Frontier Communications expects to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy “in the coming weeks,” the carrier said Thursday after resolving outstanding issues at the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC at a livestreamed meeting Thursday unanimously adopted a proposed decision to clean up lingering issues in the state’s Frontier reorganization OK. The CPUC last month gave Frontier the last regulatory clearance needed to close the carrier’s reorganization, but a controversial, late-added condition prevented it from emerging right away (see 2103250059). Frontier earlier this month supported a proposed revision to that condition (see 2104060033). The CPUC this week rejected other suggested tweaks (see 2104130027). Also at the California commission meeting, members unanimously approved a resolution to adopt a settlement requiring Sprint to repay $41.7 million to California LifeLine for erroneously received reimbursements (see 2104020033).
Adam Bender
Adam Bender, Senior Editor, is the state and local telecommunications reporter for Communications Daily, where he also has covered Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. He has won awards for his Warren Communications News reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists, Specialized Information Publishers Association and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. Bender studied print journalism at American University and is the author of dystopian science-fiction novels. You can follow Bender at WatchAdam.blog and @WatchAdam on Twitter.
Many state utility commissions are still evaluating when to fully bring back employees and the public, as more COVID-19 vaccines become available, agency representatives said in response to a Communications Daily survey. Two Southern commissions said they’re at least mostly back, though coronavirus protocols continue. Commissions reported such safety measures as plexiglass barriers, temperature checks, and masking and social distancing requirements. Communications companies, law firms and federal agencies also are still deciding, our earlier report found (see 2104140030).
Adopting one-touch, make-ready (OTMR) in California might affect safety, the California Public Utilities Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division said Monday. Union workers and the electric industry also raised concerns in docket R.17-06-028 comments about adopting FCC-like OTMR and self-help pole attachment rules. The CPUC should study “technical, safety, and regulatory challenges, barriers, and opportunities" of adopting OTMR and self-help procedures, the safety division said: Don’t adopt them “without sufficient evidence to indicate that attachments can be installed safely and in full compliance with Commission requirements.” The proposed changes don't enhance CPUC safety provisions and might "interfere with the utilities' safety compliance by imposing time constraints that could limit the utilities’ presence during surveys and make-ready work performed by attachers,” and it’s unclear how the commission would enforce OTMR, the division said. Adopting OTMR would be “a sweeping change that should not be adopted until thoroughly and thoughtfully vetted,” commented Southern California Edison. OTMR “has serious safety implications,” the energy company said. More study is needed, agreed San Diego Gas & Electric. Communications Workers of America and the Coalition of California Utility Employees said one-touch policy “jeopardizes public and worker safety and threatens good jobs.” Telecom companies supported adoption. "OTMR Rules, which have been widely implemented across the country, have proven effective to promote efficiency for pole owners and attachers and to reduce barriers to wireless deployment by decreasing siting delays,” said CTIA. Frontier Communications, Consolidated Communications and AT&T said OTMR in California "would bring consistency and efficiency to the process for all pole owners and attachers who operate in jurisdictions where the FCC rules currently apply.” It lets the CPUC “take advantage of the FCC’s experience, developed over more than a decade, which led to rules that were further refined as the FCC learned from the experience of some other state commissions,” said Crown Castle. It will reduce delays, said ExteNet.
Washington state’s privacy bill might yet live despite appearing to miss a legislative deadline over the weekend. "The bill remains alive through the end of the Legislative Session," the bill's sponsor and Senate Technology Committee Chair Reuven Carlyle (D) tweeted Monday. A key House member voiced hope for compromise, but there seemed to be confusion among SB-5062 watchers Monday, with some saying the bill is dead. Washington privacy bills failed the past two years, with chambers at loggerheads on enforcement. The state’s House and Senate passed municipal broadband bills Sunday but must concur with each other’s changes.
Communications Workers of America wants state commissions to regulate broadband and VoIP, union officials said on a Monday webinar. CWA developed a model bill to undo any state deregulatory laws and direct commissions to exercise broadband and VoIP authority in areas including resiliency, public safety, consumer protection and data collection and transparency. State agencies could conduct third-party audits of facilities and infrastructure under the bill. New York state Sen. Sean Ryan (D), now sponsoring such a bill (SB-5117), said broadband is a utility and should be regulated that way. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgency of universal broadband, he said. Ryan’s bill is the first state measure to follow the union’s approach, said CWA Research Director Nell Geiser. Colorado and California have bills that “go some of the way towards our goals,” said Geiser. CWA is active in about 15 other states pushing for similar changes, which the union expects will be a multiyear effort, she said. NARUC advised CWA on the bill, but the state commissioner association doesn’t lobby at the state level, said Geiser. CWA and state legislators are directly engaging with commissions in specific states, she added.
Big wireless carriers sounded the alarm about California considering a connections-based USF contribution mechanism. Some wireline companies and consumer advocates supported the change, in Monday comments at the California Public Utilities Commission. They highlighted ways to mitigate possible regressive impacts of moving from a revenue-based mechanism for California’s public purpose programs (PPPs). Oklahoma and Nebraska commissions may soon adopt state USF contribution changes, said agency officials in those states.
