The reaction has been muted to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel's speech Wednesday launching a Privacy and Data Protection Task Force and urging a more aggressive approach by the agency on data privacy (see 2306140075). But some observers questioned how far the FCC can go under its legal authority to regulate privacy. Rosenworcel said Wednesday sections 222 and 631 of the Communication Act provide the grounding for FCC action. Congress rejected ISP privacy rules approved under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, through a Congressional Review Act resolution (see 1704040059).
The telecom industry warned California regulators not to overstep, in Friday comments on three rulemakings at the California Public Utilities Commission. Litigation is likely if the CPUC ramps up VoIP regulation, said internet-based phone providers in docket R.22-08-008. Meanwhile, in docket R.23-04-006, video franchise holders said there’s no need to revamp how they’re treated under the state’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA). Consumer groups fail to support their calls for stricter and more widely applied service-quality metrics for voice, said telecom groups in reply comments in R.22-03-016.
A draft NPRM on FCC regulatory fees circulated on the 10th floor uses a revamped methodology for assessing which full-time equivalents are connected with which bureaus, leading to proposed lower fees for Media Bureau regulatees such as broadcasters, and higher fees for Wireless and Wireline bureau industries, said FCC and industry officials. The rulemaking notice appears headed for unanimous approval soon, FCC and industry officials told us.
Reject incumbent ISPs’ “self-serving recommendations” for California rules on broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program funding, urged Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT). The California Public Utilities Commission received reply comments Monday in its BEAD rulemaking (docket R.23-02-016). Incumbents submitted ideas in opening comments (see 2304180075) that “would only serve to entrench these incumbents’ existing market power and would artificially exclude support for more qualified applicants that are more responsive to the communities they serve,” said CforAT. But BEAD isn't "a government handout to convince incumbents to provide broadband to unserved and underserved communities while reaping the highest possible profits and providing the fewest possible community benefits,” the consumer advocate said. The California Broadband and Video Association countered that the CPUC should reject proposals that exceed Congress’ and NTIA’s guidance. Don't direct funding toward overbuilding or "ignore commercial providers’ expertise in deploying and operating broadband networks in favor of applicants that lack such experience,” the state cable group said. GeoLinks chafed at CforAT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation implying in their opening comments that non-fiber technologies are inferior. NTIA has been clear that multiple technologies can provide reliable service, including wireless, said the CLEC: Don't set the extremely high cost per location threshold (EHCT) "so high as to risk a handful of fiber projects in extremely hard-to-build areas gobbling up most" BEAD funding. The wireless industry continued to urge the CPUC not to preclude fixed wireless. "There is no meaningful downside risk of setting the EHCT ‘too low’ because the Commission retains complete flexibility to prioritize and select broadband projects based on whatever factors it deems appropriate, including speed, capacity, cost, and time to deploy,” said CTIA. Wireless costs less and deploys faster, the Wireless ISP Association wrote. Fiber doesn’t cost more in the long term, disagreed Communications Workers of America. "Although fixed wireless has a lower upfront capital cost, costs are comparable over 30 years because of higher ongoing costs, for example equipment replacement," CWA said. The Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California suggested the CPUC wait to set the threshold until NTIA announces California's BEAD allocation.
Fiber and wireless proponents faced off in comments this week on a California Public Utilities Commission rulemaking to develop state rules for distributing dollars from NTIA’s broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program (docket R.23-02-016). They disagreed on how high California should set its Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold (EHCT), which will be used to determine what areas can get non-fiber broadband service. Commenters also debated how much the CPUC should add to requirements from the BEAD notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) and how much the state agency should rely on the FCC’s national map to determine what areas are served.
The telecom industry recoiled at the new direction for a California Public Utilities Commission rulemaking that previously focused on state USF charges. The CPUC has no business investigating provider-imposed charges, said phone, cable and wireless companies in comments Wednesday. Consumer advocates welcomed the review into discretionary charges they said aren’t always expected by customers.
Consumer advocacy groups and industry disagreed about whether the FCC should adopt additional requirements for its new broadband labels as the latest version is currently being implemented (see 2211180077). Some industry groups urged the commission to wait until the new labels are being used and can be evaluated for effectiveness before making any revisions. Comments were posted through Friday in docket 22-2.
The California Public Utilities Commission should weigh legal and jurisdictional issues in a VoIP rulemaking before considering rules, said AT&T, Frontier Communications and small rural telcos in separate replies filed Monday. AT&T saw "broad agreement" in opening comments (see 2210180049) that the proposal exceeds the CPUC's authority "and could invite legal challenge if adopted,” the carrier said in docket R.22-08-008. The California Cable and Telecommunications Association agreed with opposition to the CPUC staff proposal and suggested an alternative approach. The CPUC could make a “streamlined licensing framework specific to” digital voice services like VoIP, it said. The agency would apply only CPUC rules that currently apply to VoIP service, though it could later consider "targeted" regulations, CCTA said. Noting 501 VoIP providers are informally registered with the commission, Sangoma condemned the CPUC proposal "a blueprint to stifle competition in the presently vibrant VoIP market in California.” The business VoIP provider is especially concerned with proposed tariff requirements, it said. “Tariffs are relics of a bygone era when telephone services were offered by regulated monopoly providers. That era ended long ago, and tariff requirements have rightly gone by the wayside except for a few large incumbent providers and in rural areas that lack competition.” The CPUC should reject industry’s jurisdictional arguments, The Utility Reform Network and Center for Accessible Technology replied jointly. "The Commission has jurisdiction over VoIP providers, who are telephone corporations under California law," the consumer groups said. "The Commission is not barred from regulating VoIP service by federal law, including classification as an information service and preemption principles.”
New York state can speed broadband deployment by requiring pole owners to share pole replacement costs with attachers, cable companies said in comments last week at the New York Public Service Commission. Pole owners disagreed, suggesting using the influx of state and federal broadband funding to pay for replacements. Some other attachers urged the PSC to act quickly on less controversial issues in docket 22-M-0101, especially with the FCC considering similar issues in its docket 17-84.
The California Public Utilities Commission risks litigation if it exerts too much authority over VoIP, warned industry in comments received by the agency Monday. Commissioners voted 5-0 Aug. 26 to open a rulemaking (docket R.22-08-008) on changes to licensing requirements and other obligations for internet-based voice (see 2208250029 and 2208190030). Consumer advocates and small businesses supported state VoIP requirements.