The possible end of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) isn't an excuse to make sweeping changes to state broadband grant rules, ISPs told the California Public Utilities Commission this week. In Monday comments (docket R.20-08-021), AT&T, Frontier Communications, cable companies and small rural local exchange carriers urged the CPUC to swiftly reject last month’s The Utility Reform Network (TURN) petition to modify rules for the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure account (see 2404150062).
The Nebraska Universal Service Fund has had “steady and predictable” remittances since adopting a connections-based contribution mechanism, NUSF Director Cullen Robbins said at a Nebraska Public Service Commission hearing Tuesday, so changes aren't needed. The PSC partly moved away from a revenue-based NUSF contribution in 2018 and expanded the policy in 2021(see 2105110045). The NUSF has a $134 million balance, Robbins said. He noted that the commission is considering a change that would use high-cost support more for operating expenses like maintaining networks as opposed to capital expenses for deployments. One possible benefit is that the fund balance wouldn’t build up as much because support could be paid out monthly, the NUSF director said. At another meeting earlier in the day, Nebraska PSC commissioners voted 5-0 to approve an order issuing the 2024 schedule and application materials for the Nebraska Broadband Bridge Program. ISPs may apply for NBBP grants from June 17 through July 8. Under the program, $20 million is available annually for deploying networks capable of at least 100 Mbps symmetrical speeds in unserved and underserved areas. “NBBP has proven to be an effective way to get broadband to unserved and underserved areas of the state, and we are eager to begin the fourth cycle of this program,” Commission Chair Dan Watermeier said in a news release.
A California proposal to allow people without social security numbers (SSNs) to sign up for low-income telecom support was mostly supported in comments Friday at the California Public Utilities Commission. However, consumer advocates sought tweaks to the CPUC staff proposal to ensure maximum inclusion and disagreed with T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless on whether accepting applications without SSNs should be mandatory. Other companies generally praised the staff plan while seeking more clarity on certain details.
The number of states with privacy laws reached 18 after Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) signed SB-541/HB-567 on Thursday. Vermont and Minnesota could soon join the ranks. While not first, Maryland “sets the new standard” for state privacy laws and “raises the bar” for Congress, said Caitriona Fitzgerald, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) deputy director, in an interview. Meanwhile, in California, the first state with a privacy law, board members of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) slammed the preemptive current draft of a privacy bill from Congress.
AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless will pay about $10.25 million to the 50 states and the District of Columbia under an agreement that settles claims of deceptive and misleading advertising practices, multiple state AGs announced Thursday. The bipartisan AGs signed a pact with AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to resolve the investigations. The three carriers “baited consumers with deceptive claims about ‘unlimited’ data, ‘free’ phone offers and incentives to switch, only to switch the offer and not deliver on their advertised claims,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said. In addition to the monetary penalties, the carriers agreed to make future ads truthful, accurate and not misleading, Ellison's office said. Going forward, unlimited must mean no numerical limits and such plans should disclose any data speed restrictions and what triggers them, it said. Carriers offering to pay for customers to switch companies must clearly disclose what and how they will pay consumers, it said. Among other requirements, the carriers must present clear terms and conditions for so-called free devices or services, it said. A CTIA spokesperson said the “voluntary agreements reflect no finding of improper conduct and reaffirm the wireless industry’s longstanding commitment to clarity and integrity in advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions about the products and services that best suit them.” T-Mobile said, “After nine years, we are glad to move on from this industry-wide investigation with this settlement and a continued commitment to the transparent and consumer-friendly advertising practices we’ve undertaken for years.” AT&T and Verizon referred us to CTIA’s statement. State AGs slammed the carriers as they applauded the settlement. New York AG Letitia James (D) said it’s a good resolution after carriers “lied to millions of consumers.” Many wireless carriers' deals are “too good to be true,” California AG Rob Bonta (D) said. Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) said “it's unacceptable to make false promises about what consumers might expect from their wireless carriers.”
AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless will pay about $10.25 million to the 50 states and the District of Columbia under an agreement that settles claims of deceptive and misleading advertising practices, multiple state AGs announced Thursday. The bipartisan AGs signed a pact with AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to resolve the investigations. The three carriers “baited consumers with deceptive claims about ‘unlimited’ data, ‘free’ phone offers and incentives to switch, only to switch the offer and not deliver on their advertised claims,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said. In addition to the monetary penalties, the carriers agreed to make future ads truthful, accurate and not misleading, Ellison's office said. Going forward, unlimited must mean no numerical limits and such plans should disclose any data speed restrictions and what triggers them, it said. Carriers offering to pay for customers to switch companies must clearly disclose what and how they will pay consumers, it said. Among other requirements, the carriers must present clear terms and conditions for so-called free devices or services, it said. A CTIA spokesperson said the “voluntary agreements reflect no finding of improper conduct and reaffirm the wireless industry’s longstanding commitment to clarity and integrity in advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions about the products and services that best suit them.” T-Mobile said, “After nine years, we are glad to move on from this industry-wide investigation with this settlement and a continued commitment to the transparent and consumer-friendly advertising practices we’ve undertaken for years.” AT&T and Verizon referred us to CTIA’s statement. State AGs slammed the carriers as they applauded the settlement. New York AG Letitia James (D) said it’s a good resolution after carriers “lied to millions of consumers.” Many wireless carriers' deals are “too good to be true,” California AG Rob Bonta (D) said. Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) said “it's unacceptable to make false promises about what consumers might expect from their wireless carriers.”
Minnesota won’t craft a law that might put the state's $652 million allocation from NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program in jeopardy, Senate Broadband Committee Chair Aric Putnam (D) pledged shortly after midnight Tuesday. Up late considering a labor budget bill that included an industry-opposed broadband safety proposal, senators voted 35-32 to reject amendments from Sen. Gene Dornink (R) that would have scrapped the worker safety plan.
A Minnesota lawmaker and a labor group pushed back Monday against the telecom industry's opposition to advancing a proposal on broadband workforce safety. The state's Senate planned to weigh the measure as part of a labor omnibus (HF-5242), but senators hadn’t voted by our deadline. The Minnesota Cable Association (MCA), Minnesota Telecom Alliance (MTA) and the Wireless ISP Association (WISPA) warned Gov. Tim Walz (D) that the proposal would discourage carriers from seeking federal broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) and other high-speed internet grants.
Vermont’s net neutrality law seems in good shape legally following two significant, late-April decisions by the FCC and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said experts on the statute. ISP groups must decide what to do with their 2018 lawsuit at U.S. District Court of Vermont now that the case can resume following the 2nd Circuit ruling.
Vermont’s net neutrality law seems in good shape legally following two significant, late-April decisions by the FCC and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said experts on the statute. ISP groups must decide what to do with their 2018 lawsuit at U.S. District Court of Vermont now that the case can resume following the 2nd Circuit ruling.