NARUC Panel Clears Resolution Against Wireless Terms Preemption

The wireless preemption resolution, like all resolutions adopted by NARUC committees at the summer meeting here this week, had to be approved by NARUC’s board before becoming official policy. The board approved the resolution at the end of the meeting late Wed. along with others calling for video franchise reform and backing legislation making caller ID spoofing for fraud or deception federal crimes (CD Aug 2 p2).

The wireless resolution adopted Tues. afternoon says the last-min. wireless preemption amendment to HR 5252 would insulate the wireless industry from state consumer-complaint authority, negate state oversight of wireless carriers’ universal service support and violate general principles of technological neutrality. A clarifying amendment urged state commissions to consider how wireless preemption would affect “public interest, convenience and necessity” when asked to certify or re-certify a wireless provider as an eligible telecom carrier (ETC) qualified to receive universal service subsidies. It replaced more-general language on this point.

A 2nd amendment voiced states’ continuing willingness to collaborate with industry and the FCC on “inconsistencies” between state laws or regulations and “national practices or standards.” Neb. PSC Comr. Ann Boyle said states “need to ask the wireless industry to ask Congress to withdraw that amendment and continue to work with us.”

But Kan. Corporation Comr. Michael Moffet opposed the resolution. It could override state legislative actions, as with one in Kan. that preempted commission authority over wireless, he said: “I'm concerned with a resolution that tells state commissions to disregard their state’s legislative policy and use the ETC certifications as a backdoor approach to wireless regulation.” He urged revisions urging that any any wireless preemption function so as not to affect whatever authority a legislature gives its state commission to deal with ETC certification. But Moffet’s amendment died after other regulators said state commissions still may retain ETC authority under their statutory duty to protect the public interest. Neb. doesn’t regulate wireless service, “but we still want to know from wireless providers where they plan to serve, and how they are a fit, if they want ETC status,” Boyle said.

S.D. PUC Chmn. Bob Sahr offered another amendment to add a “whereas” clause noting that 31 states have preempted their regulators from getting involved in wireless service. He said it would acknowledge states handle wireless in different ways. Boyle also opposed this amendment. Many states deregulated wireless long before anyone realized how important the industry would become, she said: “State legislatures now might want to revisit and perhaps repeal those decisions.” Sahr’s amendment was defeated by a one- vote margin.

The Telecom Committee tabled until the Nov. annual meeting a 2nd wireless resolution to adopt a NARUC task force white paper on wireless, after regulators noted the lack of references to recent events affecting wireless service, such as this month’s FCC spectrum auction for advanced wireless services. The white paper said wireless has become a major telecom force in the U.S. It suggested that federal consumer rules should be a floor, not a ceiling, and states must keep the power to protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable wireless business practices.