NARUC Ready to Weigh in During Communications Act Update

"The obvious one we're going to be following as an association is the IP transition,” White said, saying all activities at the FCC will be “pretty critical” to watch. VoIP “sure looks like a call,” in terms of its classification as a Title II telecom service, White said. NARUC wants to make sure consumers are protected and to keep states from being preempted, he said. “It’s pretty important we maintain our [state] role.”

"We're always looking at NARUC for those who have worked on the Hill,” said Phil Jones, a former Senate staffer who recently was president of NARUC for a year, has co-chaired the Washington Action Program and is a Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission member. “Greg White is a great choice.” Jones called Washington Action “the interface for our lobbying and advocacy efforts on the Hill,” which is also strengthened by NARUC committee chairs traveling to Washington to testify before Congress when asked. Chris Nelson, vice chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, a member of the Washington Action group and recently named chairman of NARUC’s telecom committee, called the program “our eyes and ears in what’s going on in Washington.”

The Washington Action Program members meet informally three times a year at NARUC’s meetings. “I'll have to be more engaged on a wider array of issues on the national level,” White said. “I'm trying to get back to speed with who’s who.” The program is “where the rubber meets the road” for NARUC in terms of watching federal policy, he said, calling such Washington Action Program meetings “strategizing sessions.” He sees his role as chairman as important for coordinating and said he plans to work closely with the chairmen of various NARUC committees. The resolutions that NARUC adopt become part of this outreach, as NARUC talks with federal agencies like the FCC and with members of Congress, he said. “We usually get a pretty receptive audience.”

State commissioners need an advocate in terms of messaging and broader narrative public relations, said Larry Landis, outgoing co-chair of the Washington Action Program and, until next week when his formal retirement begins, a Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission member. Landis said there’s a national trade association in the telecom sector that tends to blast PUCs for the “patchwork quilt” of state regulations. “That rhetoric has sunk in,” Landis said, declining to name the association. “The states need a new vocabulary if they're going to prevail,” he said. “It’s about putting together your talking points in a way that will resonate with your stakeholders.” Landis had helped coordinate monthly calls for the Washington Action members and stressed the importance of that group monitoring broader congressional trends, such as the debt ceiling fight and items that would distract from NARUC priorities.

NARUC Seen ‘Active'

Any Communications Act rewrite efforts will attract NARUC attention (CD Dec 23 p7), commissioners said. All of them we interviewed said they were pleased with how Congress has started the process so far in the House Commerce Committee, which has already released a white paper seeking input and is holding its first hearing on the topic this week. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., seems to be “familiar with the state concerns,” White said. Jones said the same of House Commerce Committee staff.

"We certainly intend to be involved to the extent we can,” White said, suggesting state regulators will likely be filing comments as lawmakers seek input. “I do expect NARUC will be active.” It “remains to be seen” how much the act should be changed, White said, citing “huge changes in the technology” since 1996.

"We're going to be involved in that, I'm sure,” Jones said. As NARUC president, Jones tasked a year-long telecom task force that produced a white paper on federalism, adopted by NARUC in November, which Jones said might be an easy-to-digest blueprint for legislative staff members. “I kind of saw that coming,” he said of a congressional review of telecom policies, pointing to the NARUC document. In terms of a broader Communications Act rewrite, “I would say there’s not enough of an appetite right now, frankly,” Jones said, although he emphasized support for the review under way in the House now. Perhaps there will be an appetite in a couple years, he reflected.

"It’s probably time,” Nelson said of an update. “We want to follow that very closely and, where appropriate, give our input.” Nelson had belonged to the NARUC telecom task force and emphasized the white paper’s federalism principles. “We're going to compare those [update proposals] back to our principles.”

FCC ‘Broken'

"There is no doubt the FCC is broken,” Landis said. “You will see concerted action in that initiative.” The focus on the Communications Act update may not flow from the Washington Action Program, Landis said, suggesting instead that NARUC and individual state PUCs will weigh in with the subcommittee as it proceeds. A rewrite of the act won’t likely necessitate a “groundswell of support” that, on some occasions, NARUC has needed to marshal through Washington Action, as in case of the unbundled network elements triennial review in the last decade, said Landis. He said it’s “fair to say there’s an enthusiasm” among state commissioners for resolving problems with the 1996 act. He lauded what he sees as “a genuine process aimed at moving forward public policy” and complimented Walden, although said it’s still “awfully early.”

"Resiliency of the networks is going to be a huge issue,” Jones said, citing discussions after Superstorm Sandy. There will be debates over backup power, including whether states should have any jurisdiction over carriers in that regard, he said. He also pointed to the question of how communications services should be classified and the structure of USF. Landis’s big concern in any update is that Congress has state input. “There needs to be a check on the other decision-makers,” Landis said, citing the FCC and NTIA, “which Congress can’t always provide.” He wants the state role maintained and for Congress to avoid looking at this as a formula. “There is a tendency to oversimplify,” said Landis.

Michigan has wrestled with telecom law questions that may inform what’s happening in Congress, White said. “We kind of feel like we've been at the forefront in the evolution of the telecommunications industry.” Michigan has its own Telecom Act, passed in 1995 and likely “influential” in Congress passing the 1996 Telecom Act, he said. The Michigan act emphasized competition, he said. Michigan took a “big step” in amending the Michigan Telecom Act in 2005, changing the dynamic from competition between companies to competition between technologies such as VoIP and wireline and wireless, he said. White was the PSC’s legislative liaison then. Named Michigan commissioner in December 2009, White previously had advised Michigan commissioner Robert Nelson, who chaired the NARUC telecom committee from 2003 to 2006. “From my perspective, we were pretty successful,” White said, reflecting on “robust competition” and “good deployment” of communications networks he saw in Michigan following the state telecom act.

Landis pointed to many communications issues that percolated over 2013 but said there was no overarching theme compelling Washington Action to mobilize. He mentioned the IP transition as well as the FCC’s controversial quantile regression analysis, which the agency has used to calculate high-cost funding since its November 2011 USF order. He called Lifeline “a caricature of itself,” largely overwhelmed by circumstances. The light regulatory touch adopted by many states in recent years is an important success, Landis said. Nelson said he will watch the IP transition trials and “how these are laid out,” with concern for how they affect consumers and state regulatory models.

NARUC’s winter meeting will be Feb. 9-12 in Washington and include appearances by several lawmakers: Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mark Pryor, D-Ark., as well as Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Mary Landrieu, D-La., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Nelson said he treasured the presence of so many lawmakers. It’s a sign that members of Congress “want to listen to us” and are looking for synergies, Nelson said. (jhendel@warren-news.com)