State Preemption Issues Dominate CTIA Policy Discussion Again

“The whole harangue” over state preemption was over the way the language was inserted into HR-5252, not the wireless industry’s rationale for wanting it, said Comr. Daryl Bassett of the Ark. PSC. Because the language was inserted at the last minute, he said, there was little chance for groups like NARUC to push for compromise. He said states still have “serious concerns” about whether the federal govt. can properly handle consumer protections, especially terms-and- conditions issues. “I understand the wireless industry’s concerns,” Bassett said, but it’s important to remember “consumers believe their states’ PUCs are looking out for their interests.”

Alltel CEO Scott Ford was equally conciliatory while sticking to his position. Businesses don’t want to “be regulated 51 different ways,” he said, reiterating CTIA Pres. Steve Largent’s talking point earlier in the day. “Maybe we've been clumsy” about pushing for a single framework, he said. Ford added his “world view [is] that we live in a free market economy and we've got to let the market work this out.” He said public policy that attempts to regulate technology is destined to be outdated in 18 months, and states would only complicate that problem.

The industry hasn’t been quite so accommodating as its rhetoric suggests, said Neb. PUC Comr. Anne Boyle. “I've seen the states move [to compromise] much more than I've seen the industry move,” she said from the audience. She criticized Ford and moderator Dane Snowden of CTIA for the comments that regulators never want to shrink their jurisdictions, saying most policy compromise on this issue has come from the states. She also criticized the wireless industry players’ comments that many states have already preempted their PUCs on wireless issues; most of that legislation came before wireless was ubiquitous, she said, and “it sounds like you're looking for federal preemption for a handful of states that may be onerous” in their wireless requirements.

Ford countered by asking why wireless, which is fully competitive, is regulated by states at all. Restaurants, sneaker manufacturers, and tire companies -- to name a few listed by Ford -- are all still subject to state Attorney General oversight, but don’t face special taxes and requirements. Boyle responded that restaurants, in fact, are subject not only to FDA oversight, but plenty of state regulations as well, even in the case of national chains.

Panelists sounded off on the 2 high-profile spectrum allocation requests by CyrenCall and M2Z, as well. Barry Ohlsen, senior legal advisor to Comr. Adelstein, said “there have often been situations where things are done outside the auction process.” In this case, the 2 companies in question are requesting special allocations for purposes that have some level of national attention: universal broadband access and public safety spectrum, he said. “The debates are good to have” no matter the outcome for the individual companies, he said.

“I admire their creativity,” said Rick Ekstrand, CEO of carrier Rural Cellular. The plan would be a new way to finance a very expensive deployment, he said; “We've refinanced many, many times… and I think that’s the way it should be done.” He hedged a bit, adding “maybe the end result is appropriate… but I think there are other ways to get there that might be more equitable.” “The day for that has long passed,” Ford said. He called the companies’ plans “kind of transparent.”