NARUC Advances Resolutions on DTV Transition, Pole Attachments, Broadband

A DTV resolution approved unanimously by NARUC’s Consumer Affairs Committee Sunday would urge federal authorities to extend the 90-day life of $40 DTV converter box coupons and let households whose coupons expire reapply. It would urge Congress to see if NTIA coupon policies suit a market in which boxes are often in short supply, and urge the NTIA to see if retailers follow reasonable inventory management methods in stocking converters. A related DTV resolution, also approved unanimously, urges a new FCC DTV consumer education effort on features in all coupon-eligible boxes and how features such as captioning and analog pass-through can help people.

Meanwhile, NARUC’s Telecom Committee unanimously advanced a resolution calling pole attachments crucial to broadband deployment and electric reliability and calling for NARUC to compile a report on pole-attachment regulation in each state, including a comprehensive list of best practices states could adopt to promote broadband. The second resolution adopted by Telecom urges government, businesses, carriers and nonprofit organizations to take appropriate action to help low-income households get broadband technology and make effective use of broadband for employment, education and personal enrichment. All committee resolutions must be approved by the NARUC board on Wednesday to become official policy.

Several Telecom Committee members asked Consumer Affairs to support a resolution advanced Sunday by the telecom staff subcommittee that would “encourage mutually agreed upon” uniform national wireless consumer protection standards. These standards would be developed by a task force of three FCC commissioners, four state commissioners, an industry representative and a consumer advocate. Supporters stressed the distinction between a national standard, created jointly by the federal and state jurisdictions, and a federal standard imposed by the FCC or Congress alone. A similar resolution was rejected by the NARUC board in February, in part because the Consumer Affairs Committee didn’t work on the proposal.

Commissioner Rachelle Chong of California, a sponsor of the resolution, said it reaffirms NARUC’s commitment to national standards enforced through the states. She said that given recent leanings in Congress and at the FCC toward total preemption of state wireless authority, NARUC needs to act on this issue now. Indiana Commissioner Larry Landis said there are “at least three votes, and possibly four, at the FCC” in favor of preempting all state authority over wireless terms and conditions. He said the choice is between repeatedly fighting preemption and “working toward a national solution that preserves some state authority.”

Consumers’ wireless consumer rights vary by locale, Chong said. “Our thrust is for a uniform national standard to give consumers equal rights everywhere.” She released results of a national survey by the California and District of Columbia commissions on regulation of wireless terms and conditions. The survey showed that 33 state commissions and the District are barred by law from wireless service regulation. Another nine state commissions have statutory wireless authority but choose not to regulate wireless: Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont.

The eight other states regulate certain “other terms and conditions” of wireless service. The survey showed California has the most extensive wireless regulations, on cramming, bill formats, marketing and service quality. Hawaii regulates wireless service quality. Iowa regulates service quality of wireless carriers getting universal service subsidies. Kentucky said it does regulate some wireless terms and conditions but gave no details. Louisiana regulates cramming and billing of wireless carriers that get universal service subsidies. Mississippi said it intends to regulate some wireless terms and conditions and is developing policies. New Mexico regulates cramming and marketing, South Dakota regulates cramming and service quality. None of these states cited regulation of termination fees, bill fonts, or coverage disclosures.

But Commissioner John Burke of Vermont said the Consumer Affairs panel should see that the proposed resolution marks a substantial shift in NARUC’s position, since it essentially would concede to the federal jurisdiction the authority to establish wireless consumer protection standards, impairing states’ ability to react to rapid industry changes or new forms of consumer abuse. “We are first to learn what’s hot and have the best ability to protect consumers” from new forms of abuse, he said. Any national standard, he said, needs periodic updates, and he suggested the task force that sets the standards reconvene at least once every six months to consider revisions. The Consumer Affairs and Telecom Committees plan final votes on this resolution Tuesday.

The Telecom Committee opened debate Monday on the touchy interconnection resolution, which says that state commissions’ authority to settle local interconnection and traffic-exchange disputes among telecom carriers under sections 251 and 252 of the federal Telecom Act should be protected as a matter of law and policy no matter what technology, configuration or network topology telecom carriers use as they go from circuit-switched service to next-generation packetized service.

The telecom panel heard from competitive and incumbent carriers who were poles apart on this proposal. Economics consultant Joe Gallan, representing competitive carriers, said the states have been the impartial third- party referees who ensure interconnection disputes between voice carriers get settled and should continue in that role as telecom carriers shift to next-generation packet technologies. “The controversy over this resolution shows NARUC needs to go on record on this,” he said. It’s not a big issue, Gallan acknowledged, but he said it will become one. “As incumbents go to the IP format, we need to reassert the states’ role in resolving interconnection disputes,” he said.

But Robert Mayer of USTA, speaking for incumbent telcos, said the resolution “has broad implications that could lead to extending states’ interconnection jurisdiction to include non-carriers,” such as ISPs, under sections 251 and 252. Several commissioners said the resolution clearly limits its effect to entities the FCC officially classifies as telecom carriers, and there’s apparent confusion between IP-based voice service and Internet service. Gallan asked whether packet switching automatically makes a network non-telecom. Mayer asked why the resolution is proposed if it isn’t meant to redefine telecom carrier to include information services. He said that as voice is embedded in video and multimedia packets, the task of differentiating between voice and non-voice information will require complex and costly engineering solutions, or extending state jurisdiction to include Internet interconnection. The debate is to continue Tuesday.

NARUC Notebook…

NARUC panel speakers Sunday said the next 10 years will see a radical evolution of the concept of “plain old telephone service” from a landline service for voice communications to a mobile service able to deliver any combination of voice, data and video to anyone anywhere for business or personal use. This shift will bring new players and require a new regulatory framework. “By 2018, today’s teens, who spend their lives in constant [telecom] contact with their circle of friends” will be tomorrow’s workers, demanding constant telecom contact with colleagues and information resources on a scale barely imaginable, said Frank Simone of AT&T. This fundamental change in how telecom is used will require regulators to move from rate, entry, access and wholesale compensation to broadband expansion, spectrum management, public safety, universal service and numbering, he said. Peter Bluhm of the National Regulatory Research Institute said, “POTS as we know it today will wither away as broadband grows. At some point we will have to face the policy question of whether to maintain an expensive circuit- switched network used by only a minority of subscribers.” Illinois Commerce Commissioner Sherman Elliott said the convergence of high energy prices and expanding broadband capabilities will bring electric utilities on the scene as a major telecom player. He said utilities will be driven to spend heavily on broadband technologies to manage generation, transmission and distribution of electric power to keep costs down and maximize efficiency -- savings largely paying for the telecom infrastructure. He said it would be relatively easy and very profitable for utilities to add retail broadband service over power lines. Rick Cimmerman of the National Cable Telecom Association cited BPL issues needing regulatory attention, such as unfair cross-subsidies and other discrimination that could occur when a municipal utility offers broadband service in competition with a cable company the municipality regulates. He said technology and regulation won’t be alone in influencing the convergence of voice, data and video. He said it’s technically feasible to put TV and radio programs on cellphones, predicting little movement until copyright and licensing issues are settled through “commercial negotiation.” Stephen Kukta of Sprint Nextel said that wireless broadband inevitably will become a major force, and regulators’ main contribution will be in encouraging expansion of service into unserved areas.