 Inyo County’s current 760 area code could be a thing of the past. The California Public Utilities Commission will discuss overturning a decision earlier this year that allowed Inyo to retain 760 instead of requiring a new three-digit prefix for all new phone lines in the area. Photo Mike Bodine By Mike Gervais
Register Staff
8-28-2008
It looks like Inyo County has one more stone to throw in the David and Goliath match that pits the interests of the sparsely populated Eastern Sierra against those of much of Southern California.
The CPUC first began concentrating on a fix to the 760 area code burden in 2006 when it became apparent that the wide-spread zone was running out of prefixes for new phone numbers.
Though the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4-1 in favor of adopting an area code split in the 760 region back in April, a coalition of public entities from Southern California are appealing that decision and asking the commission to take another vote, this time in favor of overlaying the current 760 area code region.
But residents in the less populated Eastern Sierra region, which would have retained the 760 prefix in the area code split, have a very small window of opportunity to respond to the appeal of the CPUC’s April decision.
“We have until Sept. 5 to send a letter in,” said Second District Supervisor Susan Cash on Tuesday. “I would hate for this modification petition to go through without a response from the community.”
The Inyo County Board of Supervisors has agendized a discussion and possible action about the appeal for its next meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 2, and hopes the community will send comments in favor of the CPUC honoring its original decision.
According to Cash, who first heard about the appeal on Monday, the Board of Supervisors will have one more meeting before the deadline for comments, which means she could not file an emergency agenda item and discuss the matter with the board this Tuesday.
Assemblyman Martin Garrick and the chambers of commerce of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos, Oceanside and Vista filed the petition for modification of the April Decision on Aug. 15.
The group claims that the “commission’s decision was the result of erroneous interpretation of public comment received and the absence of comment from significant portions of the affected public.”
Those meetings were held earlier this year, and none of them were hosted in the Sierra. In fact, the closest hearing to the communities of Inyo and Mono took place in Victorville.
The appeal hearings scheduled for Sept. 3 and 4 will similarly be held out of the area, in Victorville and Carlsbad, respectively.
The CPUC is planning to discuss the overlay-split issue at its meeting on Oct. 16.
Before the Sept. 5 deadline for comments, the supervisors hope to send a letter in support of the CPUC’s original decision, and Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu is planning to work with Assemblyman Bill Maze to have his office send its comments.
Cash said that even residents who submitted comments before the CPUC’s decision earlier this year should consider commenting again, as she is not sure any of the original round of comments will be included in future discussions.
It used to be that each household had one telephone number, but with cell phones and the rise of the information age in general, the use of the existing area code has tripled and quadrupled in some areas.
According to the CPUC, if population projects hold true, the current area code split would solve the prefix problem, and another split or overlay in any of the affected geographic location would not be necessary for approximately 10-20 years.
The CPUC originally came up with two options for a geographic split of the area code and one option for an overlay.
Most area codes are added by way of a geographic split, where the geographic area covered by an existing area code is split into two or three sections. One of the sections retains the existing area code, while others receive new area codes.
The benefit of a geographic split is that an area code remains defined as a geographic area, so customers would know exactly where their calls are going.
As for the overlay option, it would not affect residents with current phone lines.
New phone lines that are added within the current area would be given a new area code, thus mixing the geographic area with at least two different area codes.
On the downside, an overlay requires all customers, including those with telephone numbers in the preexisting area code, to dial the three-digit area codes for local calls.
Essentially, if an overlay is implemented in Inyo County, residents will have to dial an area code to talk to their neighbor down the street.
Inyo County favors the approved split because citizens here would retain the 760 area code, while residents in northern San Diego County would receive a new three digit prefix and no community is burdened with the inconvenience of dialing 10 digits for every phone call.
If citizens don’t speak up in favor of the CPUC’s decision in April, it is likely that an overlay will be initiated following the CPUC’s October meeting.
“Because of the difficult process being required by the CPUC for the responses, and the short time frame in which the public has to respond, the Board of Supervisors has set up sites throughout the county where members of the public can drop their letters of comment off,” said Inyo County Clerk Pat Gunsolley.
According to Cash, sending electronic comments about the area code change requires pricey computer software that most Inyo County residents don’t own. For convenience, comments may be sent to the Board of Supervisors e-mail address,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or dropped off at the Lone Pine or Bishop chambers of commerce or the County Administration buildings in Independence and Bishop.
Residents should include their full name, address and phone number in their comments.
Cash said she will carry hard copies of those comments with her to the CPUC meetings in Victorville and Carlsbad.
|
