Late Insertion of Preemption Text Intensifies Fight, APT Discussion Shows
State preemption language entered the telecom reform fray “late in the game” and “would pretty significantly change” states’ role in wireless regulation, Dan Phythyon, Alliance for Public Technology public policy dir., said as he moderated a Thurs. discussion of the issue in D.C. These circumstances have made federal preemption of state wireless regulation a “fairly hot” issue, he said -- a conclusion backed by the heated discussion that followed. Speakers were reacting to the telecom bill that cleared the Senate Commerce Committee (CD June 29 p1) last month. State preemption language wasn’t present until the final draft.
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!
Wireless carriers will have the advantages of being phone companies without the burdens, if expanded federal preemption of states becomes law, NARUC Exec. Dir. Brian Adkins said. USF funding, interconnection regulations and pole sitings are ways wireless companies will continue to exploit state services, he said. That “completely undercuts the idea that wireless is too interstate” for state oversight, he said. Noting some consumer-rights violations by carriers -- ranked among the least consumer-friendly sectors by several respected sources -- “sort of blows my mind,” Adkins said. “If we're too Procrustean [dictatorial] in what states can and can’t do,” enforcement becomes almost impossible, he added.
The “patchwork quilt” of state regulation is “frustrating the framework” of wireless deployment that Congress set up in 1993, said Dane Snowden, CTIA vp-external & state affairs. A wide array of consumer protections is written into the bill, and state attorneys general still would be able to pursue violators of consumer rights, Snowden said. Repeatedly interrupting Atkins, Snowden bristled at several of his comments, including a suggestion that the FCC would be ill-equipped for and likely uninterested in taking every local complaint or allegation of wireless carriers’ misdeeds. “Is the FCC equipped to handle the volume of complaints that would come in?” asked Phythyon. Calling the FCC Consumer Information Bureau staff “hard-working,” Snowden said Chmn. Martin “has a full bench now” and could make moves needed to handle more enforcement work.
“What would the impact of changing the status quo be on consumers?” an AARP staffer asked Adkins and Snowden. “The question is, ‘what is the status quo?'” Snowden said, adding that patchwork controls have kept carriers from deploying as widely as possible -- an answer he reprised when asked about rural buildout by National Grange Legislative Dir. Leroy Watson. States have been very restrained, reserving oversight power for clear violations, Adkins said. “When there’s no trouble, there’s no regulation,” he said, citing episodes he doesn’t want repeated.
Toothless state oversight would make it nearly impossible for a state to sue Verizon, no matter what the offense, “unless you had Johnnie Cochran,” Adkins said. “He’s dead,” countered Snowden, to which Adkins responded, “All the more reason” to oppose federal preemption.