NARUC Officials Seek Direction From Congress on Net Neutrality
NARUC's draft resolution urging congressional action on the FCC net neutrality order (see 1507010061) would ask Congress to move forward on figuring out the playing field, said members of the association in interviews Thursday. South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Chris Nelson said it’s a good thing for Congress to move forward. “There's negotiations between the Democrats and Republicans about, 'How do we deal with this?'” he said. “So if this would pass, it would then say that NARUC could then be involved in those discussions. This is a recognition that the stage on which this is playing out may well be shifting from the FCC to Congress and we want to be in a position to advocate if it moves in that direction.”
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.
While the resolution's immediate goal is to get a road map for how states should approach net neutrality, Idaho Public Utilities Commission President Paul Kjellander said it would also be good to get a rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act. NARUC has taken a position on net neutrality in the past, so the proposed resolution is reiterating that position and asking for more clarity on the rules, he said. “Put us out of our misery on these issues is really what it boils down to,” Kjellander said. “Tell us what it is you want us to do, give us the rules of the road and let’s get on the road and let’s get moving down it. I can live with the law, just let’s get it. Let’s figure out if there’s a role for the states, and I hope there is, and let’s figure out what that is and let’s get on with it.”
Another proposed resolution for the summer meeting July 12-15 in New York City focuses on eligible telecom carrier designations for Lifeline broadband service. The resolution is in response to the FCC’s latest Lifeline ruling, said D.C. Public Service Chairwoman Betty Ann Kane. States should be able to have their own Lifeline broadband programs because they know what works for their constituents, she said. Many states already have Lifeline broadband programs, she said. NARUC has always favored a federal-state partnership over having just a federal program, Kane said. “For the counsel at NARUC to respond to the FCC, there needs to be a policy in place,” she said. “There's a very strong belief on the part of the state commissioners that the states are the closest to the people, to the recipients, and that states should have the ability to manage programs that fit their states and not be preempted by the FCC from doing that.”
States should remain a part of the process, agreed National Regulatory Research Institute Principal Researcher Sherry Lichtenberg. It’s important for states to have representatives with their boots on the ground because they better understand the relationships states have with telcos, she said. "Conditions are different state-to-state and so having a generic, 'Yes, you can be a broadband ETC ruling' might not be that good."
Another resolution would commend the work the FCC Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council Working Group IV did on the latest report that was adopted in March. Lichtenberg said it’s important to support the working group participants because they're involved and knowledgeable. Nelson agrees the group did a good job tackling a tough and timely issue: "It's really as simple as saying, 'Hey, states this is a good product and you should pay attention to it.'"