NARUC Telecom Committee Passes Net Neutrality Resolution
DALLAS -- NARUC’s Telecom Committee unanimously passed Tuesday an amended version of a resolution encouraging the FCC to craft its new net neutrality rules using Communications Act Section 706 as its main legal justification. NARUC’s board is set to vote on the resolution Wednesday. Public Service Board member John Burke, the resolution’s original sponsor, introduced an amended version of the resolution at the committee meeting that would encourage the FCC to use Section 706 as its main jurisdictional base for drafting the new net neutrality rules, while encouraging the use of Title II authority as a backup. A draft resolution had equally encouraged Title II and Section 706 as jurisdictional bases for the rules (CD July 14 p6).
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.
Burke said he worked with Washington Utilities and Transportation Commissioner Philip Jones to draft the revised resolution. Jones had planned to introduce an amendment during the meeting that would have included similar language. The committee later added Titles I and III as additional backup authorities the FCC should use. The committee also struck a section of the resolution that referred to broadband as being “substantially similar” to Title II services.
Several industry representatives and members of the committee had expressed opposition before the committee vote over NARUC supporting FCC use of Title II authority on an equal footing with Section 706, given the controversy surrounding possible reclassification of broadband as a Title II service, Burke told us. “It'll take away the angst of a few colleagues of mine who are concerned to some degree” and would prefer to follow the lead of the FCC, which has thus far appeared to prefer using Section 706 authority to Title II, Burke said. Industry members who spoke at the committee meeting indicated they wouldn’t oppose the revised resolution’s language.
NCTA had been concerned about the resolution’s earlier language because it called for a “specific regulatory framework,” said Vice President-State Government Affairs Rick Cimerman in an interview before the revised resolution was introduced. NCTA was a supporter of NARUC’s 2002 and 2010 pro-net neutrality resolutions, he said. Several commissioners had told NCTA that “NARUC as a body, regardless of the beliefs of any specific commissioners, does not need to weigh into the fight over a specific framework given that NARUC is already in support of a particular outcome,” Cimerman said before the meeting. “What’s more important is that the FCC achieve that outcome.” Cimerman was one of several industry executives who spoke during the committee meeting. He also made a similar statement during an earlier panel Tuesday on net neutrality. Several commissioners told us before the committee meeting that their final vote on the resolution would depend on the debate during the meeting and amendments that could occur as a result.
Nebraska Public Service Commissioner Tim Schram said he wanted to listen to all of the debate and come to a decision then: “I've got a lot of respect for [Burke] and certainly he’s very knowledgeable on federal telecom issues. I don’t see anything harmful about the resolution at this point, but we'll see what modifications there are.” Florida Public Service Commissioner Ronald Brisé said his vote would also depend on how amendments changed the language in the revised resolution.
NASUCA “very strongly supports the resolution” and said so when the Staff Subcommittee on Telecom voted Sunday to also support the resolution, David Bergmann, the group’s counsel, told us before the committee meeting. “That’s what I communicated to the staff subcommittee and hopefully that message got through to the commissioners. It’s consistent with the position that we have taken for many years, and it’s consistent with the position” the group articulated in comments Tuesday on the FCC’s net neutrality NPRM, which were “strongly in favor of Title II, very strongly in favor the overall reclassification issue,” he said.
AT&T believes the FCC should use Section 706 as legal justification for its new net neutrality rules, rather than taking on Title II authority, said Vice President-Federal Regulatory Hank Hultquist during the earlier panel. Comments meanwhile are streaming into the FCC on a net neutrality NPRM. (See separate report above in this issue.) AT&T believes Section 706 authority will be sufficient for the FCC to restore the “balance” it achieved in the 2010 net neutrality rules while also avoiding “more far-reaching changes,” said Hultquist.
Scott McCullough, an attorney at McCullough Henry who represents several CLECs and edge providers, said the FCC should invoke Title II in its new net neutrality rules because Section 706 is insufficient to protect against abuses. National Regulatory Research Institute Principal Sherry Lichtenberg said she was “surprised” the resolution was being perceived as controversial, but said some members of the committee may be influenced by upcoming bids for re-election to their state regulatory boards. (jphillips@warren-news.com)