Don't Take Back Disaster Relief Rules for Telecom, Consumer Groups Tell CPUC
Consumer groups rejected telecom industry calls to take back California disaster relief requirements. Landline, VoIP and wireless providers last month filed three applications asking the California Public Utilities Commission to rehear its August decision requiring communications providers to adopt emergency…
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.
disaster relief programs upon a declared state of emergency by the governor or the president when a disaster results in service loss, disruption or degradation (see 1909250022). The providers said they do that voluntarily. “There is a need for mandatory and enforceable requirements that allow the Commission to ensure that the public receives the emergency consumer protections ordered, and to ensure awareness, transparency and oversight for such protections,” The Utility Reform Network, CPUC Public Advocates Office, Center for Accessible Technology and the National Consumer Law Center said in a Tuesday response in docket R18-03-011, emailed Friday by the center. Providers “tend to file material that consists of high level responses that are short on specifics and details,” they said. Consumer groups disagreed with VoIP and wireless providers claiming federal law pre-empts the state from making rules for their services. “VoIP providers clearly offer telephone service, using telephone lines,” and in disasters, the CPUC may “exercise the state’s police power, which is not preempted by federal law,” the consumer groups said. There’s no definitive ruling on whether VoIP is an information service that states can’t regulate, and a recent 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that it is information -- which could get Supreme Court review (see 1910090048) -- is “not binding in other Circuits and certainly not to a state commission outside the Circuit.” The Communications Act “is clear that providers of commercial mobile service are treated as common carriers under federal law, and that states retain their general authority to regulate these carriers even as they are specifically prohibited from regulating market entry or rates,” the consumer groups said. Customer protections don’t equal unconstitutional takings, they said. “The nature of the Decision’s regulation is temporary and designed to address the specific needs of a narrow group of customers for a relatively short period of time.” The rules don’t conflict with the California Emergency Services Act because the Act doesn’t provide for consumer protection for utilities customers after emergencies, they said. The California Cable and Telecommunications Association, representing a VoIP coalition, said industry’s three challenges “demonstrate clear error in such decision that should be promptly corrected on rehearing.”