PUC Commissioners Supportive, Wary of National Broadband Plan
LOS ANGELES - State PUC Commissioners debated the implications of the National Broadband Plan at NCTA’s annual show and urged the federal government not to pull rank on states.
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.
Anthony Palermino, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, said his PUC was quite happy with the broadband plan as it first came out. “We have almost 95 percent build-out and saw only some small problems that we could probably deal with based on the money that looked to be coming from the federal government. We understood some jurisdictional issues to work out, and the biggest one we looked at was the natural tendency of the industry to want a single set of rules and regulations that would apply to them.” Such regulations would probably push towards a stronger federal influence over broadband, and over the plan, and tend to diminish what the state can do, he said, adding, “But, that we balanced off with that fact that we'd be controlling the federal money that was coming into play."
The Comcast decision has changed some of the contours of the broadband plan the FCC had in place, Palermino noted. “I've just started grappling with the ’third way’ [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] is suggesting as a way to get beyond the Comcast case and move ahead. Second, now I'm getting a sense that with the federal money is going to come a velvet-gloved hand from the administration that will want to take control over this particular thing and move it down to Washington and away from the states. While it doesn’t change what the FCC has said about the broadband plan, it causes me to have some concerns about where things are going to shake out."
Palermino acknowledged that his commission has avoided making a concrete decision on VoIP. “We think it’s best to try and project three to five years forward and see what’s happening then, rather than to get ourselves into any straightjackets where we would start regulating VoIP immediately only to find out that the federal government was going to move in and take that out of our control. So while optimistic, we do see some challenges to the plan."
Oregon Commission Chairman Ray Baum said the question rests on the jurisdictional point of whether or not the commission can set interstate intercarrier compensation rates under the existing language of the Act. “They do ask in the broadband plan for the states to do their own rate rebalancing. And if states would do that, of course it would take care of that jurisdictional question."
Oregon has opened a procedure on whether to take the $45 million universal service fund, which is designated for state wireline support, and convert it to a broadband fund, he said. “In that discussion is whether we should rebalance our rates, how much should be paid by the state fund, how much of it should be paid for by customers and how much should the companies absorb? We are currently using the federal benchmark of $21 as a measure for our wireline support and the question is: Is that appropriate for broadband deployment? I've heard a figure of $39, so that all has to play out."
To use the fund for broadband requires a legislative change, Baum explained. “The question we face is: How far, how fast can we move if the FCC is not putting out their [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] until the fall? If the legislature has to give us the authority and they only meet every two years we need to have them look at this now so we don’t get caught in a time warp."
South Dakota Public Service Commissioner Steve Kolbeck said the effect on his state depends on how the plan is implemented. “I know the concern of rural carriers is to build up broadband in underserved areas, and if there is sufficient support for those carriers that are already built out in those areas."
Kolbeck warned the government to follow through once the network was in place. “The National Broadband Plan is going to be a failure if it succeeds in connecting unserved customers to broadband, then fails to provide support on the backend so that those networks to rural areas are unable to be maintained. My biggest fear is that they will give the money to build it but not give the money to run it. For the rural nature of our state, sustainability is a vital issue. It is our major concern.”