WASHINGTON-The telecommunications industry and the Federal Communications Commission late Thursday held off an attempt by two members of Congress to allow states to make decisions regarding the allocation of telephone numbers.
The allocation of telephone numbers is a critical issue for the wireless industry. Just last month, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association told the FCC in comments filed that access to telephone numbers is as critical as radio-frequency spectrum.
An amendment to the FCC spending bill would have required the FCC to complete its rule making on the allocation of telephone numbers by the end of March. If it failed, the states could have implemented number conservation measures on their own, without federal oversight.
The Personal Communications Industry Association was delighted the amendment was defeated.
“The FCC has the proper authority to assign and allocate telephone numbers, not the states. Any changes made to numbering policy must be done on a national scale, not on a state-by-state basis,” said PCIA President Jay Kitchen.
CTIA also was pleased the FCC would remain in control of numbering policy.
“The states’ unwillingness to administer timely area-code relief, and their insistence on adopting inherently inefficient and discriminatory numbering allocation methods, is effectively hampering the [FCC’s] goals … it would be penny wise and pound foolish for the [FCC] to focus on carriers who strand numbering resources by the thousands and ignore the stranding of millions of numbers due to parochial state decisions,” said Michael F. Altschul, CTIA vice president and general counsel.
The FCC proposed number conservation rules in May. The notice of proposed rule making sought comment on a variety of conservation measures.
One of the conservation measures, number pooling, is an anathema to the wireless industry because it claims that for number pooling to be accomplished, local number portability must be implemented. LNP must be implemented on a nationwide scale for roaming to continue, the industry says. In February, the wireless industry won relief from instituting LNP until Nov. 24, 2002. Most states would institute number pooling, and therefore LNP, much sooner.
The amendment was hard to defeat because members of Congress had heard from their constituents how much they hate having to transition to new area codes, said David Murray, PCIA director of legislative affairs, before the vote. It failed by a vote of 169 to 256.
Members of Congress were also hearing from state regulators who feel they can do a better job of conserving numbers than the FCC currently is doing. For example, the office of Henry M. Duque of the California Public Utility Commission called every member of the California congressional delegation in support of the amendment, said Jessica Zufolo of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). “This is a big issue for the states,” Zufolo said.
NARUC’s support was highly touted by one of the sponsors of the amendment, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who read from a letter from Bob Rowe, chairman of the NARUC telecommunications committee. The letter supported the goals of the amendment, Kucinich said.
“Telephone-number exhaustion is perhaps the most heated and controversial issue confronting state public utility commissions in large and medium-sized states … State public utility commissions have taken a proactive and constructive approach to numbering issues,” said Rowe in his letter.
“Expanded state commission ability to mitigate and respond to number exhaustion is consistent with the cooperative federalist design of the Telecommunications Act [of 1996], is consistent with the development of competition, and is the right thing to do for telecommunications customers,” continued the letter.
While having the support of state regulators, the legislation did not have the support of federal regulators. FCC Chairman William Kennard said he has committed to House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-Va.) to have numbering conservation rules out by March. “I don’t think it is necessary to have comprehensive new legislation in the numbering area,” Kennard said before the vote.
During debate on the amendment, Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House telecommunications subcommittee, came to the floor and declared, “The Commerce Committee has examined this amendment and urges [members] to oppose this amendment.”
Tauzin’s characterization surprised Zufolo, who said before the vote, “I think it is ambitious to say that everyone on the Commerce Committee opposes this.”
When the votes were cast, one Republican committee member, Rep. Edward Whitfield of Kentucky, voted in favor of the amendment along with 12 committee Democrats.
Notwithstanding its defeat, Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), the other sponsor of the amendment, “feels he was successful in bringing the issue to the forefront and to the attention of the FCC. He is hopeful they will take action on their own” to move to 1000 block pooling, said Bass’ spokeswoman Sally Tibet.
Tibet said she was not aware of the wireless industry’s concerns regarding 1000 block pooling and it was her impression that the technology existed. She said she would do additional research into “this new argument.”
