Meeting of State Regulators Overshadowed by Diminishing State Role
PORTLAND, Ore. -- The question of wither state regulation was a subtext on all the telecom panels in the initial days of the NARUC midyear meeting. State commissioners observed a declining regulatory role for years and enshrined quite clearly in legislation from the past year, as they said a recent report from the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) made clear. The U.S. is in the midst of “deregulation fever,” concluded a June NRRI report on the various legislatures’ deregulation bills, which “will not subside” (CD June 19 p11). New services that draw on Internet Protocol create new challenges of definition, and regulation no longer covers them in the same way, said commissioners and staff who said they're trying to figure out their roles.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
"The commission no longer regulates service quality issues,” Wisconsin Public Service Commission Telecom Division Administrator Brian Rybarik said about his state. “We no longer do that anymore but people still call. … What should we do with it? Do we hang up on them?” He said the PSC seeks to connect aggrieved customers with carriers’ “live” phone numbers and specific people to talk to.
Evolving technology has caused some of the changes. “You will see that voice is nothing more than an application that rides on an IP network,” said USTelecom Vice President Robert Mayer. Communication today means Facebook, Twitter and iPhones, he said. Once upon a time, voice was built into the overall architecture of the phone network, but new technology supports more than voice, which means new paradigms of regulation, panelists said. Not only is the technology changing but the expectations of consumers seem to be changing, some panelists said. “No one wants to buy” basic service, said Rick Cimerman, NCTA vice president-external/state affairs. “They're buying bundles.” Cimerman doesn’t see a problem with the deregulation sweeping through the states and describes the “appropriate” paradigm: “For the most part it’s what we've seen in these 22 [deregulated] states,” he said. “Legislators have gotten it right.”
Others questioned whether that technological reality erases the need for traditional consumer watchdogs that exist on a local level and whether people themselves see the technology differently. “They have no idea that Comcast is a VoIP provider -- they just think it’s a phone,” said William Levis, a Colorado consumer counsel. Where then does E-911 regulation fall? Levis asked. “The VoIP industry is doing a good job of staying out of the regulation,” NASUCA’s Wayne Jortner, senior counsel of the Maine Public Advocate office, told us. Jortner echoed Levis in saying VoIP service is “just like telephone service” from a consumer’s point of view.
A recurring topic was the diminishing role of state authority. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Assistant Counsel Joe Witmer asked a panel on the FCC’s USF if states would have a role in enforcing the auction obligations “or are we basically in the background waiting to be asked?” His concern was borne out in some of the panelists’ answers. Lawyer Brooks Harlow said he initially planned to operate a state telecom practice but moved to Washington, D.C., in recent years in part due to the “increasing federalization” of the communications world. “It’s hard to see much role left for the states,” Harlow said.
Simultaneous to the deregulation of the state commissions is the FCC’s growing authority and reach amid its various programs. “We've now become employees of the FCC in implementing all this,” jested Ohio PUC Telecom Chief Marianne Townsend upon hearing an FCC update report. One of NARUC’s proposed telecom resolutions, TC-2, is moving forward to confront congressional legislation that seems to “preempt state authority” on whether states can force VoIP providers to pay taxes and fees for state USF funds and E-911 services, resolution sponsor and D.C. Public Service Commission Chairman Betty Ann Kane said. Some state officials brought up the question of whether the FCC should be the body overseeing the nuances of so many different regions. “We thought we could tell better what areas in Minnesota needed to be included rather than the FCC,” said Dennis Ahlers, Minnesota Department of Commerce assistant commissioner, about his state’s “very detailed mapping” of access.
"My plan is to look at quality of service for these new broadband networks, particularly quality of service for voice,” NRRI Telecom Principal Sherry Lichtenberg said. She’s been largely responsible for the NRRI’s recent looks at deregulation and USF surveys. One guiding question will be on what commissions’ role will be, she said. Lichtenberg said she’s always curious to explore quality “in terms of emergency access” after recent disasters such as the “derecho” storms of the Mid-Atlantic (CD July 3 p1) and Colorado wildfires.