Early State Telecom Bills Focus on Video Franchising, Regulation, Cellphone Safety

Parallel video franchise reform bills in the N.Y. legislature (SB-744/AB-1423) would make the state PSC the exclusive video franchising agency, replacing municipalities. The legislation includes a network neutrality provision barring video providers from favoring any Internet sites or classes of applications. It would give the PSC 60 days to act on a franchise application and would require 3 public hearings. Franchises would be for an initial 5-year term, with 10-year renewal terms; franchise fees would be capped at 5%. Video providers would have to have service available within 3 years to areas with population density over 7,100 per square mile, and within 6 years to areas with population density over 501 per square mile. Redlining would be prohibited. Video entrants would have to provide public access channels and free service to schools, libraries and municipal offices.

Two Mass. lawmakers say they're ready to introduce legislation to shift video franchising from municipalities to the state Dept. of Telecom & Energy. State Sen. Steven Panagiotakos (D) and state Rep. James Vallee (D) would allow new video entrants such as Verizon to get a state franchise instead of negotiating with the state’s 316 franchising municipalities. They said their bill would allow the state 15 days to act on video franchise applications, which could cover a single town or a region of the state. Verizon currently offers video services under local franchises in 35 communities and is in negotiations with 30 others. The Mass. Municipal Assn. and state cable industry trade assn. said they'll oppose the legislation as unnecessary, particularly in light of a recent FCC video policy order that will greatly speed local franchising processes.

In Colo., state Rep. David Balmer (R) said he'll introduce a bill to shift video franchising from municipalities to the state. Qwest has been pressing for such legislation for some time and Balmer said he thinks statewide franchising is necessary for rapid spread of video competition. Balmer has until Jan. 31 to introduce his bill. He said competition came to voice phone services 10 years ago and brought price and service benefits to consumers, “and now it’s time to bring competition to the cable sector.” He gave no indication of how his bill would address network build-out requirements, the main bone of contention between Qwest and Colo. municipalities, or which state agency would assume franchising duties.

State lawmakers are taking aim at automated political campaign calls, dialed by computer in order to play a prerecorded political message. A Mich. bill aimed at automated political campaign calls (SB-3) would require the PSC to either create a state-specific no-call list for political calls, or designate a suitable national no-call list for automated political calls. A Tex. telemarketing bill (HB-515) would prohibit placing automated telemarketing calls for any purpose, including political campaigning, to anyone on the state no-call list.

In Conn., SB-157 would add automated political calls to the types of calls covered by the state no-call list. An Ore. no-call bill (SB-117) would authorize creation of a state no-call list or authorize the state attorney gen. to designate the federal no-call list as the official state no- call registry. An S.D. bill (SB-23) would expand the legal definition of “unsolicited” phone call for no-call purposes to include all telemarketing calls other than those placed in response to a consumer request, to collect debts, or to persons who've done business with the calling party in the last 18 months.

States also are revising the scope of regulation. Parallel Mont. regulation bills (SB-3/HB-244) would eliminate advance PSC approval of promotional rates of incumbent telcos. Current law requires 30 days notice and approval by the PSC for limited-duration promotional rates. The bill also would prohibit setting a price for a service bundle that’s higher than the sum of the stand-alone rates for the services comprising the bundle, or pricing bundles at a rate below the stand-alone rate for an access line. An S.D. regulation bill (SB-22) would eliminate filing of tariffs for competitive telecom services. The bill would require carriers to maintain current information about rates and terms for competitive services on their web sites and business offices. Carriers also would have to give customers 30 days notice of any “adverse” changes to rates or terms for competitive services.

An Ore. regulatory bill (SB-86) would designate the PUC as the primary agency for resolving consumer complaints about telecom cramming and slamming, instead of the state Attorney Gen. Office. It would direct the PUC to establish rules and procedures for handling complaints, prescribe penalties and set rules for telecom carriers to obtain consumer consent to service changes and to charges billed through the carriers.

A S.C. bill (HB-3078) would require wireless carriers to make their services available to all parts of the state pursuant to an action plan and timetable to be approved and enforced by the PSC. Violators could be fined up to $50,000. A Miss. regulation bill (SB-2506) would add cable systems to the list of public utilities subject to PSC jurisdiction, to the extent permitted by federal law, if they provide any type of 2-way, interactive video services. Passive systems that merely provide one-way retransmission of video signals wouldn’t be included, nor would closed systems in apartment complexes that don’t use public rights of way. A N.Y. disabled telecom bill (SB-759) would update the PSC’s adaptive telecom equipment programs for the deaf and disabled to include any type of appropriate technology. Sponsors said the current law allows only certain services and technologies to be supported, and is out of step with technological advances in adaptive equipment. The bill would require telecom companies to provide equipment at cost. The PSC would be designated to maintain and update a list of eligible adaptive technologies.

Cellphone safety bills also are popping up for 2007. An N.D. bill ( HB-1196) would prohibit anyone under 18 from using any kind of wireless communications device while driving. Penalties would include a $100 fine and up to 4 violations points, the same as for reckless driving. HB-41 in Minn. would prohibit anyone from using any kind of mobile phone while driving, except to report an emergency or to summon emergency assistance. Offenses would be a secondary violation, meaning police couldn’t issue a cellphone ticket unless the driver was being stopped for another traffic violation. HB-2109 in Ariz. would prohibit use of handheld wireless phones while driving, except to report emergencies, on pain of a $50 fine. But if wireless phone use contributed to an auto accident, the fine would jump to $250 on top of any other applicable penalties. In Miss., SB-2425 would prohibit drivers on learner’s permits or provisional licenses issued to drivers under 18 from using any kind of wireless phone while driving. It also would prohibit motorcycle drivers under age 18 from using any kind of wireless phone.

HB-5313 in Conn. would boost the fine for using a handheld wireless phone while driving to $250 from $50, plus a $25 surcharge to the municipality where the violation occurred. It also would expand the scope of the violation beyond cellphones to include any kind of handheld electronic device. A bill in N.Y. (SB-50) would expand the ban on use of handheld phones while driving to include any kind of handheld device for text messaging, Internet access and any other wireless telecom function. SB-20 in Vt. would impose a $100 fine for using a handheld wireless phone while driving, except in emergencies. In Ark., SB-6 would prohibit use of handheld wireless phones while driving, except in emergencies or by emergency response personnel; SB-7 would require users of hands-free mobile phones to keep both hands on the steering wheel while talking. Offenders would be fined $50.

In other legislation, a N.J. broadband bill (SB-2472) would allow municipalities to provide broadband service to their residents, in partnership with private entities. The municipality would be limited to building and leasing the broadband infrastructure and couldn’t directly provide broadband service itself. An Ind. broadband bill (HB-1068) would authorize the Utilities Board to offer incentives to electric utilities to encourage deployment of broadband over powerline technology. The bill would require utilities to account for BPL deployment and to separate costs of BPL for utility applications from costs of other BPL services. BPL systems also would have to conform to FCC rules regarding radio interference.