NARUC RESOLUTIONS ADDRESS ROW, PORTABILITY, WIRELESS, CONSUMERS

NARUC Telecom Committee adopted resolution commending efforts of NARUC Study Committee on Public Rights-of-Way (CD July 30 p1) that produced 180-page report titled “Promoting Broadband Access Through Public Rights of Way and Public Lands.” Study committee was formed in Feb. and charged with developing recommendations for reducing extent to which right-of-way access served as barrier to deployment of advanced telecom and broadband networks. Study panel was composed of state regulators plus industry and state/local government representatives.

Resolution recommended that any public- or private- sector entity with interest in ROW issues review report, but made clear that NARUC didn’t endorse its contents. Disclaimer was included in resolution and in report to ease concerns of some states that report might be mischaracterized as official NARUC policy. But ROW report will be posted on NARUC’s Web site soon.

To help with development of appropriate ROW policies, report offers model legislation on rights-of-way management loosely based on Mich. 2002 ROW management law (SB-880, Public Act 48-2002). It also outlines several possible methods for addressing competing interests, suggests compilation of exemplary state and local best practices and calls for changes in rights-of-way policies of FCC and of federal public lands managers to facilitate ROW access.

Report includes 2 appendixes presenting dissents by municipalities and industry. Municipalities dissented on grounds it didn’t demonstrate that local actions were barrier to entry, ignored municipalities’ property interest in public ROWs, didn’t mention above-cost ROW fees as policy option and was silent on treatment of equipment left by bankrupt and defunct carriers in public rights-of-way. Industry’s dissent criticized report for its silence on above-cost ROW fees, which telcos oppose, and its not incorporating industry’s language on timely ROW access and protection from local requirements unrelated to actual ROW management. Industry also said report should have included language stipulating that entities such as resellers that used but didn’t own facilities in public ROW should be exempt from local ROW fees.

Telecom panel also adopted resolution asking FCC to change its local number portability (LNP) rules to allow state imposition of LNP requirement on facilities-based local carriers for number conservation purposes. FCC’s current LNP policies allow imposition of LNP only if there’s bona fide CLEC request for LNP. But if incumbent asserts rural exemption from competition, CLEC first must seek termination of exemption and then request LNP, process that could take months. Instead, resolution said, CLECs may prefer to obtain exchange prefix numerically close to that of incumbent and assign new phone numbers that are only digit or 2 different from customer’s old number. That practice wastes numbers and works to erect barrier to local competition. Resolution said request for multiple exchange prefixes should be trigger for deployment of LNP because multiple CLEC codes in rate center posed potential for efficient number use through pooling. Resolution said states were best positioned to determine need for LNP and to exempt carriers from LNP in appropriate circumstances.

Telecom panel deferred 3rd resolution, which would have held that consumers should have right to access Internet content without any restrictions imposed by their ISP or broadband provider, and that right should be respected and reinforced by FCC in any broadband dockets. Resolution would have addressed potential for service providers to steer customers toward favored Internet content or block access to content that wasn’t in favor with provider. Resolution was deferred to NARUC’s Nov. annual meeting in Chicago because some states wanted more time to discuss Internet content- access rights with access providers, and as courtesy to Vt. Public Service Board members Michael Dworkin and John Burke, who were unable to come to Portland in support of resolution they initiated because of important Vt. energy case that was due for decision.

NARUC’s Consumer Affairs Committee adopted 6 telecom- related policy resolutions that: (1) Urged FCC to establish some minimum national income eligibility standard for Lifeline, with automatic Lifeline enrollment for those who met national Lifeline income standard or any less restrictive state eligibility standards. Income standard would be developed by FCC with advice from Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. (2) Urged FCC to consider cost justification and universal service effects of June 5 order to raise federal subscriber line charge to $6 and take similar action with respect to any other mandatory monthly flat-rate fee increase before putting such increases into effect. Resolution also urged FCC to reconsider policies that moved price-capped carriers’ cost recovery from competitive arena to fee mandated by regulation. (3) Urged FCC and state commissions to develop comprehensive telecom consumer bill of rights, with states free to promulgate more stringent rights than FCC. Resolution said telecom consumers should have rights to complete disclosure of rates and terms, vendor choice, account privacy, effective recourse, accurate billing, nondiscriminatory treatment, safety of persons and property.

Other telecom resolutions from Consumer Affairs: (4) Called for study to identify extent and types of consumer complaints against wireless carriers. Resolution urged states, in conjunction with FCC and wireless industry, to explore options for facilitating speedy and fair resolution of wireless service complaints received by states or FCC. (5) Urged wireless industry to try to implement number portability before FCC’s Nov. 24, 2003, deadline. It also urged FCC to obtain frequent status reports from wireless industry on progress toward number portability. (6) Alerted FCC and wireless industry to potential environmental damage from toxic waste released from discarded mobile telephones. Resolution urged wireless carriers to consider universal interoperability so customers wouldn’t have to change phones when they changed provider, and to explore take-back programs so cellphones and their batteries could be recycled. Those resolutions join one adopted by NARUC Finance & Technology Committee earlier in week asking FCC not to reduce or sunset its current regulatory accounting rules (CD July 31). -- Herb Kirchhoff

NARUC Notebook…

Wireless industry representative on NARUC wireless service quality panel said wireless carriers would welcome dialog with states, FCC and consumer groups to resolve service quality complaints from customers. Michael Bagley, Verizon public policy dir., said wireless carriers wanted to keep their customers happy because there were plenty of competitors eager to snatch away an unhappy customer. He said acquiring new customers was expensive, costing more than $350 each. He said prescriptive solutions and penalties weren’t answer. Instead, he encouraged consumer groups and regulators to engage in dialog with wireless carriers to identify what was behind service problems and work toward solutions. Susan Weinstock of AARP described problems her senior citizen constituents encountered with wireless service and said many service complaints arose because industry wasn’t supplying customers with essential information and basic protections. She urged states to require that carriers provide price and quality comparisons, coverage maps and “fresh look” periods where customers could cancel unsatisfactory service agreements without penalty. Cal. PUC Pres. Loretta Lynch said in her state on per-capita basis, wireless and wireline carriers had about same level of complaints but some might go to FCC so complaint parity numbers might not be true picture. She said large proportion of wireless complaints concerned billing problems, disclosures and coverage gaps. She said when wireless service shifted from niche service to become essential part of daily life for masses, it also acquired landline-type responsibility to “work well all the time.” She agreed starting ground for addressing service problems was dialog with carriers. Both Lynch and Weinstock said marketplace’s control of service problems through competition was impaired by carriers’ failure to implement wireless number portability. But Bagley disagreed, saying there was more to competition than moving phone numbers and wireless carriers faced unique technical challenges in moving customers. He said industry, regulators and consumer groups agreed on goal of good service, “but we disagree that overly prescriptive regulations are the solution.”