Valley Business Split on Area Code Solution

Talk about your split decisions.

When the state Public Utilities Commission next week decides what, if anything, to do about the bumper-to-bumper telephonic traffic in the San Fernando Valley, the outcome will be greeted by some local business owners with a big yawn. For others, a “wrong decision” will mean lost business and trashed stationery, not to mention aggravation.

The issue is area codes, those three little numbers used to route traffic from Boise to Bel-Air. Depending on whom you talk to, we’re running out of room in 818, thanks in large part to increased competition in the telephone services industry, not to mention the growth in the number of all of those ringing, beeping, buzzing devices we’ve come to rely on.

In the past, the state just split off areas and created a new area code. But the latest trend is an overlay--in which all callers in the existing area code must dial the area code and the number (a total of 11 digits) to reach other phones in the same area code. All new phone lines are assigned a new area code--even if it’s for a phone line in the same building.

What do business owners prefer? It depends on whom you talk to.

The California Small Business Assn. last month released a survey of 600 business owners in the 310 and 925 (Bay Area) area codes. The survey, conducted in mid-August, said 52% of business owners favored the split and 41% preferred the overlay.

Bay Area respondents were fairly evenly divided on the issue. Los Angeles-area business owners tended to favor the overlay, despite mounting public opposition to the concept.

The commission’s own Office of Ratepayer Advocates last week released its own survey showing that 52.5% of business customers favored a split, with 38.6% backing an overlay. Look closer at both surveys, factor in the standard margin of error and the clear mandate is . . . there is no clear mandate.

“In both cases it could go either way,” said Michael D. McNamara, senior manager in the advocate’s office, which is charged by state law with looking after the interests of utility customers. “We do not have a silver bullet here.”

Without the comfort of sound statistics to rely on, we set out to do our own, very unscientific owner-on-the street poll. Major business groups and politicians have weighed in on the issue, and next week the state Assembly and Senate are expected to vote on a bill, AB 818, that would force a needs study before a split or overlay could be imposed.

But we wanted to hear from the business owners--the people who would be affected by the decision, forced to either use dated business cards for kindling or to figure out a clever way to promote multiple area codes in the same business.

We found much confusion, some misinformation and a slight preference for the split, but no clear mandate.

Under the current proposal before the PUC, the southwest Valley (including Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills) would get a new area code while the northeast Valley (including Northridge, Sylmar and Burbank) would remain 818. But the PUC could also impose an overlay for the whole Valley, or find its hands tied by the state Legislature.

Near what would be the northern edge of the new area code region, at Reseda Boulevard and Sherman Way, large block numbers on the side of a truck announce that Allen’s Wholesale Flower Market can be reached by calling (818) 996-2603.

And although owner Jacqueline Goldman isn’t thrilled about having to break out the paint to change signs, etc., if the area code change is approved, she finds that preferable to an overlay in which future lines in her busy store would be given a different area code.

Goldman worried about possible customer confusion caused by dual area codes, and wondered if things like her ability to use call rollover (in case one line is busy) would be hampered by having two area codes.

“There are things that I’m doing with my phone line today that, 10 years ago, I didn’t think I’d be doing,” Goldman said.

“I personally would rather go ahead and change my cards so that all my lines would match, for future growth,” she said.

Goldman is not alone in her view.

In the PUC survey, 83.4% of business customers (and 71.1% of residential customers) were opposed to having a different area code for additional telephone lines in the same business or home.

“We’ve got about 80 different lines in here,” said Rich Salkin, owner of Hair in L.A.on Ventura Boulevard in Tarzana. “The split would be the one I’d rather see, I guess. It would be less confusing, especially if you have more than one line.”

Salkin estimates that it would cost him only about $700 to adjust his advertising and promotions to accommodate a new area code, a figure he described as “minimal.”

But the small business association said the median price tag for accommodating a split given by respondents in its survey was $2,000, which can take a sizable bite out of profits for a small business.

“What we know now, most importantly, is the economic impact,” of both the split and the overlay, said association president Betty Jo Toccoli, noting that the median cost to adjust to an overlay was placed at $150. “We’ve never had that before.

“Our position is that we wish there didn’t have to be any change,” she added. “If we have to make a choice, because of the economic adversity to small business, we have to support overlays.”

Toccoli noted that for many businesses that advertise locally, especially tourism-related operations that rely on entries in guide books to help drum up business, switching area codes will certainly mean lost customers.

And that’s the prospect that most worries Meir Mizrahi, owner of Perfumes for Less in the Warner Plaza in Woodland Hills.

“I do a lot of business over the phone,” said Mizrahi, who doesn’t like either option but finds the overlay less odious. “The telephone is a very important tool in my business. To change the area code, that would throw off the people.”

Mostly, Mizrahi worries about the period six months after the change, when the phone company typically drops the recording informing callers about the new area code. Instead, callers are told only that the call did not go through.

“What do you do when everybody knows you as an 818 [number] and six months down the line they call this business and get the impression that this business is no longer in business?” wondered Mizrahi, who has owned the Valley shop for about a year.

“It’s terrible. I’ve been working so hard here to build up clientele.”

Toccoli noted that that prospect also worries owners of heating and air-conditioning companies, who often leave their shop’s phone number taped to the side of an installed appliance. In many cases, consumers don’t need to look at the number for years, long after the courtesy recording has ended.

Many business owners facing the possible 818 split said they wish the recording could be in place longer.

Others wonder if the so-called phone number shortage is real or invented.

Kyle DeVine, a spokeswoman for the PUC, insists the number crunch is real. But she noted that the blame doesn’t lie solely at the feet of pager and cell-phone-toting consumers.

Commission figures show that the vast majority of prefixes allotted statewide in 1998 went to phone companies seeking to compete with the likes of Pacific Bell and GTE.

Competitors were allocated nearly 1,300 prefixes last year and each prefix contains 10,000 actual numbers. By comparison, cellular phone companies got 373 prefixes, pager firms received 220 prefixes and local exchange companies, including Pac Bell and GTE, got 254, DeVine said.

If the competitors are to operate, DeVine said, “they’ve got to have prefixes, and that’s what has caused this current dilemma.”

The job of solving the dilemma falls to the five-member PUC, which is expected to decide the telephonic fate of the Valley, West Los Angeles and the South Bay on Sept. 16.

Mizrahi hasn’t contacted the commission, but he does have a request.

“Do whatever you want,” said the Israel native. “Just don’t hurt me.”

Valley @ Work runs each Tuesday. Karen Robinson-Jacobs can be reached at Karen.Robinson@latimes.com.