Adam Bender

Consumer advocates said the California Public Utilities Commission should move ahead with service quality rule changes that the telecom industry says would be illegal. “The Commission has the authority and supporting precedent to impose meaningful enforcement mechanisms for its customer protection and service quality rules,” The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) said in reply comments the CPUC received Tuesday. However, telecom industry commenters said a CPUC staff proposal and consumer groups' proposed additions aren’t supported by facts, the law or policy reasons.

An expected influx of broadband work is a key reason that lawmakers should reauthorize the state’s call-before-you-dig law, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Chairman Stephen DeFrank said at a Pennsylvania House Consumer Protection Committee hearing streamed Tuesday. Set to expire this year, the Pennsylvania One Call law requires excavators to call 811 before digging to avoid striking underground infrastructure, including telecom lines. Passing HB-2189 would reauthorize the law until 2031, with some changes. The committee’s goal is to bring the bill “up for a vote sooner rather than later,” possibly in a couple of weeks, said Chairman Robert Matzie (D). Reauthorization "is especially critical at this time since federal funding has been awarded to plan and construct utility infrastructure projects,” DeFrank told the committee. “From broadband deployment to replacing aging pipelines and building out our electric transmission lines, One Call tickets are likely to increase in the coming years." The PUC chair praised proposed changes, including adding late fees for untimely payments and eliminating an exemption for reporting on damage that costs less than $2,500 to repair. DeFrank suggested expanding the definition of excavation to include work using hand tools and “soft excavation technology" like vacuums, high-pressure air or water. The Pennsylvania PUC has enforced the state law for seven years. The 811 system handles 1 million calls yearly -- and the number is rising, said Pennsylvania One Call System CEO William Kiger: The calls result in about 7 million locate requests a year. The state Senate has a similar bill (SB-1237).

“We’re not waiting for federal leadership in privacy,” said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) during a Silicon Flatirons event Wednesday. Amid congressional inaction, Colorado was the third state to enact a comprehensive privacy bill, after California and Virginia. The AG office has sought to be transparent as it’s worked on rules for implementing the Colorado Privacy Act, said Weiser, quipping that the FCC is a “poster child [for] how not to do rulemaking.” Colorado plans to watch how state government manages data at the same time as it oversees the private sector, he said. The AG office will take the same approach with AI, he added. Also, as the AG office moves toward enforcement, it is focused on educating businesses. Weiser's “memo” for businesses: “Stop collecting so much data … Stop storing it for so long. Stop giving so many people access to it.” The AG said the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Chevron deference doesn’t formally affect states. “Informally, it’s possible that some state supreme courts will look at it.” However, Weiser finds the decision “entirely unpersuasive,” he said. “I am confident that [Colorado’s] supreme court will continue to provide agency deference.” The Colorado AG office recently set a Nov. 7 hearing on the latest proposed amendments to the Colorado Privacy Act (see 2409160036).

Title I or Title II of the Communications Act would bar the New York Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), said amici supporting ISP groups in briefs Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court. NCTA, a cable industry group that didn’t join the original May 2021 challenge that several national telecom associations filed in a district court, said the ABA “would impose unprecedented and unlawful rate regulation on broadband services.” The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) also condemned the state law. “If the ABA becomes effective, it will achieve the opposite of what it purports to accomplish, making it harder for communities of color to subscribe to broadband.”

Verizon faced tough cross-examination Friday as consumer advocates hammered the company’s petition for Connecticut deregulation. Paul Vasington, the carrier's senior director-regulatory and government affairs, said during a Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) virtual hearing that the market where the ILEC seeks deregulation has reached “full potential” competitively given many VoIP and wireless options. However, officials from the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) questioned whether Verizon competitors offer services that are the functional equivalent of landlines.

