The basic structure of the Telecom Act of...

not the Act, but the broad, and some might argue, unwarranted discretion the judiciary has given the FCC to implement it,” NARUC said in joint comments submitted by NARUC President Colette Honorable of Arkansas and Telecom Committee Chairman Chris Nelson, of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (http://bit.ly/1dp0bbu). Comments were due to House Commerce Friday, and NARUC released its comments Tuesday. NARUC attacked the way the agency has handled the distinction between telecom and information services, suggesting it has caused problems. NARUC said there are places where the act may need updates but it hasn’t collected its members’ views for any major official positions. Flexibility is already present in the statute, NARUC said: “It is hard to construct a scenario where these existing authorities cannot provide the requisite flexibility.” NARUC said state roles should be preserved in such areas as interconnection: “If VoIP were classified as a ’telecommunications service’ it would be clear that [Communications Act] Sections 251-2 apply to IP interconnections and the arbitration option would be available to smaller carriers that cannot get large carriers to the table to discuss interconnection,” NARUC said. The state regulators flagged the federalism principles that their telecom task force put together as one relevant resource for Congress. The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, meanwhile, made four recommendations, in comments it released this week. Congress should look at the ways to prioritize and increase opportunities for minority and women’s business enterprise ownership and participation and to promote the goals of broadcast diversity, MMTC said. It emphasized what it called “first-class digital citizenship for people of color” and highlighted broadband access and adoption and called for clarification of laws that may affect broadband infrastructure development. Universal service also plays a role, it said.