The California Public Utilities Commission wants more time to implement Lifeline changes to eligibility rules, said a Wednesday motion at the FCC. “Due to unforeseen circumstances and staffing constraints," the CPUC asked for until Dec. 31, 2018, to implement changes to the federal eligibility rules. The CPUC blamed a delayed project to transfer printing and mailing services for California LifeLine to the Office of State Publishing, plus the need to hire a new LifeLine administrator. Last month, California commissioners voted unanimously to delay implementation of eligibility criteria until Nov. 1 or longer, responding to concerns that 81,000 subscribers would become ineligible under the changes (see 1708100021).

NTIA and Sens. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., noted Tuesday they plan a Sept. 19 broadband workshop in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of NTIA's BroadbandUSA program. “Closing the digital divide in rural America and expanding broadband access has been a priority,” Manchin said. The event will begin at 8:30 a.m. at the Jackson Kelly law firm's Charleston office.

A California surveillance-transparency bill failed in committee and won’t be heard again this session. The same committee passed a wireless small-cells bill pre-empting local authority in the right of way. At a Friday hearing, the Assembly Appropriations Committee held SB-21, which would have required public notice and comment before using new surveillance technologies. The committee voted 12-1 to pass the small-cells bill, S-649. Afterward, SB-21 sponsor Sen. Jerry Hill (D) said surveillance transparency is an important issue that he will continue trying to advance next legislative session. The bill’s death “is a blow for the privacy and civil liberties of all Californians,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation Investigative Researcher Dave Maass. “As surveillance tools become cheaper, more widely deployed, and more sophisticated, the public has a right to know and debate what tools are being purchased and used by local police.” Legislators have a Sept. 15 deadline to pass bills.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) asked a federal court to dismiss Frontier’s lawsuit challenging the state’s one-touch, make-ready law. The complaint doesn't “present a case or controversy within the jurisdiction and power of this federal court,” the state attorney general's office wrote in a Friday motion (in Pacer) in U.S. District Court in Charleston. The one-touch rule “would allow greater and more efficient access to utility poles across the State,” the state wrote in a supporting memo (in Pacer). The governor is protected by sovereign immunity and Frontier failed to establish standing or that the state denied a request for just compensation, a prerequisite to takings or contract-impairment causes of action, West Virginia said. The telco earlier asserted it has standing in the case (see 1708220045). Thursday, the Communications Workers of America and AFL-CIO asked (in Pacer) to intervene, claiming that the one-touch policy “creates a safety and health hazard for CWA members and potentially the public.” Meanwhile at U.S. District Court in Nashville, AT&T and Comcast opposed a request by Nashville to file as supplemental authority the federal court ruling in Louisville that supported a city’s right to make one-touch policy (see 1708210045). AT&T and Comcast are suing Nashville over a similar ordinance. Nashville claimed (in Pacer) the Louisville decision supported its case. But AT&T and Comcast said (in Pacer), “None of the claims that Plaintiffs have raised in this case, and none of the legal defenses asserted by Metro Nashville, are addressed by the Louisville Order.” In Louisville, the court interpreted unique facts and Kentucky state law, the companies said. Unlike Kentucky, Tennessee didn’t reverse pre-empt FCC authority over pole attachments, they said.

Arizona Corporation Commission Chairman Tom Forese wants to ban “payment for meals by stakeholders who have business before the Commission,” he said in a Friday letter in the docket for developing an ethics code. Forese wants to talk more about “potential loopholes” related to lobbyist registration. Commission calendars and other public records should be made more accessible to the public, added the chairman, saying he would work on that with the executive director. Forese didn’t attend a Thursday ethics workshop that turned ugly when one commissioner erupted after his remarks were cut short (see 1708310046). Ethics Committee Chairman Boyd Dunn posted a summary of topics raised.

Twenty-two Texas cities led by McAllen sued the state over the constitutionality of a wireless small-cells law, as expected (see 1708300020). The law, which took effect Friday and pre-empts local authority in the right of way, “is essentially a taxpayer subsidy to the telecommunications industry giants,” McAllen Mayor Jim Darling said in a Thursday news release. The cities sued in the Texas District Court of Travis County after Austin earlier sued Texas in U.S. District Court in Austin. The attorney general’s office didn’t comment.

