States Should Stay Out of Regulating IP Tech, Says ALEC
As states grapple over what role they should play in regulating IP technologies, a free-market advocacy group that helps connect industry with legislators on a variety of issues said states should just stay out of it. The American Legislative Exchange Council issued a report (http://bit.ly/1jgJjM5) Wednesday on promoting broadband in states. ALEC’s first recommendation: Exempting “Internet protocol-based technologies from state utility regulation.” The group said it backed preserving “several rights and responsibilities for states and providers, while also respecting” FCC jurisdiction. State regulators told us they disagreed with the report.
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.
States should continue to enforce general consumer protection laws like those against fraud or deceptive business practices, said John Stephenson, director of ALEC’s Task Force on Communications and Technology, in an interview. On approving changes in network or service, or imposing carrier-of-last-resort obligations, state regulators should get out of the way, he said. “When old laws govern new technologies, costs rise and innovation slows,” the report said.
Nebraska Public Service Commission Chairman Frank Landis said he has heard the arguments before. “'Hands off. Hands off. You're slowing down technology,'” he said. “That’s a lot of hooey.” He said “if you listen to AT&T or Verizon, you don’t need obsolete burdensome regulations. ‘Just get rid of them. Just trust us to do the right thing.’ There needs to be a meaningful role for states, whether it’s IP or telephones. Someone needs to be watching out for the consumer. States are much closer to the consumer than the federal government or FCC.” An example, said Landis, is the regulation of call routers to take calls from the point of origin to their destination. “Calls drop into a black hole somewhere,” he said. “Is the FCC going to be worrying about one individual call completion in rural Nebraska? I don’t think anyone at the FCC has the time.” NARUC declined to comment.
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Vice Chairman Chris Nelson, chairman of NARUC’s telecom committee, cited the position the association took before the House Communications Subcommittee in January. NARUC said changing technologies doesn’t negate the need for state regulations. “The reason for regulatory oversight never changes regardless of changes in technology used to provide a service,” said the group. “Regardless of the level of competition, some oversight is always necessary to provide things the market will not. This includes, among other things, a certain level of consumer protection, local number portability, interconnection, prioritization of restoration of services after disasters, 911 service, disabled access, and universal service."
States are grappling with what role they should play in regulating the new technology, Stephenson said. For instance, Kansas legislators last year limited state jurisdiction over IP-enabled technology, reversing a ruling by the Kansas State Corporation Commission to assert authority over VoIP. Regulators in Maine, New Hampshire and Missouri have also asserted their authority over IP technology, he said, while legislatures in more than two dozen states have said their regulatory bodies should have very little authority. ALEC’s report also comes as the FCC approved last week IP transition trials. NARUC said it will take up a resolution at its annual meeting starting Saturday in Washington asserting the authority of state regulators over the trials.
Stephenson said consumers have institutions other than state regulatory bodies, saying the FCC takes complaints online. He said the prospect of meeting regulations from 50 states hinders innovation. Apple never would have developed and updated Facetime if it had to gain approval from 50 regulatory bodies for each step, he said.
Coralette Hannon, AARP senior legislative representative, said the emergence of new technologies doesn’t change the need for regulation. The debate “is not about landlines versus alternate technologies,” she said in a statement. “It is about making sure that consumers have access to communications service that is available to meet their critical needs and serve as a lifeline to preserve health and safety."
The ALEC report also recommended that companies brought in to repair damaged communications infrastructure after natural disasters be exempt from local taxes. Saying nearly a quarter of wireless tower construction and improvement applications nationwide have been pending for more than a year, and some for more than three years, ALEC recommended setting a 75-day time limit for processing applications and restricting the placement of requirements on proposed towers.