UCAN

It must mean that we're busy communicating, which is generally a good thing! All over the country, the public phone system is running out of numbers in the existing telephone exchanges and, therefore, new ones must be added. If you live in an area presently covered by the 760 area code you're going to have to do a little more button pusing for local calls!

First it was fax machines. Next it was modems for early Internet access. Now it's cell phones. Even though most people today are using broadband Internet access and have forsaken the modems, the number of numbers needed keeps going up. To keep up, either a geographical area has to be split up with one part keeping the old area code and the other getting a new area code, OR, a new area code must be added to the same geographical area as an old one. This latter method is called an overlay because you can think of it as a piece of clear plastic having been overlain on a map, with the old area code underneath and the new one on top.

A Little History
In the past splits have been the norm. Did you know that all of Southern California originally had 213 as its area code (it was one of the original US area codes from 1947)? It was split in 1951 so that all of So. Cal except LA had 714. In 1982, 714 was split so that San Diego, Imperial, and parts of other counties to the north got 619 and 714 stayed with Orange County. In 1997-1999, 619 was split so that (roughly) Mission Valley-and-south kept 619, the north part of The City and some contiguous towns got 858, and the rest of the old 619 a/c got 760. http://www.area-codes.com/area-code-history.asp  From a single Southern California area code in 1947 to at least 19 today, each allowing for roughly 8 million unique numbers, we've been ordering a lot of phone numbers!

The Pros and Cons
SPLIT: Originally, the San Diego County section of the 760 area, shown here, was going to be given the new 442 area code. An advantage of this approach is that people calling neighbors and businesses in the same area code only have to dial 7 digits. The downside is that businesses having billboards, phone numbers on vehicles, stationery, etc. must pay to change this all. The folks at Keep760.org, aided by UCAN's Michael Shames, felt this was costly. They got the PUC to change to an overlay.

OVERLAY: With an overlay, you simply have 2 areas codes in the same geographical area. It wasn't possible to do this until the 1990's. So, businesses with 760 stationery can keep it. A new business, perhaps right next-door to that one might, after November 21, 2009, be issued a 442 area code phone number. The down side - and it isn't much of one - is that a person in (e.g.) Oceanside, having a 760 phone number, will have to dial 1-760-555-0100 to ring their next door neighbor. That's 11 digits vs 7. This is necessary because the local phone switching equipment would not know if that neighbor was 760-555-0100 or 442-555-0100 if you simply dialed 555-0100.

Considering the facts that we're using quickly dialed touchtone phones vs the old dial phones (do young people today even know why we say to "dial" a number?) and that many people have their favorite numbers stored in memories anyway, and that many of the numbers we dial today are outside our local area code and, thus, require 11 digits ANYWAY, the overlay was clearly less of a hassle for people who would have to change things and a minimal hassle for those who will have to dial extra digits.

Still A Local Call
Many "experienced" humans equate area codes with Long Distance and thus CHARGES!!!!  Fret not, those of us who remember dialing MA5-1212! These days, long distance charges are based, truly, on distance, and not the phone number. See my posting on Phones and Zones: How AT&T bills you for calls not considered long distance which will help you understand how to know what calls you might have to pay for.

So 760-folks, just go ahead and call that friend up the street and don't worry about costs changing. You might consider editing your speed dials and contacts, though, so they all have 1 + the area code. And when 442 numbers start appearing just treat them as neighbors, too!

President Obama has proposed sending a tax-free check of $250 to Social Security recipients in the early part of 2010. The president wants the checks to replace the annual COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) that Social Security beneficiaries normally receive but won't next year because of the current state of the economy. This payment would be in addition to the one-time payment made to seniors as part of last year's economic stimulus legislation. That payment was taxed.

The one-time check proposed by the president would cost $13 billion over a 10-year period, the White House estimates, and it would add to the nation's ballooning deficit.

The first thought that popped into my mind was: Gee, $250...that might pay for a few prescriptions or a utility bill, and while that's helpful, what happens after that?

There is no doubt that seniors have been hit hard by this recession in many ways: lower interest rates on their savings plans; reduced or lost pension plans and health benefits; rising medical costs;investments that have been depleted--or stolen--by scammers such as Madoff and his ilk. Then add inflated prices for gasoline, groceries and insurance and, of course, utilities -- especially in San Diego. Also. many seniors have had to come to the aid of their children and grandchildren who are also being affected by the economic meltdown as well--lending them money and even having them move in with them.

Then add in the State of Califonia's budget crisis that has resulted in many programs that assist seniors being cut. The safety net has been shredded by the state's economic problems.

Of course, if we look at the President's proposal through cynical eyes, giving senior citizens a tax-free check in an election year isn't a bad move either. Even Republicans might jump on that band wagon with amazing speed but hold on -- adding $13 billion to the deficit for a one-time shot in the arm? I am not so sure.

