Wireless-Only Cries Grow Louder

Earlier this spring, a state regulator told the FCC that the wireless industry wouldn't be adversely affected by the implementation of a wireless-only area code.

Jack R. Goldberg, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control commissioner, along with Bradford Ramsay, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners general counsel, and Thomas J. Dunleavy, New York State Department of Public Service commissioner, met with all five FCC commissioners on May 31 to discuss technology-specific overlays (TSOs).

California, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire also want TSOs. Although Connecticut first approached the FCC about a wireless-only area code more than two years ago, no action has been taken.

Another number-conservation option is to allocate numbers in blocks of 1,000 instead of the current 10,000.

"There are several ways to conserve," Goldberg said. "No single one is the magic formula, but they're all necessary. I thought that a wireless-only area code is just one more building block in the overall plan that I needed to implement."

Since first raising the issue, Goldberg has been less than optimistic about FCC approval for TSOs. But wireless-only area codes may have gathered momentum.

"This is now coming to the front burner, partly because of the increased pressure on them from other states with regard to telephone number exhaust," Goldberg said. "Several other states have recently requested a wireless-only area code."

Wireless providers see TSOs as discriminatory and doing little to conserve numbers.

"What has never been answered by the state commissioners is how TSOs fit in with number conservation," said Lori Messing, CTIA director of numbering issues. "You end up stranding millions of numbering resources by allocating (one area code) or designating it for a specific industry segment. It confuses me why state commissioners continue to go back to this particular kind of overlay."

Messing added that it would be unfair to ask wireless subscribers to dial 10 digits while wireline users dial only seven.

"You create a dialing disparity at a time when the wireless industry is also interested in creating a very similar appearance between wireline and wireless."

But Goldberg pointed to the (917) area code, which was designated for wireless for several years before being opened for general use.

"It worked well," Goldberg said.

As for the charge that wireless-only area codes would be anti-competitive, Goldberg said he thought that the industry's success could help it handle the change.

"I don't think a wireless-only area code would scare people into not using cell phones," he said. "It's more of a wireless-industry concern than an everyday public concern."

Messing said she would be surprised if the FCC ruled for TSOs.

"The FCC has ruled in the past that it's discriminatory," Messing said. "I haven't heard anything to suggest that they've changed their opinion."