Tennessee legislation introduced Tuesday would create a commission to coordinate state broadband policies. Under HB-194 by Rep. Bill Sanderson (R), the proposed commission on education and technology would “foster collaborative relationships between local governments, private businesses, and the state to expand broadband.” Other duties include watching federal broadband funding opportunities, setting goals and metrics for broadband expansion across the state, providing education about broadband to local governments for underserved communities, and recommending broadband policies at the state and local levels. The group’s membership would include various state government officials and representatives for schools, libraries and counties. The bill doesn’t address the state’s ban on expanding municipal broadband, upheld last year by a federal court, which stopped Chattanooga from bringing its fiber network to neighboring communities. Sanderson didn’t comment on that policy. Last week, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) proposed $45 million in broadband grants and tax credits, and to allow nonprofit electric cooperatives to provide retail broadband service (see 1701270037). Tennessee is one state community broadband advocates are watching this year for state legislative action, our Friday report found (see 1701260022).

Verizon and the Communications Workers of America made progress toward settlement of CWA’s complaint against the company in the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, a PUC administrative law judge said in a Jan. 26 scheduling order released Friday. The PUC was to start hearings Feb. 6 in a probe into the state of Verizon copper, but postponed them because the parties said they were continuing settlement talks and could provide an update March 1. The parties entered settlement talks in late November (see 1611300062). “The Commission strongly encourages settlement,” wrote ALJ Joel Cheskis. If it’s still unresolved by March 1, the commission will set a new procedural schedule, he said.

A consumer advocacy group wants San Francisco police to keep tabs on Uber's self-driving car program, launched in mid-December, but which now is only being used for mapping purposes. Consumer Watchdog Monday sent a letter to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D) to request Police Chief Bill Scott "closely monitor" the company's autonomous cars. “Based on Uber’s past performance when they flouted California law and put their robot cars on the road without the required permits from the [California Department of Motor Vehicles], there is absolutely no reason to trust the company now,” wrote John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog privacy project director. He wrote that Uber's cars were seen going through red lights when they were first deployed and the company blamed the human test driver. In a news release announcing the letter, Simpson wrote Uber didn't want to get the permits from the DMV because it didn't want to share information about its test activities. The DMV requires companies testing self-driving technology on public streets to file "disengagement reports" when the tech fails or test driver has to intervene, Simpson said. Uber Head-Advanced Technology Group Anthony Levandowski wrote in a Dec. 14 blog post that when San Francisco riders request an UberX ride, the company's lowest-cost option, they will be matched with a self-driving car, if available. That program was halted after a week when regulators revoked vehicle registrations since the company didn't want to get a permit for testing self-driving cars. Levandowski said at the time it didn't need permits since the cars weren't ready to be driven without a person monitoring them. An Uber spokeswoman emailed that the company is pleased with the similar Pittsburgh pilot launched in September. Self-driving Uber cars "are on the road in Arizona for internal use at this time, but are not a part of our public operations," she said. She pointed to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle that said Uber had several glitches with that city's program and issues with regulators, prompting the company to halt the pilot in December with the self-driving systems disabled and the cars used only for mapping.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) proposed $45 million in broadband grants and tax credits, and to allow nonprofit electric cooperatives to provide retail broadband service. The proposed budget and Tennessee Broadband Accessibility Act also would make grant funding available to libraries, the state government said in a Thursday news release. The $45 million would be distributed over three years and include $30 million for broadband providers to reach unserved homes and businesses, plus $15 million to buy broadband equipment in the state’s most economically challenged counties, the state government said in a fact sheet. The proposal doesn’t address Tennessee’s ban on municipal broadband expansion, which was upheld last year by the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Tennessee Senate Leader Mark Norris (R) will introduce the bill in his chamber, and House Leader Glen Casada (R) and Rep. David Hawk (R) will sponsor it in theirs, a spokeswoman for the governor said. “While there is no one solution that can guarantee broadband accessibility to every single Tennessean, this legislation provides a reasonable, responsible path to improve access in a meaningful way through investment, deregulation and education,” Haslam said. It’s progress, but could be better, said Institute for Local Self-Reliance Community Broadband Networks Director Christopher Mitchell. Tennessee had been violating the Telecom Act by creating barriers to cooperatives building fiber networks, he said. But Haslam “refuses to upset Comcast and AT&T by allowing the state's best networks (like Chattanooga) to expand to serve its neighbors,” Mitchell emailed us. “It is a cowardly move forward but better than a cowardly move backwards.” Tennessee is one state community broadband advocates are watching this year for state legislative action, our Friday report found (see 1701260022).