If I was going to place a Vegas bet on this, I'd put my money on the payment being approved by Congress, but there are other things that could be done that will help America's seniors and disbaled in the long run.

Instead of sendng a $250 check, I'd suggest that greater priority needs to be given to see that the nation is restored as soon as possible to economic well-being to protect and stablize the retirement dreams and benefits of so many. We need to put real teeth in the regulation of banks and other financial agencies responsible for this economic meltdown,and take steps to assure the solvency of Medicare and Social Security for current and future generations of seniors. Why not put more funding into quality programs that help seniors on the local level because those funds will go to seniors who really need assistance, and let's not forget about the current debate on health care reform.

This nation is aging fast, and our government has done little to prepare for that reality. That fact is a recipe for the next huge national crisis (see below).
Maybe investing that $13 billion in expanded health care and assistance
on the local level for our seniors is the better way to go.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta gives a clear picture in a report on Healthy Aging:

"The United States is on the brink of a longevity revolution. By 2030, the proportion of the U.S. population aged 65 and older will double to about 71 million older adults, or one in every five Americans. The far-reaching implications of the increasing number of older Americans and their growing diversity will include unprecedented demands on public health, aging services, and the nation's health care system.

"Chronic diseases exact a particularly heavy health and economic burden on older adults due to associated long-term illness, diminished quality of life, and greatly increased health care costs. Although the risk of disease and disability clearly increases with advancing age, poor health is not an inevitable consequence of aging.

"Much of the illness, disability, and death associated with chronic disease is avoidable through known prevention measures."

To Members of Congress:

The House Financial Services Committee is considering the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009. UCAN strongly urges all Members of Congress to support and vote for the creation of this agency.

Failure to provide proper oversight of the financial industry led to one of the biggest financial downturns in the history of our country. The consumer has become the forgotten party in financial transactions. Financial documents have become so complicated and convoluted that archeologists could not uncover their meaning. Yet, it is these same consumers who are the taxpayers shouldering the burden for the crisis created because regulators failed to protect consumer interests.

In supporting the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, UCAN urges that you adopt at least the original form of the bill. Do not let lobbyists dissuade you as to what is best for consumers, best for the country, best for the economy, and in the long run best for the financial industry and those asking you to water down the bill.

Do not adopt amendments that will prevent the States from adopting even stronger consumer protections. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency will work best in conjunction with State regulators, not by usurping power of state regulators to their own consumers.

A robust Consumer Financial Protection Agency with strong regulatory oversight working in conjunction with state regulators will help prevent some of the financial products and practices, such as predatory lending, which led to this economic downturn.

In using taxpayer money to clean up this mess, lawmakers have vowed time and time again to protect the consumer. Now is the time for you to show that your constituents are more important than the lobbyists, that you are in fact their representatives.

Create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It is in the best interest of consumers/taxpayers/constituents and the financial industry.

AT&T and Google are currently engaged in an ongoing dispute about the rejection of the Google Voice iPhone application. Last Friday, AT&T pushed the spat further by filing documents with the FCC saying that Google Voice violates government Internet policies.

You may know AT&T as the exclusive carrier for something called the Apple iPhone. The iPhone has become increasingly popular with consumers because of the amount of applications available. Consumers can download and install everything from games, restaurant locators, ebook readers, light sabers, and more. Apple reviews all submitted applications, and if approved, places them in their iTunes App Store for download.

Google submitted an application called Google Voice, which allows consumers to make and receive calls. Consumers using the service receive a new phone number which forwards all calls to any other phone they desire. The interface looks almost identical to the iPhone's own built in interface, right down to the order of the icons and the visual voicemail. As discussed in a previous blog on UCAN.org, Apple claims they have not rejected the application, and merely are keeping it in a holding pattern. Speculation abounds that AT&T is behind Apple's decision making and doesn't want this application approved.

The FCC launched an investigation into why Google Voice was denied.

Now, in its recent filings, AT&T is claiming Google routinely blocks calls to certain rural areas. It is more expensive to connect to the local exchange carrier network in rural areas. Therefore, Google is able to save costs by restricting these higher priced calls. However, common carriers, such as AT&T, are prohibited from doing this. In 2007, the FCC ruled that common carriers are prohibited from engaging in these types of call blocking activities. Google is claiming it is not a traditional phone service, and therefore the common carrier rule does not apply. Google even admitted in its blog that it may restrict certain outbound calls, but firmly stands on the ground that they are exempt from this prohibition.

Put simply, Google found a loophole that gives it a competitive advantage and AT&T is not happy about it.

AT&T wants the FCC to treat Google similar to every other telecommunications carrier. AT&T is also claiming that Google Voice violates net neutrality because sign-ups are limited and not open to all consumers. However, many critics are stating that this is just a red herring attempting to distract the public and undermine web based competition.

Is it tit for tat, or is Google or AT&T in the right?