|
|
|
|
Leaders fear loss of 760 area code |
|
|
Monday, 07 April 2008 |
|
By Mike Gervais
Register Staff 4-5-2008
A proposed change to Inyo County’s area code has raised eyebrows across the Sierra, as local officials attempt to ensure that their jurisdiction be spared the “hassle and inconveniences” such a move would cause.
County leaders are attempting to prevent the change in the wake of an announcement by the California Public Utilities Commission that it is researching options to alleviate congestion in the 760 area code, which runs from the Mexico border in San Diego all the way to the Nevada Border in northern Mono County.
So far, lobbying efforts have included letters to the CPUC in which officials outline the hardships a new area code would have not only on residents, but also businesses, professionals and government agencies who would have to change everything from business cards and letterheads to Web sites.
The CPUC first became concerned about the 760 area code burden in 2006 when it was apparent that the wide-spread zone was running out of prefixes for new phone numbers.
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.
Through a series of public meetings, none of which were held in the Eastern Sierra, the CPUC came up with three possible soltions to fix the phone problem.
The CPUC is proposing 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.
On the other hand, in the instance of a split, many residents will be given a new area code.
“If the split occurs and still leaves us with the 760 area code, we can’t complain,” said Inyo County First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius.
But Arcularius and other local officials, including the Bishop City Council and members of the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments, fear that changing the area code in Inyo and Mono counties will negatively affect residents and businesses.
If the area code changes, businesses and government offices will have to re-print anything showing their phone numbers with the 760 area code, and also make changes to their Web sites.
The re-print and tech support costs are difficult to estimate, but are thought to be substantial when considered on a large scale.
“It’s just the hassle of changing all of that, Arcularius said. “To change all of that would be a huge impact on businesses and residents, not to mention county offices.”
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 pre-existing area code, to dial area codes for local calls.
The Inyo County Board of Supervisors and the Eastern Sierra Council of Governments drafted letters to the CPUC requesting that Inyo and Mono counties be allowed to retain the 760 area code, “but we haven’t heard back yet,” Arcularius said.
“We supported either of the proposed ‘split’ scenario options being considered as long as Area A, Inyo County’s area, retained the 760 area code designation,” the letters from both the ESCOG and Inyo County Board of Supervisors state.
According to Arcularius, phone companies continue to lobby the Public Utilities Commission to split area A from the 760 area code. The CPUC would change the area code in Inyo and Mono counties to 442.
Though no official decision has been made on the part of the CPUC, “it’s sounding like they’re leaning towards going forward with the 760 area code split with area A,” Arcularius said, which is exactly what local officials are trying to avoid.
With that split, the southern-most portion of the current area code, in the San Diego County area, would retain the 760 digits, while the less populated areas to the north, including areas of San Bernardino County all the way up to Bridgeport in Mono County, would face new codes.
According to the CPUC, if population projects hold true, such a split would not require another change to the area code in either geographic location for approximately 10-20 years.
Nevertheless, “Inyo and Mono counties are strongly opposed to this change as it is being recommended,” the letter from the ESCOG to the Public Utilities Commission states.
According to the letter, “the cost of changing the area code is disproportionately high in our sparsely populated area and the burden of making those changes will be unfairly borne by the majority of our small businesses.” The letter also states that the larger jurisdictions, which have a greater population base, have “a more equitable disbursement of the costs.”
“As an economically challenged area, changes to our area code have the potential of detrimentally impacting our tourist-based economy, which is already tenuous because of the highly competitive nature of that business,” the letter states.
“Even minor glitches in our information network can cause serious economic downturns from which it can take years to recover.”
(Mammoth Times staff writer Stacey Powells contributed to this report.)
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 01 May 2008 )
|
|
|
|