Tennessee opted in to FirstNet, making it the 18th of the states and territories to agree to AT&T’s radio-access-network plan (see 1708300048), FirstNet said in a Thursday news release. Gov. Bill Haslam (R) made the decision. Puerto Rico also opted in Thursday, the second U.S. territory to do so.

Delaware Gov. John Carney (D) signed a wireless small-cells bill pre-empting local processes for wireless infrastructure siting. CTIA Senior Vice President-State Affairs Jamie Hastings said Carney’s enactment of HB-189 “will help bring next-generation 5G networks and the accompanying economic and civic benefits to the residents of Delaware.” Delaware is the 12th state to enact a small-cells law, though the Texas and Ohio laws now face lawsuits from cities (see 1708300020). A California bill passed by the state Senate is set for hearing Friday in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The Texas Public Utility Commission may adopt an order Oct. 11 on how the state’s new small-cells law affects PUC jurisdiction under the previous governing statute regarding network nodes, transport facilities and note-support poles constructed by network providers, said an order adopted at the commissioners' Thursday meeting. The small-cells law, effective Friday, establishes a Chapter 284 on wireless network nodes, building on the existing Chapter 283 governing compensation for telecom infrastructure in the right of way (ROW). Commissioners voted 2-0 for a draft briefing order seeking comment on: (1) whether the commission has any authority under Chapter 284; (2) whether the PUC has authority under Chapter 283 to set compensation amounts or address complaints regarding access to the public ROW for the types of equipment defined in Chapter 284; (3) if the answer to the previous question changes when the network provider is also a certified telecommunications provider; and (4) if the commission has authority under Chapter 283 to resolve complaints about access or compensation for using a municipality’s ROW for a distributed antenna system (DAS). Comments are due Sept. 14, replies Sept. 27, in docket 47530. Commissioners voted 2-0 on motions to decline to answer ROW compensation complaints by ExteNet and Crown Castle against Houston and Dallas, deferring to the broader network-nodes docket. Houston earlier sued the PUC over an interim order agreeing with ExteNet that DAS providers need not pay fees because Chapter 283 sets rates based on a company’s number of access lines and wireless infrastructure companies don’t have any such lines (see 1708020036). Austin, Dallas and other cities are suing Texas over the small-cells law (see 1708300020).

An Arizona Corporation Commission ethics workshop turned ugly when Commissioner Bob Burns exploded at another commissioner and staff cut short opening remarks. Thursday’s livestreamed workshop, focused on existing Arizona laws, kicked off the elected commissioners’ attempt at development of a code of ethics (see 1707310032). Ethics Committee Chairman Boyd Dunn asked Burns to wrap up as the commissioner was discussing an ethical concern around using money saved from vacancies for committee budgets rather than sending it back to the state general fund. Burns replied, “It seems that when I attempt to take a position and explain a position, either legal informs me that I might be infringing upon open meeting law … or that now you are cutting me short, and I’m a little bit fed up.” When Dunn said he wanted to stay on agenda, Burns replied, “Well, the issue of ethics is the agenda, and if we’re going to have ethical operations, maybe we ought to talk about some of the things that have happened here in the not-too-distant past that could possibly be a problem.” Burns flagged a law stopping elected officials from using their influence or position to cause firing, promotion or demotion of any public employee. “There is some cloud around the resignations of [Utilities Director] Tom Broderick and [Executive Director] Jodi Jerich,” Burns said. Burns “went way too far in attacking our legal counsel,” who isn’t an elected official, Commissioner Andy Tobin said. Burns retorted, “Well, he has an ethical standard of his own that he needs to live up to.” As Dunn intervened, the webcast abruptly ended; ACC didn’t comment. Earlier, Tobin said he was surprised to learn that an attorney employed by a company could speak to commissioners without registering as a lobbyist: That may be a “public disclosure loophole.” Dunn agreed it should be discussed but warned about a possible “chilling effect.” Dunn suggested defining what in-house ex-parte communications are appropriate because he said talks with staff can be helpful. The next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 15. Dunn said he didn’t want to rush the process developing a code that “will stand the test of time” and possibly be a model for other state commissions that largely lack ethics codes.