DATE:	October 6, 2005
TO:	Director, Division of the Commission Clerk & Administrative Services (Bayó)
FROM:	Division of Competitive Markets & Enforcement (Brown, Bulecza-Banks, Casey, Mann, Moses, Wright) Office of the General Counsel (Scott)
RE:	Docket No. 050179-TL – Petition for realignment of exchange boundaries of St. Johns, St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra Beach, Jacksonville, and Green Cove Springs, and for consolidation of Julington exchange with St. Johns Exchange, by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
AGENDA:	10/18/05 – Regular Agenda – Proposed Agency Action - Interested Persons May Participate
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:		All Commissioners
PREHEARING OFFICER:		Edgar
CRITICAL DATES:		None
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:		None
FILE NAME AND LOCATION:		S:\PSC\CMP\WP\050179.RCM.DOC

 

 Case Background

On March 11, 2005, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) filed a petition to realign the exchange boundaries of the St. Johns, St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra Beach, Jacksonville and Green Cove Springs exchanges, and consolidate the Julington Exchange with the St. Johns Exchange.  BellSouth believes the proposed changes will: better align the community of interest that exists within northern St. Johns County; align exchange boundaries with proposed high growth residential developments in St. Johns County; and, allow BellSouth to eliminate some potential network service issues.

            The St. Johns area is currently served by six different exchanges, each with different calling scopes and rates.  BellSouth believes the extreme growth and development in this area will continue to put pressure on its infrastructure if it is not renovated with the pace of new developments.  The possibility exists that new developments could be split by two different rate centers, and neighbors in new developments could have different calling scopes and rates.  On April 14, 2005, the U. S. Census Bureau announced that St. Johns County, Florida is the ninth fastest growing county in the United States.[1] 

 

BellSouth advised staff, through responses to data requests, that it is aware of 20 developments in progress that will eventually generate over 41,000 new single family units in addition to many new companies planning moves to the area.  On September 29, 2005, the Army Corps of Engineers approved the final hurdle[2] for the Nocatee development, the largest planned community in Northeast Florida with construction costs estimated between $2 billion and $3 billion.  Construction of single-family and multi-family homes for the Nocatee development are scheduled to begin in spring 2006.

 

            BellSouth’s realignment proposal would require approximately 4,000 customers to change their 7-digit telephone number, in addition to undergoing a change in calling scopes and rates.  Another 12,000 customers moving from the Julington exchange to the new St. Johns exchange would experience a calling scope change and increased rates.

 

            On April 15, 2005, BellSouth held an industry meeting at its Jacksonville office to discuss its proposal to realign parts of St. Johns County.  Three CLECs were represented in addition to two Public Service Commission (PSC or Commission) staff members.    

 

A customer notice of the BellSouth proposal, along with customer meeting dates were sent to each of the BellSouth customers who would be affected by BellSouth’s proposal.  In addition to the customer notice, BellSouth provided public notices of the proposed boundary realignment and customer meetings in the Jacksonville and St. Augustine newspapers June 28, 2005, and July 5, 2005.  On July 12-13, 2005, PSC staff conducted three customer meetings in the affected areas to receive input from customers.  Thirty customers attended the three meetings, with three of them choosing to speak.  The speakers expressed their concern regarding the required change of telephone numbers and whether they would receive adequate notice before the actual change would take place.  One customer questioned how BellSouth would provide a reference or voice intercept for a facsimile (fax) line similar to the reference of calls it was proposing to provide to voice lines.  At the time, BellSouth staff stated that it would investigate a solution to address the issue of fax lines.

Typically, boundary changes are used as a vehicle to consolidate a subdivision into one exchange, resolve pocket area problems, and/or handle extended area service (EAS) issues.  The Commission has approved two previous BellSouth boundary changes.  By Order PSC-92-0169-FOF-TL, issued April 8, 1992, in Docket No. 910028-TL, In Re: Request by Country Club of Miami Community Improvement Council for a Miami/North Dade boundary line change, the Commission approved a boundary change in the Miami area.  The docket was opened to address a complaint by a subscriber in the Country Club of Miami area who wanted the ability to call the Hollywood exchange toll-free.  After a review of the community of interest and a balloting process, which resulted in consumers favoring the change, the Commission approved the boundary realignment which required a change in telephone numbers.  To ease in the transition of the number change, the Commission directed that an intercept message be placed on the current numbers, at no charge to the customers, for a period of not less than twelve (12) months, or until the Greater Miami Directory is reissued, whichever is later.  The Commission found that “…this will provide reasonable protection for the subscribers.”

 

By Order PSC-97-0384-FOF-TL, issued April 7, 1997, in Docket No. 970202-TL, In Re: Request for approval of tariff filing to create St. Johns exchange by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., the Commission approved BellSouth’s petition creating the original St. Johns exchange.  This new exchange was carved out of the northwestern portion of the St. Augustine exchange.  This docket came about as a result of the growth in the St. Johns Development area which included a new community known as World Golf Village.  Customers in the new St. Johns exchange were required to change their telephone numbers.

