Area-Code Shortage: Is Wireless' Number Up?

Wireless' exponential growth has made it the biggest target in the debate over how to avoid an area-code exhaustion that could come as early as 2006. State utility commissions in California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Texas and Wisconsin have filed petitions asking the FCC for expanded authority to implement mandatory number-pooling trials or service-specific area codes.

An FCC decision could come soon, and the chances for approval look good. In July, FCC Chairman William Kennard told the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners: "We are going to let the states solve this problem. I believe that we should be granting the states the authority that they need, and I am optimistic that by the time the summer ends, we will have dealt with most of these petitions."

That doesn't bode well for wireless carriers. Complying with number pooling means deploying much of the same infrastructure required for wireless number portability, which the FCC postponed until 2002. One bright spot: California and Texas say they won't seek to include wireless in pooling trials.

Another conservation option, service-specific area codes, could hinder wireless' ability to replace wireline.

"If you have a specific NPA for wireless, then that suggests that you can't port those numbers between wireless and wireline," said Kim Mahoney, AirTouch external-affairs public-policy manager. "You could have only wireless-to-wireless porting."

It's unclear whether states would implement pooling trials and service-specific area codes simultaneously. Connecticut is one that prefers a service-specific overlay. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most consumers would welcome service-specific area codes. At California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) meetings, the question "Why don't you put cell phones in a different area code?" was asked so many times that the commission put the answer in the FAQ sections of its Web site and meeting handouts.

But that question begs another: Is wireless really responsible for the shortage? In 1998, California issued 1,800 NXX codes. About 1,000 went to CLECs, another 400 or so went to wireless, and ILECs got the rest. Part of the perception that wireless is the number hog may be that CLECs aren't signing up subscribers at the same rate. Getting consumers and legislators to understand the real cause could be the biggest challenge.

"One of the things we say (at public meetings) is that there is no single segment of the industry that is responsible for the numbering crisis," said Mary Jo Borak, CPUC regulatory analyst. "Everybody wants a scapegoat. The reality is that we have millions of numbers that aren't being used, and the reason is that if you need five numbers, you get 10,000. We're not utilizing the resource efficiently. That's the biggest thing we can do to change it."