IUB Chair Targets 2023 Telecom Code Update, Dismisses Reg Creep Fears
Iowa Utilities Board Chair Geri Huser pushed back on wireless industry concerns that the state commission is angling to expand its telecom authority through draft statutory changes that the IUB plans to propose to the legislature. At the board’s virtual workshop Monday, Lumen and wireless officials repeated some of their legal and policy concerns from written comments about possibly adding wireless and interconnected VoIP to the state definition of telecom service provider (see 2112010048).
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.
The agency plans to finalize its legislative proposal in time for the 2023 session, Huser told attendees. It will pause work in docket NOI-2021-0002 during the 2022 legislative session, though parties may file comments, she said. The board plans to release another draft 30-45 days after the legislative session ends April 19, then will schedule another workshop before 2023, she said.
Wireless carriers are trying to understand the board’s intent in proposing to include them, said Bret Dublinske, a Fredrikson attorney representing UScellular and others. The attorney general’s office has handled complaints about deregulated wireless services for about a decade, he said. “We haven't heard any concerns about how it's working today ... that would warrant a need for change.” The lawyer urged the IUB to avoid regulatory creep where a deregulated service “comes back in through the guise of complaint jurisdiction.”
Draft rules might let the commission apply slamming or cramming rules to wireless providers despite technology differences that make them inappropriate, said CTIA Counsel-State Affairs Matt DeTura. “That can put wireless providers over a barrel potentially because of the way that consumers switch their wireless service.” Slamming rules for wireless would mean delays for consumers “doing the thing that really protects them the most in a competitive market, which is dumping their carrier for somebody else who’s going to offer them better service.”
“The board has no intention of taking over any of the complaint jurisdiction that is currently with the attorney general’s office,” Huser responded. “If that’s not clear enough, I don’t know what else to say.” Huser noted she's the only current board member who was around during 2016 telecom deregulation. “It’s my intent -- and I believe the board’s -- to simply get the deregulation that we did back in … 2016 and 2017 and get the code updated.” Huser doesn’t want to “relitigate or discuss slamming and cramming,” she said. “The statute does not follow what our current operating procedures are, and we want to attempt to address those.”
"One of the main tensions that was obvious" in filed comments was "the extent to which the board should regulate telecommunications services,” said Office of Consumer Advocate attorney Anna Ryan earlier at the workshop: OCA thinks the board has a role. "When regulations are thoughtfully designed and fairly enforced, they can create a regime in which customers are protected and companies have the room they need to grow and to … provide service.” The board’s jurisdiction over consumer complaints should be competitively neutral, said Ryan: A customer shouldn’t have to know what technology they're using before they can ask the board to resolve complaints.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restricted states’ authority over VoIP, noted Lumen Senior Counsel Jason Topp. Lumen worries that a broad definition of telecom service provider would raise preemption issues by applying traditional board powers to VoIP, he said. "If the idea is to expand your authority," Lumen would oppose, he said. If the draft is enacted, Lumen fears the IUB will claim authority over broadband complaints and try to investigate and charge penalties, said Topp.
The agency has authority over an eligible telecom carrier that fails to deliver broadband speeds it promised the regulator, said Iowa Communications Alliance legal counsel John Pietila. But if a customer complains about price or video service, that the company is an ETC shouldn’t give the board authority to investigate, he said. “There might be room for the board to regulate” VoIP in the same way as traditional telcos “so long as the board doesn’t stray out into areas that have clearly been preempted” by the FCC, said Pietila.