Adam Bender

The California Public Utilities Commission should fine AT&T for “continuing misrepresentations” about its petition for carrier of last resort (COLR) relief, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office said in reply comments Tuesday. AT&T last week raised legal and constitutional concerns as it protested a CPUC proposed decision that would dismiss the carrier’s application (see 2405310029). AT&T’s opening comments repeated already rejected arguments, said PAO: The commission should “conclude as a matter of law that AT&T violated” a CPUC ethics rule “and impose sanctions of $1,000 on AT&T’s signatory attorneys." Other consumer groups piled on in separate replies in docket R.23-03-003. The Center for Accessible Technology said, “AT&T’s comments are based on incorrect interpretations of Commission rules and the mistaken belief that AT&T is entitled to relinquish its COLR status.” The Utility Reform Network said the carrier’s argument for rejecting the CPUC’s draft incorrectly “rests on the proposition that the Commission misunderstands its own COLR rules.” But AT&T replied that the CPUC must accept “all of the factual allegations” in its application as true. “The opposing commenters turn that standard upside down when they attack the factual basis for this Application and propose the Commission include additional incorrect and inflammatory allegations about AT&T California and the reliability of its services,” it said.

The California Public Utilities Commission should freeze California LifeLine specific support amounts (SSA) until state regulators and stakeholders can find a better way of calculating them, a consumer group and low-income wireless service providers said in comments Monday. The CPUC is considering freezing the SSA at $19 for wireline and wireless providers (see 2405070050). Meanwhile, consumer advocates defended their petition for temporary bridge funding through LifeLine that would help cover the loss of federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support.

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission should pause a rulemaking on incarcerated people’s communications services (IPCS) until the FCC completes its rulemaking that will implement the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, said ViaPath in comments Friday at the PUC. Due to the 2022 law, "regulation of all IPCS -- intrastate, interstate, and international -- is now within the jurisdiction of the FCC,” the IPCS provider said in docket 24R-0184T. With the FCC required to finish the rulemaking by January, it “would be administratively inefficient for the [PUC] to proceed without having the benefit of the final FCC ruling on the scope of state commission jurisdiction over IPCS," ViaPath said. Separately, Securus raised concerns with the PUC possibly expanding reporting requirements beyond data on phone calls and video service complaints. “Expanding the scope of the reporting … would result in the publication of information beyond that contemplated by [law] and which [IPCS] providers have legitimate interests in maintaining as confidential and proprietary," the company said.

AT&T raised legal and constitutional concerns as it protested a California Public Utilities Commission proposed decision that denies it relief of carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations. But in other comments the agency received Thursday, some local representatives strongly supported the plan to dismiss AT&T’s application. “Upholding this decision is vital to ensure residents across California … continue to have access to basic telephone service,” said San Mateo County in docket R.23-03-003.

Some businesses are pushing for a veto of Vermont’s privacy bill, Wiley attorney Joan Stewart said on a webinar Wednesday. The Vermont legislature passed H-121 earlier this month but Gov. Phil Scott (R) hasn’t signed it yet (see 2405130050). “Outlier provisions” in Vermont’s bill have raised grave concerns in the business community “and there are some strong efforts going on right now to try and persuade the governor to veto that [proposed] law,” said Stewart. One key difference with other state laws is the Vermont bill’s broad private right of action (see 2403220040). Most existing privacy laws allow enforcement by only the state attorney general, though California gives individuals a more limited right to sue, she said. Vermont could be the 20th state to enact a privacy law. Minnesota became the 19th on Friday (see 2405280038).

Reject T-Mobile’s request to make it optional for California Lifeline providers to accept applications for low-income support from people who lack social security numbers, said consumer and low-income advocates in replies Friday at the California Public Utilities Commission. In comments earlier this month (see 2405130044), T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless raised concerns about “requiring companies to process, review and collect a fluid set of unfamiliar and unverifiable ‘identity documents’ without any safe harbor.” Legal Services of Los Angeles County, the Legal Aid Association of California and other low-income advocates disagreed. "While providers may assist with collecting additional identity documents, the [third-party administrator] will make eligibility determinations based on identity documents, so the alleged basis for the need for providers to discriminate against individuals without SSNs is specious.” The Utility Reform Network and the Greenlining Institute “oppose any call for California LifeLine to discriminate against people without SSNs.” The consumer groups noted that people lacking SSNs include "some of the most vulnerable members of our communities: survivors of domestic violence, refugees, and people facing housing insecurity.” Meanwhile, AT&T urged the CPUC to slow down. That every commenter suggested revisions to the staff's proposal shows that the CPUC should take additional time to develop a plan, said the carrier: Require staff to submit a revised, more-detailed proposal and seek more comments. But the low-income advocates said it’s time to act. “Despite any lingering questions or disagreements … the Commission should immediately change the application and expand the list of acceptable identification documents ... without further undue delay,” they said. “Any other feedback on the staff proposal can be resolved later."

