Ohio's Public Utilities Commission shouldn’t delay implementing a rule, not effective for four years, that allows local phone companies to apply for clearance to increase basic local exchange rates without limitation, the Ohio Telecom Association replied Monday in docket 19-173-TP-ORD. Consumer groups sought delay of that part of a recent state law (see 1904110026). “Delay in approving the rule would not be lawful” and “would inject additional uncertainty into financial decisions that are made over years, not at the last minute,” OTA said. The Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association agreed. If the PUC adopts the rule, the Office of Consumer Counsel should be given advance notice of applications for unlimited price increases to protect consumers, OCC and other consumer groups replied.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission should execute its plan to adopt the FCC cable rate formula for pole attachments, but not stop pole owners and attachers from negotiating their own rate agreements (see 1903220061), commented cable, wireless and other pole riders Friday in docket 2019-00028. Local governments raised concern with a proposal to retain a municipal exemption for fees for make-ready work but remove the exemption from costs of replacing poles for a municipal attachment.
With Verizon partway through its massive copper-to-fiber transition, state consumer advocates are urging the carrier ensure no customers are left behind. The Communications Workers of America wants the same. The latest policy jockeying relates to the wireline IP transition.
Charter Communications may have escaped New York state’s boot after agreeing to expand broadband to 145,000 homes and businesses entirely in unserved and underserved areas of upstate by Sept. 30, 2021, and spend another $12 million on additional broadband deployment. Friday’s submission of the proposed settlement to the Public Service Commission tees up a 60-day comment period. The PSC votes this summer.
The Indiana Supreme Court’s top justice appeared to bristle Thursday at Indiana’s view that individuals may not refuse to unlock their phones for law enforcement. “If we say that a citizen can be compelled to unlock their cellphone just based on a warrant … what’s left of the Fifth Amendment?” asked Chief Justice Loretta Rush at oral argument livestreamed Thursday in Katelin Seo v. Indiana (18S-CR-00595). She and other justices wrestled with how to apply analog precedents to a digital age.
Washington state’s controversial privacy bill is most likely dead for this session after the House missed a Wednesday deadline to vote it out of the chamber. “Without some extraordinary effort the bill will not be considered further by the WA legislature, until next year,” though no bill is truly dead until the legislature adjourns sine die April 28, wrote House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D) in an email update Thursday. Consumer privacy advocates cheered demise of the bill that was backed by Microsoft and other tech companies.
Facing a Wednesday deadline to pass Washington state's privacy bill through the House, Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) office on Monday “proposed language that attempts to get us to a middle ground,” House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D) wrote in an email update Tuesday. The group working on SB-5376 -- including the governor’s office, House and Senate lawmakers and tech and telecom lobbyists, but no consumer privacy advocates -- labeled a weekend House proposal (see 1904150014) a “non-starter,” Hudgins said. The governor’s proposal, attached to the email update, doesn’t include a private right of action. It would direct further study on facial recognition rules. The House is reviewing the governor’s proposal and working on language to put up for vote, Hudgins said. The bill nearly died but lawmakers salvaged it at the last minute (see 1904100051). The Inslee office draft “largely reflects the Senate-passed version of the bill," opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union “and six national data privacy consumer watchdogs as being a step backwards on data privacy,” emailed ACLU-Washington Technology and Liberty Project Director Shankar Narayan Tuesday. It “cannot be termed meaningful data privacy,” relying “on a flawed structure that vests control over data in the hands of companies, who can override consumer consent or lack thereof by relying on a variety of loopholes and exemptions,” he said. The proposed Washington law “is grounded in the European law and provisions of California’s new privacy law,” and corporations “will face penalties for failure to comply,” an Inslee spokesperson said. “The ACLU and other consumer groups were invited to participate in various stakeholder meetings and public fora over the past six months,” she said. “It is inaccurate to suggest that consumer groups have been shut out of this process in any way.”
Proposed California pilot programs meant to expand service for low-income households drew concerns from industry and consumer groups, in comments this week at the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC scheduled votes April 25 in its consent agenda on proposed decisions (PD) to establish a $5 million California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) line extensions program pilot and to authorize state LifeLine pilot programs by Boost Mobile and iFoster (see 1903270011 and 1903260051). The agency plans to vote the same day on proposed changes to the California Teleconnect Fund for schools and libraries that also got opposition (see 1904120037 and 1904110032).
Colorado could follow multiple other states this year in empowering electric cooperatives to provide broadband in rural areas. But electric co-ops didn't support SB-107, as amended, at the Colorado Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee's Monday hearing on the bill by Sen. Kerry Donovan (D). Colorado cable companies applauded the amended bill, while CenturyLink hasn't made up its mind but raised a concern about equal treatment for pole attachments. Local government representatives told us the policy could advance rural broadband though they're not taking a formal position on SB-107.
Telecom and cable companies disagreed how to define "incremental cost" as the Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) implements a 2018 law permitting ILECs to increase rates for basic local exchange service by up to $2 annually (see 1903220019). A provision allowing ILECs to lower rates requires that the reduction can't be less than incremental cost. PUCO should generically define incremental cost as “the amount of money it would cost a company to make an additional unit of product,” the Ohio Telecom Association commented Wednesday in case 19-0173-TP-ORD. That would let a company show “the costs that it believes are incremental and to provide a basis for the adoption of the party’s particular approach to its cost analysis,” it said. The Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association said PUCO should specify the term as “long-run service incremental cost” and define that as “the forward-looking cost for a new or existing product that is equal to the per-unit cost of increasing the volume of production from zero to a specified level, while holding all other product and service volumes constant.” That’s “logical because the incremental cost is viewed on a long-run basis, involves a new product, and is moving that product forward from a production level of zero,” OCTA said. “Omission of these keywords could be interpreted as allowing the incremental cost to be based in whole or in part on historical cost.” The Ohio Consumers Counsel and other consumer groups said there’s no need for PUCO to include a rule, not effective for four years, that allows local phone companies to apply for clearance to increase basic rates without limitation. The law doesn't require the commission to implement it right away, PUCO “should not have on its books a rule that has no effect,” and it’s possible the legislature could change the rule before it would take effect, they said. A proposed rule on mergers-and-acquisition notification is “internally inconsistent and confusing,” the consumer groups said. “The PUCO should clarify the rule so that the public is properly notified when a telephone company files a[n FCC] change of ownership application."