Don’t let FairPoint off the hook for missing Maine service quality benchmarks from Q3 2014 to Q2 2016, the state Office of Public Advocate told the Public Utilities Commission. The PUC in October proposed $500,000 in civil penalties for service quality violations, but the company protested the amount and blamed failures on reasons out of its control (see 1701030041). In testimony filed Wednesday in docket 2014-00376, OPA regulatory consultant David Brevitz said FairPoint shouldn't be excused. “FairPoint knew very well what the service quality benchmarks were that it was required to meet or expose itself to penalties,” Brevitz said. “FairPoint made various business decisions that resulted in its inability to meet the service quality benchmarks, and even get close to them for extended periods of time. The circumstances indicate that FairPoint clearly accepted potential penalties as a ‘cost of doing business’, and it would be unjust for the Commission to relieve FairPoint of paying the penalties given its complete knowledge of the service quality benchmarks, its sustained failure to meet the benchmarks -- and even improve performance, and its own decisions regarding operations in Northern New England.” FairPoint service quality issues came up earlier this week at a PUC technical conference on the company's proposed acquisition by Consolidated Communications (see 1702210052).
The California Public Utilities Commission didn’t violate the law when it revised a rural call completion order shortly before and during commissioners' Dec. 15 meeting, said a rural county and two consumer groups. In a joint response released Wednesday, Mendocino County, The Utilities Reform Network and Center for Accessible Technology urged the commission to reject a request for rehearing by a coalition of California ISPs (see 1702080065). Rules don’t specify the exact timing of proposed changes to agenda items, they said. “Prescriptive or strict rules regarding timing of proposed revisions would chill the Commission’s ability to respond to Commissioner or staff concerns or public comment raised during the meeting itself.” They rejected the ISP argument that the scope of the order was too broad, saying the docket was broad from the start and properly expanded over the course of the proceeding. ISPs should file a petition for modification or request for clarification on any drafting errors they identify, said the county and consumer groups. “The existence of drafting errors or ambiguities that require clarification does not rise to the level of legal error undermining an entire decision.”
More state legislatures are pre-empting local authorities on municipal broadband and other areas, the National League of Cities said in a Wednesday blog post. A recent NLC report said 17 states pre-empt localities from deploying muni broadband, said NLC Research Associate Trevor Langan. State pre-emption “means a loss of local control for cities,” he wrote. “This can have negative effects on local economies and the rights of marginalized groups. Moreover, these laws counter the intentions of local leaders and their communities.” States usually pre-empt municipal broadband by either banning a public entity from providing the service or by placing sufficient barriers to discourage local broadband efforts, NLC reported.
A wireless bill in the California State Assembly could pre-empt local authority on siting small cells. SB-649 by Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee Chairman Ben Hueso (D) says small cells, like collocation facilities, are “not a municipal affair” but “a matter of statewide concern.” It bans cities or counties considering applications for small cells from requiring an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless facility, limiting the duration of any wireless facility to less than 10 years or restricting facilities to sites owned by specific parties within the jurisdiction. “The bill that’s in the hopper now doesn’t actually say that small cells will not be ‘subject to a city or county discretionary permit,’ as collocation facilities are currently privileged to be,” Tellus Venture President Steve Blum said in a Tuesday blog post. “It does set the table for adding that exemption as SB 649 moves through the legislative sausage machine -- there would be little point to the bill otherwise.”
The California Public Utilities Commission may consider extending right-of-way (ROW) rules of commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) to wireless pole attachments by CLECs. A proposed decision by CPUC President Michael Picker released Wednesday would grant the Wireless Infrastructure Association’s petition to open a rulemaking on the subject. Commissioners could vote on the proposed decision at their March 23 business meeting, it said. "We agree with WIA’s assessment that extending the Revised ROW Rules to CLECs’ wireless pole attachments would advance the State’s policy objectives in Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 709,” the proposal said. “Our goal for the rulemaking proceeding is to advance the public’s interest in the development of safe and competitive telecommunications infrastructure that provides ubiquitous, competitive, and affordable telecommunications services.” But the proposed decision itself doesn't say whether the rules should be applied to CLEC wireless pole attachments, it said. In the proposed proceeding, the commission would consider rules to ensure construction, operation and maintenance of wireless pole attachments, protect worker and public safety, and preserve reliability of power lines and other collocated utility facilities, the CPUC said. The commission would seek comment on whether space is sufficient on existing utility poles to support additional telecom attachments, if the costs of replacing existing poles to support additional attachments pose a barrier to entry, and if the “urban streetscape” can support more pole attachments, more utility poles or larger poles to replace existing ones. Comments would be due 30 days after a final order is issued, the CPUC said. Earlier this month, the state commission denied a similar petition by the cable industry to extend CMRS ROW rights to cable wireless facilities (see 1702090043). "We are pleased the Commission has accepted our petition for rulemaking and look forward to providing comment on these important issues," WIA Senior Government Affairs Counsel Van Bloys emailed.