 

Staff believes that Section 364.15, Florida Statutes, allows the Commission to modify existing exchange boundaries whenever the Commission finds, on its own motion, upon complaint or petition, that changes in any telecommunications facility should reasonably be made to secure adequate service or facilities for telecommunications services in order to promote the security or convenience of the public or employees. 

 

This recommendation addresses BellSouth’s proposal to realign the exchange boundaries of the St. Johns, St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra Beach, Jacksonville and Green Cove Springs exchanges, and consolidate the Julington Exchange with the St. Johns Exchange.

 

 

Discussion of Issues

Issue 1: 

 Should BellSouth's proposed St. Johns boundary realignment be approved?

Recommendation: 

  Staff recommends that BellSouth's proposed St. Johns boundary realignment be approved with two modifications which were offered by BellSouth.  First, customers who would incur a telephone number change would be assigned new numbers, but retain the functionality of their old number for a period of two years.  Second, after the two-year period, these customers would receive a reference or intercept message on their old number notifying callers that their number was changed and provide the caller with the new number for an additional one-year period, at no cost to the customer.   (Brown, Mann, Wright, Casey, Bulecza-Banks, Moses)

Staff Analysis: 

 Due to the complexity of the realignment proposal, BellSouth proposes to handle the various moves and consolidations in five (5) different phases. 

 

Phase I:  BellSouth proposes to move a portion of the St. Augustine, Jacksonville and Ponte Vedra exchanges to the new St. Johns exchange in three stages.  The first stage of Phase I would include the realignment of the Ponte Vedra customers to the new St. Johns exchange, which would require 119 Ponte Vedra retail and resale, and 5 UNE-P customers to change their telephone numbers.  BellSouth believes the change of the serving wire center for these Ponte Vedra customers will allow BellSouth to eliminate the feeder portion of the network that currently crosses the Intra-coastal Waterway and consolidate the areas west of the river.  BellSouth asserts that this modification in the network will provide these customers with more reliable service with less chance of future outage. 

 

The second stage of Phase I is to move a portion of the Jacksonville exchange into the new St. Johns exchange.  Since there are no customers in this portion of the Jacksonville exchange being moved in this phase, there will be no impact on calling scopes or telephone numbers. 

 

The third stage of Phase I moves the northern portion of the St. Augustine exchange into the new St. Johns exchange.  BellSouth proposes to move 2,509 retail and resale and 177 UNE-P St. Augustine customers to the new St. John’s exchange.  These customers would be required to change their telephone numbers and would be assigned new St. Johns telephone numbers.  In addition, BellSouth also proposes to move the St. Augustine customers that were grandfathered when the St. Johns exchange was originally created[3] to the new St. Johns exchange at the same time as all of the other grandfathered customers in this proposal, in 2 years (See discussion of previous Commission-approved boundary changes on page 7).  These customers would not incur a number change.  This change will not only better utilize the numbering resources in the 904-522 NXX, but will also provide consistency throughout the exchange.

 

Phase II:  BellSouth will move the existing boundary of the Julington exchange to encompass some of the Green Cove Springs exchange.  Currently, there are no working lines in this portion of the proposal.

 

Phase III:  BellSouth will move a portion of the Jacksonville exchange to the Julington exchange in order to conform to planned development boundaries.  There are 16 retail and resale customers in this portion of the proposal that would incur a number change.  This planned move would prevent planned developments from having two exchanges within them. 

 

Phase IV:  BellSouth proposes to move a portion of the Green Cove Springs Exchange from the Green Cove Springs wire center to the World Golf wire center, which is located in the St. Johns exchange.  This realignment would require 840 Green Cove Springs retail and resale and 41 UNE-P working lines to change telephone numbers. 

 

Phase V:  BellSouth would consolidate the Julington exchange into the St. Johns exchange.  Although no customers would experience a number change as a result of this consolidation, customers would incur a calling scope and rate change. 

 

The existing and proposed realignment of the St. Johns rate center is illustrated on Attachment A to this recommendation.  The map shows the existing exchange alignment, and the heavy line shows the geographic area of the proposed new St. Johns exchange.

 

Grandfathering:  To minimize the initial impact of this proposed realignment, BellSouth proposes to provide a grandfather period of two years for all customers who want to retain their old calling scopes and rates.  If a Ponte Vedra, St. Augustine, Jacksonville, or Green Cove Springs customer elects to retain their existing calling scope and rates, the customer would still be required to change his/her telephone number to a new NPA NXX established for the grandfathered customers.[4]  Due to the adverse impact on numbering resources, BellSouth proposes to allow the grandfathered customers to retain the grandfathered service for a period of two (2) years.[5]  If any of the grandfathered customers want to add an additional line, the customer would be required to obtain a number that is provided in the new St. Johns exchange and billed the St. Johns rates.  To accommodate customers who would elect to grandfather their calling scopes and rates, BellSouth would temporarily use approximately 44,000 numbers.  In addition to the grandfathering proposal, BellSouth’s petition offers to provide reference (intercept) calls for retail and resale customers, if requested, until the customers’ directories are reissued with their new telephone number.

