Two Minnesota government bodies disagreed whether the Public Utilities Commission should increase the state Telephone Assistance Plan surcharge that funds a $3.50 credit for the poor. In Friday comments in docket 18-112, the state Office of Attorney General (OAG) urged an increase to 10 cents -- the maximum statutory amount -- from 3 cents monthly per line to fund a higher $9 TAP credit, but the Minnesota Commerce Department advised the PUC to keep the current surcharge. The Minnesota Telecom Alliance (MTA) also said the PUC shouldn’t make changes. TAP enrollment is declining because the credit can't be used for wireless and it’s too low for many customers to see value in applying for it, said OAG. The PUC could increase participation by increasing the credit and doing more outreach, it said. The current credit is less than a half-hour's minimum wage, it said. Increasing the credit to $9 would make it comparable to the $9.25 federal Lifeline credit that will be phased out by late 2021 for voice services, OAG said. A 7 cent increase to the credit would have minimal impact to customers, it said. No change is needed “to address either a shortage or surplus in the TAP fund,” Commerce said. “When the TAP surcharge and credit levels are revisited in 2019 it may be necessary to make adjustments to preserve the integrity of the program.” Phone companies haven’t heard much concern from consumers about the TAP credit being too low, said MTA. The fund balance was flat over for 12 months since June 30 last year, showing “no imminent funding issue.” Increasing the fee could hurt consumers, it said. “Minnesota telephone customers pay significant regulatory fees and taxes ... Adding to those costs could cause serious concern and hardship.”
“Customers have demonstrated that they do not find important old-school regulation, moving in droves to unregulated VoIP and wireless technologies," Verizon replied Friday in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission docket 2018-3001391. The carrier and a group of rural phone companies separately urged deregulation, contrary to comments (see 1810040052) by the Office of Consumer Advocate and Coalition for Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efficiency in Pennsylvania (Cause). Advocates want Pennsylvania “to regulate like it is 1985,” Verizon said. Landlines are less than 15 percent of voice connections in Pennsylvania and dropping, it said. Cause wrongly assumes the poor and seniors rely disproportionately on regulated landlines, Verizon said: the Centers for Disease Control reports 68 percent of poor adults live in wireless-only households and 9 percent live in mostly wireless households. Regulating only landlines makes no sense, said RLECs like Armstrong Telephone, Consolidated Communications, Frontier Communications, TDS and Windstream. They said that would mean "the vast majority of telecommunications providers are free to operate under what essentially amounts to open market conditions.”
Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ignored plain language of a 2013 state law when it ruled 2-0 in May "municipal gain" space on utility poles or underground ducts may not be used to provide muni broadband, said local governments and the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) in briefs filed Wednesday at Connecticut Superior Court in docket HHB-CV-18-6045442-S. PURA’s ruling paused some muni broadband projects and is holding back access in underserved areas, OCC officials said in interviews.
The FCC should rethink the state challenge process for Mobility Fund II, said Mississippi Public Service Commission Chairman Brandon Presley. After drafting a NARUC resolution ( 1810300037), the Democrat said in an interview Tuesday the process has been a "nightmare" and his state could lose millions of dollars. “It doesn’t seem that even the FCC knows what the process involves,” so “it’s important for them to stop, back up and get it right.” The FCC defended the MF-II process Wednesday. NARUC members told us they're reviewing the measure that’s supported by small rural carriers.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission got much support for reverse pre-empting the FCC on pole attachments. In comments this week in docket L-2018-3002672, carriers said reverse pre-emption could speed dispute resolution, and electric companies said having a state regulator in charge could provide more balance than the FCC. Pole owners and riders disagreed on the degree to which the PUC would be able to deviate from FCC rules. Pennsylvania could be the first state in nearly a decade to reverse pre-empt the federal agency (see 1807250039).
Arizona and other state commission candidates are making transparency a top issue as they approach Nov. 6. Accountability is an election issue in nearly half of the 10 states electing utilities commissioners (see 1810110031). In interviews last week, Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) candidates from both parties said they want to improve agency ethics, and Democrats in Alabama, Montana and New Mexico said increasing public participation is key at agencies suffering from low public awareness. All were scathing about commission practices.