An Arkansas state senator defended her telehealth legislation​. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed the bill into law Friday, a Hutchinson spokesman said. Teladoc said the new law’s requirement of a video interaction for a patient’s first remote visit may be difficult for people living in remote areas with slow internet connections (see 1702170053). Sponsoring Sen. Cecile Bledsoe (R) told us she doesn’t see a problem. “That is a false argument because most everyone has a smart phone or has access to one through family or friends,” Bledsoe emailed. Patients may use a phone for all subsequent visits, but a video call for the first meeting is “good medicine,” she said. “Many things can be discerned by a visual evaluation and are important, especially when the Physician is seeing the patient for the first time.”
The New York Public Service Commission plans a detailed review of CenturyLink buying Level 3, agency Telecom Office Director Karen Geduldig said in a Monday letter to the petitioners. Rather than allow the transaction be deemed granted, commissioners will review the Jan. 6 petition and issue a written order, she said. Ohio, Utah and Nevada have cleared the transaction, while DOJ and the FCC are reviewing it (see 1702140017). The deal is expected to close by the end of Q3.
A bill to update Arkansas telehealth rules could leave behind rural residents with slow internet connections, Teladoc said. The Legislature Thursday sent SB-146 by Sen. Cecilie Bledsoe (R) to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) for his signature. Teladoc previously complained that Arkansas telehealth rules kept it from operating in the state, and advocated for state legislation (see 1701060017). “The bill in Arkansas represents an important step in the right direction,” a spokeswoman emailed Friday. “But this bill remains significantly inadequate: it requires a video interaction for the first remote visit -- even where not medically indicated. The result is that access is needlessly restricted. Areas of the state without reliable, wired broadband will not have access to telemedicine.” Bledsoe didn’t comment.
The Virginia Senate agreed to a House amendment to a small-cells bill (SB-1282) and sent the wireless-siting measure to the governor’s desk. The House voted Tuesday 97-0 to pass the bill, and Wednesday the Senate voted 32-4 to accept the House revisions. The legislation, which got support from CTIA and the Wireless Infrastructure Association, limits reviews of small-cell applications to 50 days and sets maximum fees for processing applications (see 1702100053).
Colorado counties plan to push more localities to hold ballot votes this fall to opt out of the state ban on municipal broadband, after legislation to repeal the ban stalled this week in the state Senate, Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI) Policy Director Eric Bergman told us. Under the law, communities may vote to give their local government authority to deploy broadband, and 26 localities voted to do so in November, joining 70 others (see 1611090024). Monday, a Senate committee voted 4-3 to indefinitely postpone consideration of the CCI-backed SB-42. Bergman said it’s uncertain whether CCI will push for another repeal of the ban next year, but this year, CCI wants the legislature to support another pending bill (HB-1174) to exempt rural counties with populations below 50,000 people from a state requirement that the county must first contract with a telecom provider before establishing a “local improvement district” to fund telecom service enhancements. “This will create one more tool in the toolbox for rural communities that are struggling to bring much-needed service and infrastructure to their unserved areas,” said a draft CCI fact sheet on the bill. Meanwhile, the Virginia Senate voted 35-3 Thursday to pass an amended muni-broadband bill (HB-2108) that -- while initially containing restrictions vehemently opposed by localities and community broadband supporters (see 1702100053) -- by Monday had their support after a Senate Committee stripped remaining areas of contention. The committee amended the bill to remove a clause on Freedom of Information Act exemptions and now the bill “no longer poses a threat to local and municipal broadband authorities,” said Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority CEO Frank Smith in a statement. “Instead it merely reasserts the very same laws and procedures in the Code of Virginia to which we all already operate and gladly adhere and abide.” A final House vote on the amended bill is likely Friday, said a Friends of Municipal Broadband spokeswoman.