NARUC, Consumer Groups Irked at Wireless Deregulatory Language in Stevens Draft
In a surprise move, a new draft of a telecom bill by Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) contains language sharply limiting state controls on wireless service (CD June 17 Special Report). Though carriers view this as a potential win, it has raised consumer group and state regulator ire. State regulators said Mon. the wireless language will be controversial and could keep the bill from progressing this year.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Today’s wireless regulatory landscape was shaped by the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which gave FCC power over rates and entry for wireless, but left states to oversee terms and conditions of contracts. Wireless carriers have been fighting at the FCC for an order establishing that early termination fees are part of rates and not subject to state oversight (CD June 14 p5). But Stevens’ bill would go much further than the FCC can on its own in ending state regulation of wireless.
“The competitive, national wireless marketplace that Congress helped establish in 1993 has proven it can meet consumer needs far more effectively and quickly than can piecemeal state government regulation,” CTIA, which backs the wireless language, said: “The language included in the most recent Senate draft will help ensure that American consumers will benefit even more from our high-tech service by re- establishing a consistent, national framework.” Even if the bill passes, states still will be able to enforce their general business laws, CTIA said. The bill also “reaffirms the FCC’s role in providing consumer protection if necessary,” CTIA said.
But Comr. Philip Jones of Wash., chmn. of the NARUC Federal Legislative Subcommittee, told us CTIA’s push for the language could hurt carriers’ relationships with state regulators. “We're very disappointed with the latest draft,” he said: “We had understood that most of our concerns were addressed on interconnection issues, on USF.” Jones said he testified only last week before the Senate Commerce Committee on the legislation and state regulation of wireless never came up.
State commissions remain significant as settings in which consumers can complain when unhappy with carriers, Jones said: “At our state commission we get probably 30 to 40, sometimes 50 to 60, calls from very irate consumers. We will handle the call. On a very practical level, the wireless companies could say you can’t even take those phone calls… It’s unnecessary and unwarranted.”
Comr. Tony Clark of N.D., chmn. of the NARUC Telecom Committee, was surprised Stevens embraced language supported by wireless carriers, since the “conventional wisdom” is that a “narrowly tailored” bill stood the best chance of passage, he said. “It certainly complicates this,” Jones said: “State commissions were generally supportive of the bill. It seemed to deal with issues that needed to be dealt with.”
Clark has concerns on several levels, he said. “State commissions have been pretty consistent in saying we should treat like services in like ways,” he said: “Here we go creating this special exemption for one segment of the industry… And consumer protection issues are best handled at the states. Simply kicking at all to the FCC is a nonstarter. Those concerns aren’t going to be addressed.”
AARP has significant concerns with the Stevens draft’s wireless provisions, AARP lobbyist Debra Berlyn said. “We think that the shared jurisdiction that was put in place in the 1993 legislation is working well,” Berlyn said: “The states have an important role in helping consumers with problems that they experience with wireless services and solving some of those problems. This is really a matter of retaining the ability of states to respond to problems.”