposal one of the
new NPA’s has a projected life of 40 years. That same resource could undoubtedly be put to
more efficient use somewhere else in the United States or Canada. While Qwest can certainly
sympathize with customers who want to avoid future area code changes as long as possible, this
does not justify inefficient use of a scare national resource and ignoring FCC requirements.
Nor do the geographical characteristics and rural nature of Idaho justify the use of three
area codes as the Commission suggests. Presently, all of the socioeconomic and geographical
differences that the Commission points to as justification for three area codes are covered over
by the single 208 area code. There is nothing unique to Idaho that suggests that it now needs to
differentiate between parts of the state with separate area codes.
The recent action5 of NANPA in denying the Commission’s request for two new relief
NPA codes underscores that this Commission should reconsider its decision on a three-way
geographical split. While the Commission apparently anticipated this result6, it does not appear
that appealing NANPA’s decision to the FCC is a wise use of limited Commission resources that
could be better utilized in seeking priority for thousand-block pooling efforts in Idaho or for
other more pressing measures. In addition, the uncertainty that is created by pursuing a plan for
Idaho that has been denied by NANPA and that appears patently inconsistent with FCC
requirements, jeopardizes the efficient implementation of numbering plan relief measures for
Idaho. The Commission can meet the needs of Idaho customers for relative stability and
predictability in their area code assignments by adopting one of the two-way geographical splits

