The Arizona Corporation Commission wrestled with campaign contribution rules as it weighed ethics code amendments at its livestreamed Wednesday meeting. “There is a concern among many Arizonans that there may be possible undue influence on Commissioners from contributions by people and entities having dealings with and before the Commission, particularly where the Commission will decide a disputed issue,” said a proposed amendment by Chairman Bob Burns OK'd 5-0. It would require an elected commissioner, before voting, to declare any known campaign contributions or other contribution that indirectly benefits the member, that individual's family or personal interest. The amendment limits that to contributions from a business that’s a party in the matter and contributed $1,000 or more, or an individual party who spent at least $100. The commission also adopted Commissioner Boyd Dunn’s proposed amendment incorporating parts of Arizona’s judicial conduct code and limiting direct campaign contributions. It said a commissioner who knowingly accepts individual contributions of more than $200, or aggregate contributions of at least $1,000, from a party to a matter before the agency would have to recuse from participating in that matter. Commissioner Justin Olson asked to edit those limits to zero for a “bright line” ban on contributions from parties, though Dunn and Burns disagreed. At first, Commissioner Sandra Kennedy supported Olson’s amendment and it passed 3-2. Later, Kennedy said she would consider changing her vote, noting that her main concern is making sure sitting commissioners also can’t raise money from stakeholders when they're running for a different elected position. Dunn said he would reassess the proposed amounts over lunch, but members appeared to return without resolution. It needs more work, said Burns. The chairman held the full ethics item, including the amendments considered Wednesday, until next month's meeting. A new-look commission after the November election was expected to refine last year’s ethics code (see 1901080027).
T-Mobile's buy of Sprint faces an antitrust lawsuit from New York, eight other states and the District of Columbia. Democratic attorneys general sued Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ahead of decisions by the FCC, DOJ and California Public Utilities Commission. Because "the effect of T- Mobile’s merger with Sprint 'may be substantially to lessen competition,' the Court should permanently enjoin the merger," the lawsuit said. States contacted DOJ and carriers, and “negotiations are ongoing,” said New York AG Letitia James (D) at a livestreamed news conference.
The wireless industry should be responsible for notifying residents about small cells deployed near their homes, local government officials told us last week. AT&T pledged to enhance notification after new wireless infrastructure surprised citizens in Baton Rouge. Some local officials said state and FCC pre-emption makes it tough for cities to notify citizens or respond meaningfully to their concerns. Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) said Friday she signed the 26th state small-cells bill pre-empting local governments.
Missouri should extend Lifeline to wireless service in response to a surging USF surplus, Assist Wireless commented Tuesday in Public Service Commission docket TO-2019-0346. The PSC is weighing a plan to address the surplus by suspending USF assessment and increasing the discount to $24 monthly for subscribers to the disabled program and $14.75 for Lifeline subscribers from $15.75 and $6.50, respectively (see 1905310046). Assist, AT&T, Verizon and cable balked at proposed increases and pitched other options. “Rather than increase Lifeline support for wireline services that consumers do not want, the Commission should provide Missouri USF support for the wireless Lifeline services that have become truly essential communications services for low-income Missourians,” Assist said. Missouri law “clearly permits, and may require” state Lifeline support for wireless, the wireless company said. The Missouri Cable Telecommunications Association said “increases this large are not warranted and could potentially generate improper incentives for the program, ultimately making it more difficult to curtail or suspend that support if necessary.” As alternatives, cable proposed leaving support at or near current levels, or giving refunds to state USF contributors. The regulator should start by suspending USF assessment, then -- if that's not enough -- gradually increase Lifeline and Disabled program support, AT&T said. The proposed increases could result in free service, with possible unintended consequences including more fraud and abuse, the carrier said. “Removing even minimal price constraints in this manner could cause demand to expand beyond Staff’s projections. If that occurs, financial pressure on the fund could force cutbacks in support levels; and resumed and potentially increased Missouri USF assessments.” Thirty small and independent ILECs asked the agency to reduce but not end state USF surcharges: “While the MoUSF balance may currently be too high and a reduction at this time may be appropriate, there will always be a need for this fund if the Commission is to fulfill its statutory mandate to assist Low-income and Disabled customers in obtaining affordable telecommunications services.” Customers can get confused when a surcharge disappears and reappears on their bills, they added.
New York senators will soon study a net neutrality bill passed Tuesday by the Assembly, a Senate Majority spokesperson said Wednesday. The Assembly voted 109-37 Tuesday to pass A-2432 by Assemblymember Patricia Fahy (D). Alternative measures are pending in the Senate, but Fahy told us she hopes to corral support for her bill to limit state and local government contracts to ISPs that follow open-internet rules. Passing net neutrality in New York would be significant given its size and influence, said Northwestern University law professor James Speta Wednesday.
The FCC should make rules to stop a repeat of wireless carrier problems during Hurricane Michael recovery that were flagged by the agency, two Florida Panhandle public safety officials and a union told us. In a May report, the FCC Public Safety Bureau recommended wireless providers in hurricane-prone areas make roaming agreements, diversify backhaul technologies and work on best practices for cooperation and coordination with local utilities.
