NASUCA, Others Ask FCC To Shift More Fixed Backup Power Duties to Industry
Consumer groups asked the FCC to revisit its tech transition backup power order by putting more of the onus and cost on fixed-service providers and less on consumers. The commission should reconsider the order because its rules “depart from the…
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.
approach” in an NPRM, “transfer the responsibility for ensuring the reliability of 911 and other emergency voice communications from the provider to the consumer, and undermine the public safety and other policy goals” of Section 151 of the Communications Act, said a petition posted in docket 14-174 Tuesday by the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and other groups. The FCC should revise its conclusion that “carriers are not required to provide back-up power, and need only make back-up power available at the customer’s option and expense,” the groups said. They said consumers expect their 911 and other emergency calls will be completed, but the order's mandates are “insufficient” to protect public health and safety. “The Commission concludes that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for back-up power would disserve customer interests,” they said. “This conclusion is erroneous. It rests on an observation that many customers rely on wireless and cordless phones and an inference that consumers have come to prefer the minimal backup-power afforded by the charge on a wireless phone or the convenience of a cordless phone without backup power. There is no basis for this inference.” Joining the petition were Access Sonoma Broadband, the Benton Foundation, Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County, Center for Rural Strategies, Greenlining Institute, Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, and Public Knowledge.