4 Order, p. 8.5 See letter of Ronald R. Conners, Director, NANPA to Jean D. Jewell, Commission
Secretary, IPUC dated December 17, 2001.6 See, Order, p. 14.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
that were proposed in Order No. 28819. It is not necessary, or desirable to pursue a controversial
alternative that yields no real benefits to Idaho over the next decade.
Furthermore, Qwest cautions that the situation presented in Idaho today is not similar to
that faced in Missouri and Florida7 when the FCC approved deviations from the NPA Relief
Planning Guidelines. In 1998, NXX growth was at an all time high and the FCC had not yet
required service providers to adhere to a number of conservation measures. Hence, subsequent
relief in less than five years was a threat because there was limited potential for number
conservation measures. Thousand-block number pooling was still in the concept stage and rate
center consolidation was not common. Today these conservation measures have been
implemented which may cause the FCC to be less sympathetic to NPA relief proposals that do
not adhere to its guidelines.
Even though creating long-lasting relief is one of the primary objectives of a relief plan,8
this objective alone does not justify the three-way split adopted in the Order. The requirements
that the nation’s numbering resources be used efficiently and that Idaho develop a workable plan
that can be readily implemented outweigh the perceived benefits of the Commission’s plan and
dictate that another proposal be adopted.
7 See Order, p. 15, “We believe that special circumstances exist in Idaho, as they did in
Missouri and Florida, which justify deviation from NPA Relief Planning Guidelines.”8 Order, p. 15, referencing, NPA Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines at § 2.4.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
3. Grandfathering for Wireless Carriers
The wireless providers that commented in this case all expressed a concern that a
geographic split would inconvenience wireless customers who would be forced to take their
phones to their providers to get them reprogrammed with the new area code. This is a concern
unique to some wireless consumers, and is not a concern shared by wireline consumers. There
was consensus that this greatly increases the workload of wireless call center employees, and
creates a hardship unique to wireless consumers. As a result, Qwest Wireless, along with other
wireless providers, requested that wireless service providers have the option to “grandfather”
their 208 NXX codes to avoid the manual reprogramming that would be required if a geographic
split alternative were adopted. No party filed written comments in opposition to this position
and, to the best of Qwest’s understanding, the members of the public who testified at the
hearings did not directly address this point.
Nevertheless, the Order denies this request on the grounds that “grandfathering some
wireless customers in a local calling area while other wireline and wireless customers change
their area code would result in some local calls requiring 7-digits and others requiring 10-
digits.”9 The Commission reasoned that because “the public overwhelmingly prefers 7-digit
dialing,” “the Commission seeks to uniformly effectuate that wish.”10
Qwest submits that this represents an overly zealous effort to effectuate the public’s
preference for 7-digit dialing. While Qwest respects the public’s wish to retain 7-digit dialing
within a geographic area code, the 10-digit dialing associated with optional “grandfathering” of
wireless NXX codes applies only to calls destined to another area code. In the context of
grandfathered wireless codes, 10-digit dialing will only be required to and from wireless
customers whose carrier has chosen this option. While it is true that this constitutes less than
perfect implementation of the public’s wish to avoid 10-digit dialing, Qwest believes that
9 Id. p. 16.10 Id.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
preserving this option for wireless carriers is the better alternative to forcing the reprogramming
of all wireless sets.
Qwest understands that any introduction of 10-digit dialing in Idaho would be a change,
because for over 50 years there has only been one area code in the state. This initial reaction to a
dialing change is typical and has been experienced across the country in other NPA relief
situations. Qwest respects the opinion of the Idaho citizens, but also points out successful
conversion to full local 10-digit dialing has been achieved in select portions of Colorado and
Oregon, and a significant measure of 10-digit local dialing has been successfully implemented
between the multiple area codes comprising the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and Phoenix,
Arizona metropolitan areas. There are also numerous examples of 10-digit local dialing around
the country. Qwest believes that limited 10-digit dialing will be accepted by Idaho customers for
those cases in which wireless carriers opt for grandfathering NXXs within the 208 area code.
ISSUES FOR CLARIFICATION
The Staff’s written comments pointed out that public education was an important
feature of any area code relief plan. The Order recognized this fact and reiterated Staff’s
suggestions that a combination of educational approaches such as bill-stuffers, press releases,
public announcements, and perhaps workshops in schools, businesses, retirement facilities and
community centers, be implemented.11 Based upon this input, the Commission ordered industry
members and Staff to “create a plan with a proposed schedule for accomplishing technical
changes, educating the public, and dates to begin permissive and mandatory dialing within the
two new NPAs.” 12
As a general proposition, Qwest supports the Commission’s decision to require a Staff/
industry collaborative effort to develop these critical elements of the implementation plan for
area code relief. However because the issues surrounding implementation are complex and
require careful planning, Qwest remains concerned that the Commission (and hence and 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
11 Order, pp. 5-6.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 9
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
efforts and implementation of number conservation measures. In addition, Qwest reiterates its
belief that the implementation process will be hindered if the Commission pursues the three-way
geographic split that has been rejected by NANPA. All of this is important because public
education plans cannot be prepared in any relevant detail until a final NPA relief plan is
developed and firm permissive and mandatory dates are ordered.
Assuming the issues of the form and timing of area code relief are settled, Qwest believes
that there are other points with regard to this part of the Order that require clarification. The first
of these is the question responsibility. Qwest understands that, as the largest provider of wireline
local exchange service, it has a significant responsibility to help educate customers about the
changes they will experience with area code relief. However, Idaho telecommunication
customers are served by a variety of other service providers including independent companies,
wireless carriers and CLECs. Some of these entities have not participated in the discussions
before this Commission. Qwest urges the Commission and its Staff to work with these other
entities as well as the major wireline carriers to assure that the responsibility for education, as
well as the associated costs, of Idaho consumers is shared by all telecommunications service
providers who benefit from serving Idaho customers.
The responsibility of cost related to public education needs to be addressed by the
Commission. Qwest submits that the costs of public education should be proportionately
allocated across all telecommunications service providers and not simply borne by the regulated,
or partially regulated, incumbent wireline companies. Furthermore, the Commission may
consider collecting funds for these projected costs from service providers prior to
implementation, and having the funds held by a neutral third party.
CONCLUSION
Qwest appreciates this opportunity to respond to the Commission’s Order. Qwest
respects the difficult position that the Commission faces in making changes to telephone service
that affect all Idaho customers. Where the preferences of customers and industry do not

(…continued)12 Id. p. 16.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 10
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033
coincide, such matters are even more difficult. Qwest’s Petition is not intended to seek
reconsideration of the core decision of the Commission that NPA relief is best achieved for
Idaho through a geographic split. Rather, Qwest is focusing on the efficiency of a three-way
split and the need for certainty about how Idaho will proceed in preparation for relief
implementation.
Similarly, Qwest supports the position articulated by the Commission and Staff that
implementing NPA relief will require a significant amount of planning and education. Qwest’s
request for clarification relates only to the scope of responsibility for this key implementation
strategy.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____day of December, 2001.
STOEL RIVES LLP

Mary S. Hobson
Attorneys for Qwest Corporation and
Qwest Wireless, LLP
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 11
Boise-133910.1 0029164- 00033