******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Bell Atlantic ) Petition for Modification of LATA ) Boundaries ) File No. NSD-L-98-116 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 16, 2000 Released: March 16, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On September 1, 1998, Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts, Inc. (Bell Atlantic), pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), filed a petition requesting that the Commission approve Bell Atlantic's plan to modify local access and transport area (LATA) boundaries so that the town of Erving, Massachusetts could be included in a single LATA. Currently, Erving falls within two LATAs served by two different area codes. The petition was placed on public notice, and no comments were received. Subsequent to the close of the comment period, however, letters of support were submitted by Stephen M. Brewer, State Senator, and the five commissioners of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy. For the reasons stated below, we deny Bell Atlantic's request. II. BACKGROUND 2. According to the record, the residents of Erving seek unification under a single area code and exchange for the following principal reasons: (1) misdirected emergency calls; (2) a desire to be recognized as a separate town as are other towns in Franklin County; (3) misdirected mail and zip code issues; (4) directory assistance problems; and (5) inaccurate maps showing all of Erving as being served by the 413 area code. Erving sought to resolve these problems by petitioning the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (MDTE). In its petition, Erving requested that it be unified entirely in the 413 area code and be assigned a unique local exchange code. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, a public hearing was held by MDTE in which Erving residents and officials, Bell Atlantic representatives, and others provided sworn statements regarding Erving's difficulties. 3. In response to the petition and public hearing, Bell Atlantic submitted an analysis of how to accommodate the concerns of Erving's residents. Under option 1, Bell Atlantic proposed to move Erving customers served by the Orange exchange in the 978 area code to the Millers Falls exchange in the 413 area code. Under this proposal, there would be no change in LATA or exchange boundaries; instead, the 413 area code would be assigned in both the eastern and western Massachusetts LATAs for "the limited purpose of serving these approximately 300-400 Erving customers." Additionally, Bell Atlantic stated that it would request a second 413 NXX code to serve Erving customers in the Millers Falls exchange if the customers agreed to change their telephone numbers. Bell Atlantic also stated that such a proposal has never been implemented before and would require additional study regarding the reassignment of customers from the 978 to 413 area code to determine the impact on information, provisioning, billing and maintenance systems. Bell Atlantic also stated that it was "extremely concerned that the unique serving arrangement for Erving would directly affect [its] ability to effectively and efficiently maintain the network on an ongoing basis ...[i]n particular, that 'area code' exception for Erving may interfere with network integrity and the speed with which troubles can be identified and remedied, thereby raising public safety issues." Absent geographic number portability beyond a LATA, Bell Atlantic states that "a single 413 code in the eastern Massachusetts LATA will need to be maintained as an exception to the logic of the way the network is configured and will be counter- intuitive for anyone whose job it is to analyze and fix troubles as well as those who make ongoing programming changes to the network." 4. In a follow-up study, Bell Atlantic presented a second option to the one stated above that would unify Erving under the 413 area code and a unique exchange number. Under this option, Bell Atlantic proposes that it petition the Commission so that the LATA boundary be moved. This approach would allow all Erving customers to be in the 413 area code and in the western LATA. The exchange boundary between the Millers Falls and Orange exchanges would be realigned so that all Erving customers would reside in Millers Falls exchange. 5. Bell Atlantic states that there are two ways to implement this second option. Under option 2A, as it is numbered in the record, Bell Atlantic would build new facilities so that Erving customers in the Orange exchange would be served from the Millers Falls switch instead of the Orange switch. Under this option, a new NXX code would be opened in the Millers Falls exchange to serve either the Erving customers from the Orange exchange or all Erving customers. Under option 2B, Bell Atlantic would open a new 413 NXX code in the Orange switch to serve the Erving/Orange customers; the new code, however, would be assigned to the Millers Falls rate center. Bell Atlantic stated that another NXX code could be opened in the Millers Falls switch to serve Erving customers whose service is provided by Millers Falls if those customers agree to a number change. 6. In this follow-up study, Bell Atlantic explained that it favored option 2B over options 1 and 2A. The network exception created by option 1 and the need for the construction of new facilities in option 2A are difficulties and expenses that would not result from the implementation of option 2B. 7. After reviewing the record, MDTE released an order granting in part and denying in part Erving's petition. According to MDTE, Erving's petition listed the following reasons for its efforts to be unified under the 413 area code: (1) a desire to be recognized as a western LATA community; (2) whole or partial omission from maps and potential grant programs due to confusion by public and private institutions; (3) to avoid directory assistance problems; and (4) to be in the 413 area code. Similarly, MDTE stated that Erving desires a municipally-distinct NXX because: (1) it wants to prevent misdirected 911 responses; (2) it wants to prevent future corruption of Bell Atlantic's 911 address database; (3) it seeks to crystallize and support a sense of community; and (4) a distinct NXX is the desire of the residents. In its analysis and finding, MDTE found that Erving had demonstrated that "the continuing division of the municipality by a LATA boundary has created significant problems" concerning directory assistance, omission from maps, potential loss of state and federal education money for Erving's residents. MDTE concluded that Bell Atlantic's current service was "inadequate" and directed it to seek a "re-alignment" of the LATA boundary. Specifically, MDTE directed Bell Atlantic to petition the FCC for a LATA modification. III. DISCUSSION 8. Matters previously subject to the AT&T Consent Decree are now governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). Section 601(a)(1) of the Act states that "[a]ny conduct or activity that was, before the date of enactment of this Act, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree shall, on and after such date, be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this Act and shall not be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by such Consent Decree." Congress, in adopting the 1996 amendments to the Act, shifted the D.C. District Court's exclusive authority over LATA boundaries to the Commission. Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications are approved by the Commission, and the Act gives the Commission sole authority to approve any BOC request to establish or to modify LATA boundaries as they existed on February 8, 1996. 9. The language of section 3(25)(B) is clear and unambiguous in that it vests sole authority to approve LATA boundaries with the Commission, and contains no limiting language whatsoever. The Commission is not limited, for example, to only authorizing LATA modifications where expanded local calling service is requested, and neither does the text of the Act or the legislative history address the limits of our authority to approve LATA modifications. Certainly, this does not mean that the Commission's authority to modify LATAs is without limit. Section 271 of the Act, for example, prohibits a BOC from providing interLATA services until such time as certain enumerated conditions are satisfied, and section 10(d) prohibits the Commission from forbearing from applying the requirements of Section 271. Short of violating section 10(d), however, the Commission has broad authority where LATA modifications are concerned. 10. Although the Commission has broad authority to modify LATA boundaries, it clearly should do so where problems or difficulties would be resolved by modification of the LATA, or where the public interest would otherwise be served. Crucial to our decision today is the fact that none of Erving's difficulties result from the location of the LATA boundary. Omission from maps that might be used to make public or private grants, directory assistance problems, misdirected mail, and 911 problems do not arise as a result of the LATA boundary. These problems have more to do with Erving being served by two distinct NXX codes and area codes than they do with the location of the LATA boundary. These problems result because parties outside of Erving simply assume that any non-413 telephone number is not associated with an Erving resident. The record of the public hearing held in Erving illustrates the point that Erving's problems are not a result of the location of the LATA boundary. Selectman Daniel Hammock stated that for years Erving lived with the inconvenience of having two area codes, getting all Erving numbers included in local telephone books, and misdirected 911 calls. Robert Watkinson, executive director of the State 911 Agency, made it clear that 911 is address-driven and not telephone number driven. John Nestor of Bell Atlantic made clear that neither area nor LATAs have a relationship with enhanced 911, and that there are 261 telephone exchanges in Massachusetts and 351 cities and towns; thus, according to Mr. Nestor, it is very common that exchanges overlap towns and towns have two different area codes. Mr. Nestor further added that there are 90 towns that do not have an exchange named after them, and that there are only 64 areas in Massachusetts where towns and exchanges are the same. Mr. Nestor states that what makes Erving unique is that there is a different area code for parts of Erving. Erving residents have made it clear that they desire a single area code and a distinct exchange so that they would not have to dial 11 digits to call a neighbor, or not have to dial 11 digits to get the number of an Erving resident who lived across the LATA. Mr. Nestor explained that directory assistance across a LATA boundary is not, as it once was, completely Bell Atlantic's responsibility. As a result of competition, Mr. Nestor explained, anyone can put out a telephone book; thus, there needs to be coordination amongst telephone carriers who have telephone numbers. 11. We are not unsympathetic to the problems experienced by the residents of Erving. We do not believe, however, that modification of the LATA boundary would address Erving's problems unlike, for example, our limited LATA modifications in the context of expanded local calling service which do address certain problems experienced by communities that frequently make calls across a LATA boundary. Erving's problems -- misdirected emergency calls; directory assistance errors; inaccurate mail and maps; and the desire to be recognized as a western Massachusetts town -- were not created by the location of the LATA boundary. The misidentification of those Erving residents served by the Orange exchange and resulting problems are, it seems, exacerbated by the area code and NXX identification, not the LATA. To reiterate what was stated above, 911 is address-driven rather than LATA-driven; community identity in the form of an area code unique to Erving has no relation to the location of a LATA boundary; inaccurate directory assistance services and postal services are not inaccurate because of the location of the LATA. Were we to approve Bell Atlantic's LATA modification request, we could be inviting numerous other communities to file petitions to seek "LATA relief" from problems that were neither created nor can be solved by changes in of the LATA boundary. Again, we are not unsympathetic to the problems experienced by the residents of Erving. We encourage them to continue to explore with Bell Atlantic other options that might meet their needs. VI. CONCLUSION 12. We conclude that, in this request, the problems raised by the residents of Erving, while real and substantial, do not result from the presence of the LATA boundary. Accordingly, we deny Bell Atlantic's LATA modification request. VII. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(25), 154(i), and 47 C.F.R. 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, that the request of Bell Atlantic for LATA modification to unify the town of Erving, Massachusetts identified in File No. NSD-L-98-116 IS DENIED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon the petitioner, Bell Atlantic. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief Common Carrier Bureau