MICH. BROADBAND BILLS HIT, IND. PULLS EXPANSION OF NO-CALL EXEMPTIONS
Controversial Mich. broadband development legislation came under attack at state Senate committee hearings and Ind. bill to broaden no-call list exemptions was pulled by its sponsor as state legislatures got down to business in their 2002 sessions. Meanwhile, new bills on telemarketing, spam, wireless taxation, and regulatory processes were introduced around country.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Mich. Senate committee opened hearings on controversial broadband development bills championed by Gov. John Engler (R). Critics attacked bills as increase in state regulation and taxation of telecom, while supporters said they were necessary to attract high-tech businesses. Bills before Senate Technology & Energy Committee, carried over from 2001, would implement Engler’s development plan. They include SB- 880 to create state telecom rights-of-way (ROW) authority that would preempt local ROW regulation and collect state ROW fee of 5 cents per foot, and SB-881 to create state “community communications authority” to provide cheap loans and grants to fund broadband development in underserved areas.
Verizon, state’s 2nd largest incumbent, attacked plan, calling it $50 million increase in ROW taxes on state’s 36 incumbent telcos. Carrier said plan also would increase regulation of industry and create perverse incentives that would act to discourage broadband investment. Democrats on Senate panel asserted bills conflicted with Engler administration’s record of promoting business deregulation. Supporters stressed need for universally available high-speed Internet access if state was to stay economically competitive. Administration representatives said bills would help speed broadband infrastructure projects by reducing red tape and eliminating excessive local fees and endless local delays. Mich. Economic Development Corp. said Mich. had seen an average pace of broadband development but average wasn’t good enough and dial-up access just didn’t cut it anymore. Panel took no immediate action on bills, but said they would be voted on by Jan. 30.
Sponsor of Ind. bill to add new exemption to state’s 2001 no-call telemarketing list law withdrew measure, which would have added exemption for businesses calling existing customers. State Sen. Joseph Harrison (R-Attica) said he withdrew SB-174 at request of Ind. Attorney Gen. Stephen Carter, who wanted to see how well list worked before legislature considered any changes to no-call law. List took effect Jan. 1 with 784,000 numbers on it. AG’s office said it was investigating 79 complaints of no-call violations, but said most telephone solicitors seemed to be complying with no-call law.
Meanwhile, more new telecom bills are popping up as state legislatures get their 2002 sessions under way. Miss. bill (SB-2024) would establish state “no-call” telemarketing list to be implemented and enforced by state PSC. Bill also would prohibit telemarketers from blocking their numbers from caller ID, ban telemarketing calls after 8 p.m. and all hours on Sundays, and specified $5,000 maximum fine for telemarketing violations. All local exchange providers would be required to notify their customers twice per year about no-call list, by their choice of broadcast or print ads, direct mail, bill inserts, phone book notices or other notification means approved by PSC. Bill is in Senate Public Utilities Committee.
New Utah antispam bill (HB-80) would require senders of unsolicited commercial e-mails to include “ADV:” as first 4 characters of subject line. It also would require inclusion of sender’s legal business name, correct street address and Internet address in message, along with “free and convenient” method by which recipient could direct sender to cease its e- mails. Measure would prohibit false or deceptive identification of return address or transmission path. It would allow victims to sue offender for lesser of $10 per spam message or $25,000 per violation day, or for actual damages. Bill is similar to Cal. spam law upheld earlier this month by Cal. appeals court.
Two new Ind. bills would affect powers and procedures of Ind. Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). First bill (SB- 261) would authorize IURC to fine telecom, energy and other utilities up to $30,000 per violation for anticompetitive behavior prohibited by IURC rules. IURC now must sue offender in state court for order imposing fines. Second IURC-related bill (SB-244), would prohibit IURC commissioners or any other IURC official or employee assigned to particular proceeding from private discussions of case with any party. Ex parte communications that do occur must be reported in detail within 3 days after communication occurs and will be part of public record. Failure to report ex parte communications could punished by disciplinary action, dismissal or misdemeanor prosecution. Both bills are in Senate Commerce & Conaumer Affairs Committee.
New Mo. bill (SB-747) would allow nonattorneys to represent telecom, energy and other utilities in proceedings before state PSC. Currently, agency rules require companies to be represented by lawyers licensed to practice in Mo. Bill would allow companies to be represented by their senior officers or other designated employee, and says such representation wouldn’t be construed as practice of law.
Two car phone safety bills have been introduced in Ky. Both (HB-71 and HB-128) would prohibit use of handheld mobile phones while driving except to place emergency call, on pain of $100 fine per offense. HB-128 also provides for 30-day period after effective date during which police can give verbal warnings, and would explicitly preempt local regulation of mobile phone use. Both bills are in House Transportation Committee.
Del. car phone safety bill (HB-360), modeled on N.Y. car phone law, would ban use of handheld wireless phones while driving except to report emergencies. Violators would face $100 fine, but tickets could be waived if violators provided proof that they had purchased hands-free phone or device. In first 30 days after measure took effect, police would issue warnings while public safety officials advertised law change. Bill is in House Public Safety Committee.
Bill in S.D. (SB-36) would amend state tax law to conform to federal Mobile Telecom Sourcing Act. It would tax wireless services according to subscriber’s “place of primary use,” which normally would be residence or workplace. Bill is in Senate Taxation Committee. It’s similar to wireless tax conformity legislation appearing in Me. and other states around country.