Several Maine localities and legislators from both parties backed a state bill meant to support public access TV by requiring IPTV operators to obtain individual video franchise agreements with municipalities. Video providers lined up against the bill at a Joint Energy, Utilities and Technologies Committee hearing streamed Tuesday. Rep. Christopher Kessler (D) said his LD-920 brings IPTV and cable operators under Maine Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction and “formalizes the notion that they are, in essence, public utilities.” Sen. Lisa Keim (R) said supporting public access TV is “imperative” because it amplifies local perspectives and allows free expression under the First Amendment. Rep. Melanie Sachs (D) and Sen. Joe Rafferty (D) also supported the bill. The Telecommunications Association of Maine opposes LD-920, said counsel Benjamin Sanborn, calling it "a way to say we do not want investment in rural Maine and we do not want IPTV.” Broadband providers lose money on selling video but do it as incentive to get people to buy fiber services, he said. LD-920 would increase what customers pay, increase competitive disparities and ignore existing local agreements, said Comcast Maine Vice President-Government Affairs Chris Hodgdon. Dish Network and subsidiary Sling shouldn’t have to pay franchise fees because neither use local right of way, said Orrick Herrington attorney Damon Stewart, opposing the bill. "Satellite companies have never paid franchise fees for the right to place cable in the right of way because they don't have any.” Kessler said his intent isn’t to include streaming companies. The Maine PUC has no position but refers to the bill as “the bigger boat bill” because increased authority would require significantly more staff, said PUC legislative liaison Garrett Corbin. Impact would be less if the PUC didn’t have to review customer complaints, he said. The committee heard testimony earlier Tuesday on a robocalls bill (LD-1130) to set up a public registry for automated phone calls. The Maine PUC doesn’t oppose the bill but isn’t sure the state has jurisdiction to enforce it, including because the FCC is working on the issue nationally and since many calls come from out of state or internationally, said Corbin.
Frontier Communications supported a proposed edit by the California Public Utilities Commission to a condition adopted in the agency's March 18 OK of Frontier’s bankruptcy reorganization. The revised condition would require the provider to build fiber-to-the-premise to 150,000 locations in places with a maximum internal rate of return of 20%, with at least 10% of those locations in places where Frontier is the only fixed broadband provider. It would also require that at least 10% of Frontier funds allocated to that fiber buildout go to locations outside urbanized areas (see 2103290011). In Monday comments in docket A.20-05-010, Frontier urged commissioners to adopt the edit at its April 15 meeting, saying it “will further the Commission’s goal of improving broadband availability in underserved areas.” The CPUC’s Public Advocates Office and The Utility Reform Network also supported the proposed revision. Frontier asked the CPUC to change two other conditions from its March OK (see 2103180064). Remove local governments from a condition requiring that tribes and localities get a right of first offer to buy any property divested by the carrier in their areas, Frontier said. Don't retroactively apply a new 25/3 Mbps speed standard for areas funded by the California Advanced Services Fund where Frontier completed projects to the previous 10/1 Mbps standard, it said. The California Emerging Technology Fund agreed the CPUC shouldn’t retroactively apply 25/3 Mbps. Communications Workers of America urged the CPUC to scrap the first offer right for both tribes and local governments because it "threatens employee jobs and could degrade service quality.”
Washington state privacy and municipal broadband bills head to the House floor after getting fiscal OKs Thursday. The House Appropriations Committee voted 19-14 for the Senate’s privacy bill (SB-5062), including last week’s Judiciary Committee changes, opposed by industry (see 2104010049), to add a private right of action and sunsetting companies’ right to cure. The committee voted 21-12 for the municipal bill (SB-5383) after adopting an amendment by unanimous voice vote. Rep. Drew Hansen (D), sponsor of a House muni bill (HB-1336), said at the webcast meeting that SB-5383 sponsor Sen. Lisa Wellman (D) suggested the amendment to her bill. Rep. Matt Boehnke said he and other Republicans are mixed on the bill because it “reduces barriers to access” but may not sufficiently target unserved areas.
The U.S. Supreme Court should decline again to review when it’s OK for police to require someone to unlock an encrypted cellphone, New Jersey said Friday in docket 20-937. In Andrews v. New Jersey, a prosecutor secured a court order directing Robert Andrews, an Essex County sheriff's officer the time, to turn over passwords for two cellphones. Andrews challenged, citing Fifth Amendment protections, but the New Jersey Supreme Court said those protections don’t apply to passwords. No new circuits or state supreme courts have weighed in since October, when the high court chose not to hear a similar Pennsylvania case (see 2010050042), New Jersey told SCOTUS. "Petitioner claims a different result is nevertheless warranted, but he faces a significant threshold problem: Petitioner has not yet gone to trial, let alone been convicted and sentenced.” Future trial court proceedings “may obviate the need for review of any Fifth Amendment issues in this case,” the state said. New Jersey disagreed there's a judicial split over application of the “foregone conclusion” doctrine, which says it’s not self-incriminating to give the state information it already knows. “Petitioner alleges a split over whether a suspect could be required to verbally ‘communicate’ the ‘pure testimony’ of his device’s passcode. ... Yet in this case, Petitioner will be allowed to directly enter the passcode without divulging it.” The state Supreme Court was correct, New Jersey said. "Whenever a suspect enters his passcode, he is only confirming that he ... knows the code. If the government knows as much, that suspect has not incriminated himself and the Fifth Amendment is not offended. ... A contrary rule would elevate form over substance, allowing the State to enforce a search warrant if a device is protected by biometrics but not by a passcode. And it would offer those seeking to evade a lawful search warrant a path to do so.” The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation support SCOTUS hearing the New Jersey case (see 2101080057).