ISPs and consumer advocates recommended tweaks as the California Public Utilities Commission began finalizing state rules for NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. The CPUC plans voting Sept. 26 on a proposed decision approving rules implementing volume two of the CPUC’s proposed rules, which it submitted to NTIA in December. Determining the extremely high cost per location threshold (EHCPLT) on a project area unit (PAU) basis as proposed "will lead to inconsistent results,” said AT&T in comments Thursday, recommending a statewide approach instead. “Such piecemeal and fluctuating EHCPLT determinations make project predictability difficult as applicants formulate their submissions and will likely increase the number of PAUs that would be too costly for fiber deployments.” Also, several proposals would "result in rate regulation in violation of the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act," including a proposed middle-class affordable option with a $74 monthly rate cap, AT&T said. The California Broadband & Video Association advised that CPUC maximize BEAD funding’s reach “by prioritizing private matching funds over speculative awards from other grant programs and by ensuring that applicants have the financial capability and sustainability for their proposed projects.” Avoid discouraging participation with "restrictive price caps" or "skewed scoring criteria related to affordability, labor, and network resilience,” the cable association said. But Tarana Wireless asked the CPUC to reconsider scoring criteria that favor big companies. For example, one category "will only award a full 20 points to providers capable of providing at least a 65% private sector match or more of requested funding amount," a requirement that's "unusually high and favors larger and wealthier service providers.” The CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office urged setting "a hire bar" for allowing a subgrantee to increase the price of a required $30 low-cost option. Center for Accessible Technology, another consumer group, asked why companies may request increasing low-cost plan prices to account for inflation or increased costs, but there’s no way to reduce prices “when a provider’s financial viability can be sustained at the lower level.” The Utility Reform Network said the CPUC should plan for the possibility that the low-cost option and affordability issues may need to be revisited, including due to the end of the affordable connectivity program.

Responding to state budget cuts in the Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund Program (BLLRF), the California Public Utilities Commission clarified Thursday during a meeting that it will award just $50 million of the originally planned $750 million. The program was meant to support broadband deployment costs for nonprofits, local and tribal governments. But at the same livestreamed session, commissioners approved about $91 million in grants from the federal funding account (FFA) for 10 last-mile projects.

A disappointed Lumen is reviewing its options after the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission rejected a proposed settlement between the company and UTC staff related to the state’s method of regulation, a Lumen spokesperson said Tuesday. The pact would have reduced regulation of the telco by classifying Lumen’s CenturyLink ILECs as competitive. In a 3-0 order Friday, the commission took issue with a proposed process for discontinuing service in challenging customer locations (CCLs), which the agreement defines as “an existing CenturyLink local service customer location in Washington that lacks both fixed internet availability from at least one provider at [25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload] speed or greater priced at $61.13 per month or less, and mobile wireless service at $61.13 per month or less.” Under the pact, CenturyLink would have to get UTC approval before discontinuing stand-alone residential or business exchange service to any area including a CCL. However, the commission agreed with concerns by the state attorney general’s public counsel office that “that the CCL definition is too narrow, and that the discontinuance process could leave some customers without adequate service.” The commission sought “broader protections and a more stringent approval process.” The UTC added that “CenturyLink, a profitable company that has previously accepted federal money to provide these services to customers needs to do more to meet the needs of its most vulnerable customers who would be affected by the inequities of this proposal.” The rejection means a “temporary extension” of the current alternative form of regulation (AFOR) scheme until parties can adjust the settlement and the commission can resolve Lumen’s Jan. 8 petition seeking competitive reclassification, said the order in docket UT-240029. CenturyLink has operated for nearly a decade under an AFOR in Washington state (see 2402060015). Lumen “worked closely with [Washington UTC] staff to reach a settlement creating a comprehensive new regulatory structure reflective of today’s competitive market,” said the company’s spokesperson. “The proposed settlement contained multiple levels of safeguards that ensured no CenturyLink customers would be left without service.”

By not issuing a written reason, Elkhart, Indiana, improperly denied Verizon Wireless’ application to build a 135-foot monopole, the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana ruled Friday. The court granted summary judgment for Verizon but remanded the matter to Elkhart’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide the missing explanation by Oct. 21. Verizon argued that the BZA’s unanimous decision violated Section 332 of the 1996 Telecom Act, but the city claimed that substantial evidence supported its denial. In a Friday opinion, Judge Damon Leichty said the BZA violated the Telecom Act (TCA) because it gave “no written reasons for its denial that would facilitate a meaningful appeal or enable judicial review.” As a result, “Verizon cannot meaningfully articulate a challenge to any one reason, if in fact any reason existed,” Leichty wrote. However, the court decided it will give BZA a chance to explain. “There is no question the BZA violated the TCA in never providing a written explanation, but no one seriously contends that it otherwise acted with anything but reasonable promptness in its decision,” said the judge. “Accordingly, the court will remand this matter to the BZA for a prompt TCA-compliant decision. The court will be receptive to expedited briefing and review of this matter should the BZA decline to issue the variance without such a compliant decision or without substantial evidence, upon any necessary appeal and assignment here.”

California should shut down AT&T’s deregulation bid, consumer groups argued in briefs to the California Public Utilities Commission Friday. After denying AT&T relief from carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations in June (2406200065), the state commission is weighing AT&T’s separate application to relinquish its eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation (docket A.23-03-002). AT&T claimed that the CPUC has no choice but to grant the application for statewide relief.