The California Public Utilities Commission would break the law if it extended landline service-quality rules to VoIP, broadband or wireless, the telecom industry warned in comments filed Monday on a rulemaking sought by consumer advocates to update telecom service-quality standards and enforcement (see 2203170072). AT&T suggested the commission instead slash regulations for plain old telephone services (POTS). Consumer, small business and workers’ union advocates supported extending the rules.
The FCC should require licensees to collect and report diversity data from the companies that provide their media content, including on streaming services, said a petition Thursday from programmer Fuse Media and several public interest groups including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Public Knowledge and Common Cause. The petition doesn’t limit the proposal to companies overseen by the Media Bureau, but loops in broadband licensees such as Google and Amazon. “Collecting data from all of the regulatee’s services will not only provide a fuller picture of the regulatee’s overall commitment to diversity but would allow the Commission to compare viewpoint diversity and competition across different services,” said the petition.
The FCC’s Consumer Advisory Committee members approved its consumer broadband labels working group’s recommendations on disclosure. All members at Tuesday's virtual meeting (see 2203110064) voted in favor, with Next Century Cities being the sole abstention. NCC didn’t comment on why it abstained.
California regulators scaled back price and speed requirements proposed for a $2 billion last-mile federal funding account (FFA) required by the state’s $6 billion broadband law. The California Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 at a livestreamed Thursday meeting to adopt CPUC President Alice Reynolds’ revised proposed decision released Wednesday.
The Oregon Public Utility Commission will open a rulemaking to update state USF rules. Commissioners voted 3-0 Tuesday to adopt staff's recommendation in docket AR 649. Telecom industry groups gave mixed reviews last month to the PUC’s plan to adopt a CostQuest model to decide the size of the Oregon USF (OUSF) starting Jan. 1 (see 2203310040). Deciding to issue an NPRM is merely a “jumping-off point” for the rulemaking, reminded Chair Megan Decker at Tuesday’s virtual PUC meeting. The PUC signed a contract earlier in the week to use a CostQuest model, said PUC senior telecom analyst Nicola Peterson. But the proposed NPRM is a framework to move forward while allowing input, she said. "I don't think putting it off is going to help make it an easier process." The Oregon Telecommunications Association doesn’t want to open a rulemaking that says the PUC will use a model when it doesn’t yet understand the model’s potential results, said OTA attorney Rick Finnigan: The PUC should take more time. "This is important and we need to get it right," he said. The Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association supports moving forward because it thinks the proposed framework is “flexible enough” to let parties work with the model, said Davis Wright’s Mark Trinchero. Commissioner Mark Thompson supported moving forward, while sympathizing with OTA’s concerns. “It is resonating with me that it feels a little weird to ... adopt a rule that says we're going to use a cost model when there seems to be concerns that we really don't know what that cost model is going to produce.” Commissioner Letha Tawney said she sees “outs” for the commission if “this goes off the rails.” Concerned parties should proactively engage, she said.
Connecticut could adopt one-touch, make-ready (OTMR) rules next month adapted from the FCC framework. The state’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) released a proposed decision Tuesday to establish an OTMR process to facilitate “efficient development and deployment of advanced telecommunications and broadband infrastructure” and encourage shared use of poles. New Hampshire regulators are also moving toward adopting OTMR rules based on FCC rules.
The California Public Utilities Commission should keep open its emergency disaster relief rulemaking to address unresolved issues for wireline and wireless communications providers, said the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT). The CPUC received comments Friday on whether it should close docket R.18-03-011. The CPUC “should leave this proceeding open to consider issues of fines and citations and the communication providers’ transition from fossil fuel-based to clean energy-based backup generators,” said CforAT. The commission still needs the rulemaking to monitor communications provider compliance with 72-hour backup requirements, said the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office: And the CPUC could open a new phase to assess telecom needs for people with disabilities during disasters. The Utility Reform Network agreed outstanding issues remain. But the California Cable and Telecommunications Association said the commission “fully addressed its objectives” and should close the rulemaking.
The Oregon Public Utility Commission faces “a really tight deadline” to update state USF rules, said the Nicola Peterson, PUC senior telecom analyst, at a virtual workshop Thursday. There and in written comments earlier this week, telecom industry groups gave mixed reviews of the PUC’s plan to adopt a CostQuest model to determine the size of the Oregon USF (OUSF) starting Jan. 1.
California stepped toward regulating VoIP, broadband and wireless service quality. The California Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 at a virtual meeting Thursday to open a rulemaking sought by consumer advocates to update telecom service-quality standards and enforcement. The Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition warned that states are preempted from regulating interconnected VoIP.
A draft FCC notice of inquiry seeking comment on how to combat digital discrimination could shed light on the issue's severity, given the limited information currently available, public interest organizations told us. Commissioners will consider the item during its March 16 meeting (see 2202220069). Some advocates disagree how the FCC should define the term and say ISPs may push back on claims they may be engaging in digital discrimination.