 

Calling Scope and Rate Changes:  The current and proposed calling scopes and rates for each affected exchange are set forth in Attachment B, pages 1-5. 

 

Notices to Customers:  If BellSouth’s realignment petition is approved, BellSouth would provide at least two notices of the proposed changes to its retail customers.  The company proposes to provide the notices to PSC staff for review prior to issuance of each notice.  The notices will include timeframes informing customers of when they must make their selection of calling plans and rates.  For the wholesale customers, BellSouth proposes to work with the CLECs to implement the changes through a specific written notice, general proposal overview meeting and a technical network meeting.

 

Telephone Number Changes:  Staff’s primary concern with BellSouth’s proposed boundary realignment is that approximately 4,000 consumers would be required to incur a telephone number change.  Staff had many discussions with BellSouth on possible alternatives to a telephone number change requirement, and gradual phasing in of the change if no alternative is available.  As the Commission is aware from previous numbering dockets, customers are generally very reluctant to change their telephone numbers.  During area code relief, a permissive dialing period is established whereby callers could reach the called party by using either the old or the new area code.  During this time, changes are made to business telephone systems, wireless devices, alarm system networks and individual subscribers’ custom calling feature lists to ease the consumer’s transition to a new number.  Consumers need time to make arrangements for changes such as:

 

·       revising printed materials (e.g., stationery, business cards, checks, labels, bills, etc.)

·       reprogramming equipment that stores and analyzes telephone numbers (e.g., PBXs, cellular phones, modems, speed call lists, automatic dialers, alarms)

·       updating directory listings

·       notifying customers and business associates

·       changing advertisements (e.g., print ads, classified ads, promotional materials, etc.)

 

Transition Period:  As mentioned above, staff and BellSouth have had meetings to discuss the realignment petition.  BellSouth, after the July 12-13, 2005, customer meetings, discussed possible solutions to a reference or voice intercept for the fax issue brought up by a customer.  BellSouth proposes to use its Advanced Intelligent Network[6] (AIN) technology to allow customers to continue to receive faxes for a two-year transition period.  By using the AIN, customers who would have to experience a fax number change would receive faxes sent to their old number and new number for a period of two years.  

 

Subsequent to BellSouth’s offer to use AIN technology for the fax lines that would incur a number change, staff questioned BellSouth as to whether it would be possible to also have the voice lines, which would incur a number change, to have the same two-year transition period.  BellSouth checked its network capacity and agreed that it could also include voice lines in its offer for a limited period of two years.  When asked if there was an alternative technology available to prevent the customers from having to change their telephone numbers, BellSouth responded that there is, however, it would be cost prohibitive. 

 

Reference or Intercept Messages:  BellSouth’s petition, as filed, offered retail and resale customers a reference or voice intercept, if requested, until such time as customers’ directories are reissued with their new telephone number.  Upon meeting with PSC staff, BellSouth has now agreed to a reference or voice intercept of calls for a period of 12 months after the two year transition period using AIN technology, and at no cost to the customers.

 

            Under BellSouth’s proposal, customers who have to change telephone numbers would be assigned a new number when the realignment is initiated, and this number would appear in the next available directory listing as it is published, and also be used if someone calls directory assistance.  Persons calling the customers’ old telephone number would be seamlessly switched to the new number for a period of two years, then would be referenced to the new number for an additional year through a voice intercept message.

 

Conclusion:  Based on the information provided in BellSouth’s petition, BellSouth’s responses to staff’s data requests, customer input, a showing that this area is experiencing rapid growth, and offers made by BellSouth to ease the transition of customers who would be required to take a number change, staff believes that the boundary change request should be approved.  Therefore, staff recommends that BellSouth's proposed St. Johns boundary realignment be approved with two modifications which were offered by BellSouth.  First, customers who would incur a telephone number change would be assigned new numbers, but retain the functionality of their old number for a period of two years.  Second, after the two-year period, these customers would receive a reference or intercept message on their old number notifying callers that their number was changed, and provide the caller with the new number for an additional one-year period, at no cost to the customer.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, this docket should be closed if no timely protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of this Order. (Scott)

Staff Analysis: 

 Pursuant to Rule 25-22.029(4), Florida Administrative Code, any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action shall have 21 days after the issuance of the Order to file a protest.  This docket should be closed if no party files a timely appeal of the Commission’s final order. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing and Realigned Boundaries of St. Johns Exchange