AT&T Might Sue Cities if Florida Won’t Tighten 2017 Small-Cells Law
AT&T “will have no other choice” but to sue certain Florida local governments the carrier claims are flouting the state’s 2017 small-cells law and FCC infrastructure rulings, unless the Florida legislature passes a bill to tighten the law pre-empting local governments, said AT&T Senior Counsel Tracy Hatch Tuesday. Some members at the livestreamed House Ways and Means Committee hearing questioned the extent of problems. Oregon lawmakers weighed different ways to spur broadband deployment in another hearing Tuesday.
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.
Rep. Mike Caruso (R) wants to ensure Florida doesn't pass a bill “for the sake of convenience to AT&T or other providers,” he said. Rep. Mel Ponder (R), a former mayor, asked if the bill might remove teeth from good localities. The two joined 14-1 vote for HB-693. They urged sponsor Rep. Jason Fischer (R) to work more, as the bill moves to the House Commerce Committee and then the floor, to address local concerns and also hold carriers accountable. Fischer said he would work with cities that sent him proposed changes Monday. The Senate version (SB-1000) cleared a committee last week and is now in the Finance and Tax Committee (see 903260058).
Keeping Florida’s status quo will increase litigation costs for AT&T that will get passed onto consumers, warned Hatch. “Either we walk away from those cities and don’t deploy” or “we sue to enforce our rights.” Clarification is needed to corral a “huge divergence” of local interpretations of the 2017 state law, he said. Local governments denied they have bad intentions. "I don't think anybody adopted ordinances to fly in the face of the law,” said Florida League of Cities Senior Legislative Advocate Amber Hughes, saying cities want 5G.
Committee members tried multiple times to pin down which localities acted badly. “I would love names," said Rep. Anna Eskamani (D), who voted no. Some are good and some are bad, said Fischer, leaving it to industry to name names. Hatch said he didn’t want to throw any locality under the bus, though later claimed problems with “five or six” of the largest jurisdictions in the state, not including Orlando. “We’re not devising legislation for five or six cities,” Hatch noted. “In the absence of legislation, I will get 460 different views of what the world should be.”
The House panel agreed to an amendment removing a proposed 1 percent tax cut for communications services. A broader Florida tax package comes out next week, where Fischer hopes his proposal will resurface.
Oregon USF
Wireline butted heads with wireless and cable on an Oregon USF bill (HB-2184) to establish a broadband fund and expand the definition of retail telecom service to include wireless and VoIP (see 1903120015).
Expanding the contribution base to wireless and VoIP would reflect customer usage changes, Rep. Pam Marsh (D) said at the House Revenue Committee hearing. Oregon now has the lowest fees in the U.S. for cellphone providers, she noted. Broadening the base means the state may cap the surcharge at 7 percent through the bill, lower than 8.5 percent today, while increasing the USF fund size by $12 million yearly, Marsh said. Compared with using general fund revenue, state USF provides a consistent, predictable flow of funding over the years to come, she said. “This is a multiyear mission.”
CenturyLink and other wireline providers supported the bill. Wireless carriers rely on wireline networks without compensating them, said Oregon Telecommunications Association (OTA) Executive Vice President Brant Wolf. “The wireless carriers are just off scot-free.” Rep. Werner Reschke (R) asked why the surcharge cap can’t be lower than 7 percent. OTA would like to get it lower in the future, but 7 percent is a good place to start, replied Wolf.
The “regressive” tax would fall “disproportionately hard on wireless customers of modest means,” countered said Verizon Director-State Tax Policy John Cmelak. It "does not make tax policy sense" to tax cellphones to subsidize a competing service, rural landline, he said. Oregon should pay for broadband instead through its general fund. Wireless may not pay rural landline providers to connect calls, but landline doesn’t pay wireless, either, he said. Having a low cellphone tax in Oregon isn’t a good reason to raise it, said Tootie Smith of the Taxpayer Association of Oregon. The Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association also opposed.
It's unfair that only landline and certain VoIP providers pay for the network, and the bill would reduce fees for those users, said Sam Pastrick, Oregon Citizens Utility Board outreach manager. The bill would help close Oregon’s “stark digital divide” between rural and urban areas, he said. Local government groups also supported. The Senate Business and General Government Committee plans a Thursday vote on the similar SB-300.