Exploring the fact, fiction and fancy of 800 administration The FCC is way out past the agriculture building. A near multilane freeway out front. Finding a taxi to get from is nearly impossible. 4:15 p.m. March 4. Russ and I depart the FCC, puffing along leaning into a biting cold winter wind those few blocks heading for the Mall (and better odds to flag a cab). Then taxi to his office (and car). Russ promises to get me to Dulles to do security and make a Delta non-stop to Utah leaving in less than two hours. He did. I made the gate with an hour to spare! FCC's Jennifer Gorney had promised me I could participate that day in a three-hour public forum about 800 number administration, the subject of Docket 95-155. So the day before saw me on DL non-stop to DC. Michael Wade's Telcordia (nee Bellcore) fiefdom still runs the 800 administration. He had replied to an FCC query about proposed FCC 800 rule changes. The FCC was taking comments from users. The attendees mostly trashed the entire proposal. Commission folk appeared to appreciate the breath of fresh air infused by the forum comments. The official assertion is that no one 800 number has more value than others. This head-in-the- sand position was countered by everyone. Example: 1-800 Flowers. The proposal to require change of an 800 number - not permitted without total release of the number and its return to the data base is unrealistic. Incredible! Monster 800 When a new series of numbers is released, big companies with multimillion-dollar computers bring the 800 assignment system to its knees, for the better part of two days as they lock up premium numbers for their clients. A RespOrg function involves a complex dance to search, reserve and initialize with reconnect required to start again. The little guy on dial-up hasn't got a chance. Compliance When first formulated, the seven RBOCs owned and got the $1 million-a-month profits (each) as owners of the 800 operating system. There are only four RBOCs left, and three have agreed to let the dictates of the Communications Act take effect to move all number administration to a neutral party. It was said that SBC is the hold out. Do ya suppose that because SBC owns and operates (at a tidy profit) the computer system in St. Louis (directing all 800 calls nationwide), that might have something to do with reluctance to have the FCC comply with the act? It's recognized that neutral Lockheed does a better/cheaper job than Telcordia on conventional number administration. Excessive costs Existing administrative and billing costs benefit only the monopoly status of an old-fashioned system. Millions could be saved by elimination of both dip and monthly charges the system now demands. FCC ordering the costs of associated 800 number administration to be identical as other number administration would then achieve goals of the act - at lower costs. I suggested that in the future when a new block of numbers is released, they be made available on eBay and use awarded to the high bidder. For an outfit that pioneered auctions for valuable resources, this seemed reasonable. Jennifer replied "maybe we ought to consider that." A short time later she said to strike that statement. Laughter by all. The high bid is for the exclusive right to use that number. The money would go to support the system or to the FCC. RespOrg's would handle changes with heavy liability if they swipe a number. To diminish warehousing, annual legal compliance could be made by each RespOrg. (with perhaps a user fee per year/number?). Spread the reports by NXX throughout the year to prevent sandbagging the administrator or commission. Western Wireless By a 5-0 vote, lost an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court to overturn a Public Service Commission denial of their request to get state high cost funds. Utah Rural Telephone Association (URTA) attorney Jerry Fenn, argued the case. Happy lawyer! See: http://courtlink.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/wwchol~1.htm.   Copyright 2002 by A. W. Brothers and Americas Network magazine. All rights reserved.   © Beehive Telephone Co.