San Jose and Seattle led lawsuits against a September FCC wireless infrastructure order aimed at speeding 5G buildout by targeting state and local hurdles to small-cell deployment. It "exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority" and "is otherwise contrary to law, including the Constitution of the United States,” said San Jose, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Portland and other western localities in one petition (in Pacer) filed Tuesday at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (case 18-72883). Seattle with Arizona, Oregon and California municipal leagues sued at the same court. “The Commission’s rules are an unlawful pre-emption of local and state government authority promulgated without response to the arguments advanced by Petitioners,” said the petition (in Pacer) in case 18-72886. The FCC’s response is due Feb. 11 for both cases, court dockets said. “The smart infrastructure policies the FCC put in place will help ensure that every community in the country benefits from the economic opportunity 5G can enable," said Commissioner Brendan Carr's spokesperson. "The FCC struck the right balance. The commonsense ideas we put in place respond to several dozen mayors and local officials that called on the FCC to act. Our decision tracks the road map already laid out by the appellate courts, and we look forward to the court ruling on our decision." U.S. Conference of Mayors CEO Tom Cochran applauded the suits. “Instead of working with local governments to win the global race to 5G, the FCC is forcing cities to race to the courthouse to defend the most basic of local government rights -- the authority to manage and seek fair compensation from private users that seek to employ public assets, owned and paid for by local taxpayers, for their personal profit without any obligation to serve all of the community,” he said. NATOA, "along with every major municipal organization and dozens of individual municipalities, opposed the FCC’s decision to adopt this Order," emailed General Counsel Nancy Werner. "We will continue to join local governments in challenging this extraordinary federal agency overreach." CTIA and the Wireless Infrastructure Association didn't comment. Seattle earlier threatened suit (see 1810020041). San Jose officials reported early success speeding up permitting process for small cells after signing agreements with carriers (see 1810220030).
Consumer groups are asking the California Public Utilities Commission to reconsider a recommendation to deny consumer advocates’ petition for rulemaking to update privacy rules for wireless carriers. The CPUC postponed by two weeks votes that had been scheduled Thursday on denying stricter consumer proprietary network information (CPNI) rules (see 1809210037), and separate items approving Frontier and AT&T reparations for 2017 service-quality violations (see 1809180013). Commissioner Carla Peterman announced Thursday she won’t seek reappointment when her term expires at year-end.
Maine Supreme Court justices asked if people have an expectation of privacy of real-time cellphone location information, in oral argument Tuesday on how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. U.S. applies to Maine v. O’Donnell. It’s one of several state court cases that may determine the reach of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 summer decision that government collection of at least seven days of cellsite location information (CSLI) is a Fourth Amendment-protected search, requiring warrants (see 1810170043). “The real question is whether each of us -- most of us who I assume have a cellphone -- have a right to privacy in where we are that can be violated if there is no warrant to ping that phone,” said Chief Justice Leigh Saufley. The state conceded the officer should have obtained a warrant, but a lower court said the evidence was admissible, noted Justice Ellen Gorman. “So what remedy does Mr. O’Donnell or someone in his circumstances have when the state treads on his rights?” The Supreme Court found historical CSLI data to be sensitive and revealing information, and the automatic nature of such data’s exposure made it not subject to the third-party doctrine, which says people who voluntarily give information to phone companies and other third parties lack reasonable expectation of privacy, argued appellant attorney Adam Sherman: O’Donnell didn’t volunteer his cellphone information. A 2016 Maine Supreme Court ruling held real-time tracking of a cellphone is more troublesome to someone’s privacy interest than historical information, he said. Unless there are exigent circumstances, a warrant is required, he said. Maine counsel Paul Rucha disagreed: “Carpenter does not explicitly control this case and it does not address a limited request for records for CSLI of less than seven days. Since Carpenter does not apply, this court must determine whether to expand the Maine Constitution beyond federal protection or determine this case under Maine statutory law.” Rucha argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s concern with historical data had to do with its breadth, whereas real-time information is a request for a person’s information at one point. Rucha warned not to make it harder to find missing children or people who call 911 on a cellphone. Saufley said exigent circumstances would take hold and allow a warrantless search to find a missing kid.
Council members in Maryland’s Montgomery County disagreed on the urgency of streamlining local processes to spur small-cell wireless infrastructure deployment, at a livestreamed Tuesday meeting. The council planned to vote on a zoning change meant to streamline processes for accepting small-cell applications but tabled the item after lengthy debate. The council had time only to vote 6-3 on an amendment stipulating more applications to go through a conditional-use process that requires public hearings rather than the quicker limited-use process provided for many such applications in the bill. It could bring the item back next week but faces an Oct. 31 deadline to pass bills; if it doesn’t come up before then, the proposal would have to wait until a new council convenes in December, a council spokesperson said. County staff said County Executive Ike Leggett opposed the amendment because it could prohibit some service, contrary to federal law. A conditional-use process costs $16,000, but the FCC recently required a $100 maximum application fee per facility, noted Jeffrey Zyontz, the county's senior legislative analyst. Council President Hans Riemer (D) voted against the amendment and said he supported the original proposal. "We can't stop the world from turning. 5G is coming." Since the federal government pre-empts the county from prohibiting service, there’s no good reason to require an expensive process that pretends citizens have the right to reject deployment in their neighborhoods, he said. All the county can do is establish “clear, simple rules” for small cells, he said. The argument didn’t convince most council members. Council member Roger Berliner (D) said he doesn't get why requiring conditional use would be unlawful. “Citizens have rights” and should have a voice even if it doesn’t come cheap or change the outcome, he said. Council member Tom Hucker (D), who proposed the amendment, said the proposed zoning change wasn't a question of the county having a “future or no future.” No other Maryland localities are considering a similar change, the Maryland legislature can’t pass a bill until February at earliest, and the issue is probably too controversial to pass a state bill that soon, he said. The county is effectively asking for a state small-cells law if it can't pass a local law, observed Council Member George Leventhal (D).