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) received five nominations to fill two vacant commissioner seats at the Public Utilities Commission, the PUC said in a Thursday news release. For an unexpired term ending April 10, 2020, the PUC nominating council Thursday submitted the names of Daniel Conway, an energy and telecom attorney from Porter Wright; Lawrence Friedeman, an IGS Energy executive; Edward Hess, a former PUC staffer with energy experience; and Raymond Lawton, ex-director of the National Regulatory Research Institute, research arm of NARUC. For the second seat that has a five-year term starting April 11, the council recommended Gregory Williams, former aide to Ohio ex-Commissioner Andre Porter, along with the three who don’t get the first seat. Kasich chose Howard Petricoff in June for the first slot, but after the state Senate appeared unlikely to confirm him, Petricoff announced his resignation Dec. 2 (see 1612120029). Under Ohio process, the governor has 30 days to appoint names from the list or request more names. The state Senate must confirm the governor’s appointees, who may take seats before receiving confirmation.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioners raised jobs and competition concerns Thursday before voting 5-0 to approve Verizon/XO Communications without conditions. The order is the last regulatory OK the deal needed, and a Verizon spokesman said the company aims to close the purchase of XO “in the coming days.” While voting to allow the deal, Commissioner David Sweet said he worried about not including a condition to protect jobs of Pennsylvania employees after New York and New Jersey required Verizon to keep the jobs for four years (see 1701240051). “I fear that that places a bull's-eye on the backs of Pennsylvania employees since we are neighbors of New York and New Jersey, and we apparently are not going to impose the similar condition that I would have liked to have seen us done,” Sweet said. Commissioner John Coleman said he was sympathetic to Sweet’s employment concern, but didn’t want to “handcuff” the companies: “There is a higher goal here, and that is to preserve the company itself.” Chairwoman Gladys Brown said she would have supported conditions on business data services: “Adding Pennsylvania-specific conditions regarding its Internet Protocol interconnection agreements, DS1 and DS3 loop circuits and the current federal requirement to provide the functional equivalent of DS1 and DS3 loops whenever copper network facilities are retired could have gone a long way in strengthening the commission’s finding of affirmative public benefits.”

Verizon/XO Communications may get a last-needed regulatory green light today. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioners plan to vote on the $1.8 billion deal at their Thursday meeting, said an agenda posted Wednesday. In November, an administrative law judge there issued an initial decision to OK the deal without conditions. Tuesday, New York Public Service Commissioners approved the deal with a condition to protect the jobs of existing XO employees (see 1701240051). The New York PSC released the text of that order Wednesday. The FCC and FTC gave the OK last year.

Saying VoIP is an information service under federal law, Comcast sought oral argument on a Vermont Public Service Board-proposed decision defining it as a telecom service. PSB staff recommended the finding last month in a proposed decision in docket 7316 (see 1612130060). In Jan. 20 comments we obtained Wednesday, Comcast urged the board to reject the proposal because it makes factual findings that are irrelevant or unsupported by the record and includes legal analysis that disregards FCC and federal court precedent. “Beyond the legal and factual errors and omissions in the PFD [proposal for decision], Comcast also reiterates that the proposed decision remains wholly unnecessary,” the company said. “The matters at issue in this docket have now been under consideration for over nine and a half years, during which time the Board has not exercised regulatory authority over the terms and conditions of Comcast's VoIP service. Throughout this time, the FCC has applied nationally uniform, light-touch regulation to interconnected VoIP providers, and there has been no showing that the lack of further regulation by the Board has resulted in any adverse consequences to consumers.” AT&T, Verizon and the Voice on the Net Coalition supported Comcast in joint comments: “The Proposal conflicts with federal court decisions that squarely and correctly hold that VoIP services such as XFINITY Voice are information services under federal law because, among other things, they offer the capability for net protocol conversions.” The phone and VoIP companies cited a 2008 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Southwestern Bell v. Missouri Public Service Commission) and a 2010 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Paetec v. CommPartners). “FCC decisions make clear that ownership and control of that device are irrelevant to the question whether that VoIP service offers the capability for a net protocol conversion and, therefore, is an information service,” they said. But eight independent RLECs said they strongly support the PFD because it "will create the potential for a more level playing field in the regulatory treatment of materially identical voice service.” Customers see no difference between voice services provided by legacy and VoIP technologies, the RLECs said. “The current regulatory mismatch between those services impedes the efficient operation of the competitive marketplace, which would be addressed in significant measure by the Board's adoption of the PFD.” The Vermont Department of Public Service and Green Mountain Power separately supported the proposed decision without additional comment.

The New York Public Service Commission greenlit Verizon's buying XO Communications with a condition to protect the jobs of about 100 existing XO employees in the state. Commissioners unanimously OK’d the $1.8 billion deal as part of a consent agenda vote at the commission’s Tuesday meeting. It was "approved because the transaction provides an overall net benefit to customers of both companies,” a commission spokesman emailed after the vote. “The PSC required Verizon not to lay off or take any action effecting an involuntary reduction of customer-facing jobs within XO Communications in New York State for four years, excluding retirement incentives and attrition.” Verizon now needs OK from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, which also is expected to vote soon and next meets this Thursday (see 1701120051). In November, an administrative law judge there issued an initial decision to OK the deal without conditions. The FCC and FTC already OK’d the Verizon/XO deal last year. The acquiring telco didn’t comment.

T-Mobile urged the California Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s decision upholding a San Francisco ordinance intended to block installation of telecom equipment that would diminish the city's beauty (Case S238001). The California Court of Appeal for the First District said cities may consider aesthetics when assessing telco pole attachment applications, rejecting a challenge by T-Mobile, Crown Castle and ExteNet (see 1609160052). In a Jan. 20 opening brief, the companies said the state appeals court applied an incorrect standard of review when it said the challenge could succeed only if there were "no set of circumstances" under which the ordinance could be validly applied, the companies said. The ordinance conflicts with state telecom franchise rules in Section 7901 of the Public Utilities Code and the court "adopted an illogical reading" when it said municipalities must treat entities equivalently for temporary construction activities and occupations of the rights of way, but localities may discriminate among them when regulating long-term occupations. San Francisco hurts itself with the ordinance, the companies said. “While the rest of the country is moving forward to facilitate and streamline the wireless infrastructure deployments needed to support advanced services, some localities, such as the City and County of San Francisco … have enacted measures that stand in the way of progress.”