|
|
|
|
Judge makes case for Inyo keeping its 760 area code |
|
|
Friday, 11 April 2008 |
 Locals could find themselves having to dial the area code first when calling phones in the same town, depending on which option the CPUC chooses to alleviate congestion in the 760 area code. Photo by Mike Gervais By Mike Gervais
Register Staff 4-10-2008
Residents of the Eastern Sierra have a judge on their side when it comes to proposed changes to the local area code.
Second District Inyo County Supervisor Susan Cash announced Tuesday that Administrative Law Judge Maribeth Bushey advised the California Public Utilities Commission to move forward with a geographic split for the 760 area code. She further advised that the code should be divided so that Inyo and Mono counties retain the 760 digits.
The PUC is in no way required to abide by Bushey’s recommendation, but according to Cash, the judge’s findings can’t hurt Inyo County’s chances of retaining its current area code and avoiding the widespread costs and inconveniences changing from 760 to 442 would cause.
The PUC offered three options to fix the area code change when the issue was first brought up several years ago. They included two options for a geographic split, one providing Inyo County with a new area code, and the other allowing the county to maintain its current code. The third alternative was an overlay, combining two area codes for the current 760 region.
Without making any formal decision, the PUC had expressed an interest in moving forward with one of the two geographic split options.
In a report by the PUC, the commission noted that Bushey’s “decision maintains the Commission’s previous determination that a geographically-based area code split is appropriate for the 760 area code and orders a geographic split, with the less densely populated northern section retaining the 760 area code. The section with the faster growing population, near San Diego, is assigned the new area code of 442.”
According to Cash, Bushey reviewed the PUC’s criteria for an area code split, and determined that the best course of action, in accordance with the commission’s standards, would be in favor of Inyo’s request to retain its current area code.
The PUC mandates that a change in an area code must minimize customer’s confusion, balance the cost of implementation for all affected parties, provide that customers who undergo number changes shall not be required to change again for a period of 8-10 years, not favor a particular interest group and comply with state and federal statutes, rulings and orders.
According to Bushey, “customers in the northeast portions of the existing area code are not sufficiently a part of the multiple area code lifestyle to justify a determination that an overlay would not create significant confusion when all calls placed, even local calls within a remote location, require 10 digits.
“Many customers in the northeast section of the 760 area code are located a great distance from a different area code and would not encounter different area codes when conducting typical day-to-day business,” she continued. “These customers, currently located hundreds of miles from a different area code, could be confused by a different area code being necessary to call the new business across the street.”
Bushey did say that the second of the PUC’s criteria, mandating that the cost of the implementation of the new area code should be equal, would be most satisfied by an overlay (having two area codes assigned in one geographic region).
But Bushey’s decision to recommend the geographic split may have come from the overwhelming public comments in support of that option.
“About 75 percent of the public comments supported some type of geographic split,” she wrote.
She also noted that “the primary advocate for an all-service overlay was the telecommunications industry, due to the ease of implementation.”
The judge went on to say that “an overlay alternative favors the telecommunications industry,” and therefore does not comply with the PUC’s standards for an area code change.
All three options presented by the PUC would sustain at least 8-10 years of use from the area code change and comply with state and federal regulations.
The PUC is not permitted to take action on the area code dilemma until tomorrow, April 11, however, it could still take some time before the commission chooses an option, Cash said.
In the meantime, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors has agendized a discussion on further action it may take on the area code change.
Cash and First District Supervisor Linda Arcuarius tentatively suggested writing another letter to the PUC in support of Bushey’s decision, while Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu indicated he was satisfied with the judge’s support and commented that the county’s best course of action may be to “let sleeping dogs lie” for the time being.
The board was unable to take action on Tuesday, as the discussion came up during board reports and was not officially agendized.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 25 June 2008 )
|
|
|
|