Despite expectations that the affordable connectivity program (ACP) will run dry in days, telecom companies continued arguing in comments last week that the California Public Utilities Commission should take its time forming its response. However, while larger ISPs slammed consumer advocates' proposal, small local exchange carriers said they would work with the advocates on a compromise that quickly expands California LifeLine support to broadband.

A state court needn’t set a deadline for the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to make rules on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and automated decision-making technology, with enforcement “still distant,” the agency said Wednesday. The California Superior Court of Sacramento asked May 3 if it should set a “date certain” for those rules after the California Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against the agency returned to the court. The court scheduled a June 21 hearing on the question. In February, California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the court’s June decision that granted a CalChamber petition and stayed any CPPA rules for 12 months after they become final. CalChamber petitioned for review at the California Supreme Court (see 2402210031), but that court declined to take the case on April 24. As a result, the only remaining issue for the Superior Court to decide is whether to set a deadline for the upcoming CPPA rules. In its Wednesday brief, the privacy agency said it started drafting remaining rules at issue in the case and will finalize them "once it has determined that it has received sufficient feedback from stakeholders and obtained necessary approval from state control agencies. In the meantime, it will not enforce the law in the specific areas still subject to regulation. Petitioner is entitled to nothing more.” It would be “improper” for the court to set a deadline because the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “rulemaking process involves a substantial exercise of judgment and discretion over the timeline of the process itself,” the agency said in case 34-2023-80004106-CU-WM-GDS. “Petitioner's interests are already protected by enforcement delays and the APA-mandated procedures for stakeholder input.” The agency already took more feedback than the APA requires in a pre-rulemaking phase and will soon seek more input when it opens a formal rulemaking process, added the agency. In another brief, CalChamber pointed out that the agency was supposed to adopt final rules by July 1, 2022. “Petitioner continues to be concerned about the Agency’s timeline for fulfilling its statutory obligations with respect to the three outstanding rulemakings.” Given the coming rules’ significance, CalChamber "remains invested in ensuring the Agency does not attempt to adopt the regulations on a timeline that does not allow sufficient time for stakeholder review and participation, public comments, and meaningful consideration of public input,” said the business group. That said, CalChamber noted that only the agency "can fully address the anticipated timing for the adoption of the outstanding regulations.”

AT&T and other pole owners raised safety concerns when the Kentucky Public Service Commission proposed self-help for pole replacements. The PSC received comments Tuesday in docket 2023-00416 concerning May 15 draft emergency amendments. These included a proposal that would remove a prohibition on self-help for replacements. Only cable companies, which seek to attach equipment to others’ poles, supported the change.

Minnesota legislators supported net neutrality, data privacy, social media and broadband labor proposals before they adjourned Monday. Gov. Tim Walz (D) will next consider various omnibuses that include the proposed rules. The House voted 70-58 Friday to pass a commerce omnibus (SF-4097), which included net neutrality and social media disclosure proposals that cleared the Senate earlier last week (see 2405160033). On Saturday, the House voted 72-59 to pass a transportation and labor package (HF-5242) including industry-opposed broadband safety rules (see 2405070043). On Sunday, the House voted 70-11 to pass another commerce package (SF-4942), which included language from a comprehensive privacy bill (see 2405100047). Lawmakers passed the House’s broader version of the labor proposal, which includes a controversial provision allowing the state to prioritize broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) and other internet funding for contractors that pay prevailing wage and meet other standards. Senate Labor Committee Chair Jen McEwen (D), who sponsored the Senate's original bill, expects Walz to sign, her spokesperson said Monday. McEwen said she’s “very pleased” the legislature passed the proposal that “will improve worker safety and reduce interruptions to public utilities.” Minnesota Telecom Alliance CEO Brent Christensen, who opposed the labor proposal, told us a veto is unlikely since the governor’s staff was heavily involved in getting the bill passed. Christensen called the net neutrality measure "a really bad bill that didn’t need to happen." The state Commerce Department, which would investigate complaints, doesn't have the right skills to "determine what is a violation and what is normal traffic management," he said. "Any net neutrality action should come from the feds, not individual states." The privacy bill mostly looks like Washington state’s model, which was adopted in states like Virginia and Connecticut, “but with some significant and unique variations,” Husch Blackwell privacy attorney David Stauss blogged Sunday. Differences include “a novel right to question the result of a profiling decision, privacy policy provisions that increase interoperability with existing state laws, and new privacy program requirements such as a requirement for controllers to maintain a data inventory,” he said.