HARRISBURG -- A state broadband report shows wide discrepancies between FCC broadband availability estimates and reality, said lawmakers Monday at the capitol. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a bipartisan legislative agency, unanimously approved the report by Pennsylvania State University researchers, at Monday's meeting. FCC estimates about 800,000 Pennsylvanians are without broadband “are downplaying the true state of the digital divide because they rely on self-reported data” by ISPs, the report said. “It appears that official broadband maps are becoming less accurate over time -- particularly those for rural areas.”
The Maine state legislature passed a small-cells bill meant to streamline 5G wireless infrastructure deployment by pre-empting local government authority in the right of way. It’s scaled back compared with other state bills, setting no caps on fees nor “deemed granted” shot clocks on local governments to approve small-cell applications. LD-1517, which awaits signature by Gov. Janet Mills (D), requires only that small wireless facilities are classified as permitted use within the ROW. LD-1603 to enhance cellphone service in underserved areas by installing wireless base stations at state-owned facilities cleared first-round votes in the House and Senate last week. And the House passed LD-1371 to give nondiscriminatory treatment to public, educational and governmental channels. The PEG bill goes back to the Senate, which supported the measure in an earlier vote. With the small-cells bill, “Maine developed a far superior solution to that adopted by a great many other states,” but it’s better when a state declines to pass a bill and honors a locality’s “right to make its own decisions consistent with federal law,” emailed Best Best local government attorney Gerard Lederer. “Prior to the FCC order and the actions of the individual states, deployment of wireless devices within the rights of way was moving ahead with steady progress.” Members of the Maine Municipal Association, neutral on the bill, decided they were OK with treating small cells the same as cable and electric attachments in the ROW, but provisions like rate caps and deemed granted “would definitely have drawn opposition,” emailed MMA Legislative Advocate Garrett Corbin. Lawmakers last year killed a bill more like what was in other states, he said. “Maine is a strong home rule state and as such does not lightly preempt local control.” The governor should quickly sign Maine’s “proactive small cell legislation to prepare the state for 5G deployment,” said Wireless Infrastructure Association State Government Affairs Counsel Arturo Chang in a statement. Witnesses with public health concerns about 5G lined up against a Wisconsin small-cells bill at a hearing last week (see 1905290032). Half the states have small-cells laws (see 1905170033).
A California Public Utilities Commissioner shot back at AT&T for claiming the CPUC stalled investment and consumer protection programs (see 1905300040 or 1905300056). After Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said the market isn’t competitive for most Californians, AT&T Assistant Vice President-Public Affairs Benjamin Golombek said Thursday the CPUC did “nothing” with $330 million California Advanced Service Fund money authorized by the legislature in 2017 and holds $200 million surplus in the state LifeLine program. Guzman Aceves responded later that day in a statement to us: “I was not directing my comments to the company that has failed to participate in either of those public purpose programs and works tirelessly to suppress them. Nor the company that has repeatedly failed to meet basic service quality metrics while at the same time laying off hundreds of employees in California and across the country.” The commissioner wants the legislature “to provide a statutory framework that fosters solutions for local governments, new entrants, and legacy telecommunications providers and all other participants to ensure the public is served faithfully and to create networks across the state that -- especially in light of these worsening disasters -- function at all times regardless of technology type,” she said.
The Maine legislature passed an ISP privacy bill that flies in the face of Congress' repealing FCC broadband privacy rules (see 1905290032 or 1905290069). The Senate and House passed LD-946 Thursday, with the House also voting 92-50 against a motion to reconsider the body’s first-round vote to advance the bill. It must still be signed by Gov. Janet Mills (D). "The residents of Maine are one step closer to being able to decide if and when to hand over their most sensitive personal information to their broadband providers,” emailed Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy's Gigi Sohn. Members of both parties voted for the bill that revives the previous FCC's broadband privacy rules for Maine, she noted. “Governor Mills should sign it without delay.” The Maine legislature did what Congress "has thus far failed to do and voted to put consumer privacy before corporate profits,” said American Civil Liberties Union Maine Advocacy Director Oamshri Amarasingham in a statement. The bill shows "the crucial role states play in protecting consumer privacy, and the need for Congress to safeguard this role from industry efforts to preempt state privacy laws with federal privacy legislation," added ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Neema Singh Guliani. The governor has 10 days not including Sunday to veto or sign the bill, or it will become law without her signature. Consolidated Communications said it protects customers’ private information. The ILEC's "privacy policy prohibits the sale of customer information without permission," said Vice President-Regulatory Michael Shultz in a statement. The FCC declined comment. Wednesday in California, the Assembly passed more privacy bills following up on last year’s California Consumer Privacy Act. Members voted 77-0 for AB-25 to edit CCPA’s definition of “consumer” to carve out personal data that businesses collect from job applicants, employers, contractors and agents; 46-19 to pass AB-1130 to add biometric and other data to the definition of “personal information” in California’s data-breach notification law; and 47-17 for AB-1416 to clarify CCPA doesn't restrict business' ability to comply with rules or regulations and, specifically, to collect, use, retain, sell, authenticate or disclose personal information for uses including legal claims, fraud prevention and security. The Assembly passed four other privacy bills Tuesday (see 1905290016). Meanwhile, federal privacy legislation that “preempts stronger state laws would only benefit” the tech industry “at the expense of the public,” nine consumer groups told Congress Thursday. They are Berkeley Media Studies Group, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Center for Digital Democracy, Color of Change, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Fight for the Future, Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Pre-emption puts at risk online privacy and security laws in throughout the U.S., they said.