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."

Due to recent state legislative activity, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska will extend comments on phone deregulation draft rules until July 29, the RCA said in a Friday order (docket R-24-001). Comments had been due Monday in the state’s renewed effort to implement SB-83, Alaska's 2019 telecom deregulation law (see 2404100058). However, earlier this month, Alaska lawmakers approved a bill (HB-307) that clarifies the RCA’s telecom powers. The bill still needs a signature from Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R). The Matanuska Telecom Association and Alaska Communications supported delaying comments so they could analyze HB-307’s impact.

The Utah Public Service Commission should repay AT&T for the carrier's error of assessing a higher Utah Universal Service Fund (UUSF) surcharge than the PSC required for two years, AT&T officials said during testimony Friday. AT&T seeks recovery of overpayment to the Utah USF from July 2021 to June 2023 totaling $2.26 million, AT&T tax directors Jannet Tolley and Randy Phoenix testified in docket 24-087-02. The mistake occurred because AT&T failed to fully implement a July 2021 drop in the UUSF surcharge to 36 cents from 54 cents previously. AT&T properly entered the change in its systems for only AT&T affiliates but not the company itself, which uses a different billing system, Tolley testified. "The excess collection and remittances were the result of an inadvertent administrative error. The Company did not benefit from the error as the excess collections for July 2021 through June 2023 were not retained but were remitted to the UUSF each month.” Customers weren’t harmed because AT&T quickly provided credits after learning about the error in July 2023, Tolley said. AT&T has enhanced its billing system with automation features to prevent the problem from recurring, she said. AT&T overpayment to UUSF might mean a 38% increase to the surcharge will be needed, the PSC said in April (see 2404160023).

Minnesota became the 19th state with a privacy law Friday when Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed an omnibus (HF-4757) that includes language from the state’s comprehensive data privacy bill. Legislators moved privacy language to that bill from a different omnibus (SF-4942) before it passed the legislature. Privacy lawyers say it mostly follows the Virginia and Connecticut model, while adding a right to question profiling decisions and other new requirements (see 2405200059). Vermont could become the 20th state with a comprehensive privacy law if Gov. Phil Scott (R) signs H-121 (see 2405130050).

Many applications for federal broadband funds at the California Public Utilities Commission propose projects that would mostly cover already served areas, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office said Friday. PAO has “major concerns about several grant request proposals” seeking federal funding account (FFA) cash, it said in a letter to CPUC Communications Division Director Robert Osborn. PAO reviewed 484 pending applications seeking $4.6 billion from the $2 billion fund. “Even with this oversubscription, the applications appear to cover less than half of eligible unserved FFA locations,” it said. PAO urged the CPUC to prioritize projects that cover the most unserved locations and “especially those that cover low-income and disadvantaged locations.” Also, the commissions should work with applicants to expand proposed project areas to cover more unserved locations, it said.

Public broadband advocates applauded Minnesota for removing municipal broadband restrictions last week. The changes were part of SF-4097, a commerce omnibus that Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed last week and also included net neutrality and social media disclosure proposals (see 2405200059). Minnesota’s change “highlights a positive trend -- states are dropping misguided barriers to deploying public broadband as examples of successful community-owned networks proliferate across the country,” American Association for Public Broadband Executive Director Gigi Sohn said Friday. “While 16 states still restrict these networks in various ways, we’re confident this number will continue to decrease as more communities demand the freedom to choose the network that best serves their residents.” Minnesota struck an old law that let municipalities buy or construct telephone exchanges, which also included broadband networks, only if a supermajority approved it in a local referendum election, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSF) blogged Thursday. The state also eliminated a law that let municipalities construct broadband only if a private provider wasn't providing service in the area. Christopher Mitchell, director-ILSR's Community Broadband Networks, lauded the changes, saying he has long hoped “to see more deference to communities in how they want to solve these challenges that they understand better than anyone outside their region.”

ISP groups got two more weeks to seek rehearing or rehearing en banc of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to uphold New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (case 21-1975). The appeals court Friday granted an unopposed motion by the New York State Telecommunications Association and other industry groups to extend the deadline until June 7. The petition had been due Friday under a previous extension. However, the industry groups sought additional time Wednesday because they said they might reach an agreement with New York state to resolve the case (see 2405220073). On April 26, the 2nd Circuit decided that federal law didn’t preempt the 2021 New York law requiring $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households (see 2404260051).

California lawmakers supported limiting smartphone and social media time at school in votes last week. The Assembly voted 69-0 on Thursday to approve AB-3216, which would require schools to adopt limits or bans on student use of smartphones. Meanwhile, the Senate voted 35-0 to pass SB-1283, which would require a similar policy for social media. Each bill will now go to the opposite chamber.

California Assembly members supported a proposed ban on digital discrimination the same day that state senators backed a proposal that would remove a free internet requirement in the state’s public housing broadband grant program. Bills on universal opt-out and social media also cleared their originating chambers Wednesday. The Assembly voted 43-10 to pass AB-2239, which would codify in California law the FCC’s definition of digital discrimination and allow state and local enforcers to seek injunctive relief (see 2404230039). On the privacy front, Assembly members voted 53-7 to pass AB-3048, which would require web browsers to include an option to opt out of selling and sharing data on all websites. The California Privacy Protection Agency supports that bill (see 2403130048). Also, the Assembly voted 46-0 for AB-2481, which would create a mechanism for people who report threatening content on social media platforms. In the other chamber, senators voted 37-0 for SB-1383 to remove restrictions included in the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) public housing account that require ISPs to provide free internet before receiving grants. The cable industry supports the bill because it claims that the current restriction deters grant applications (see 2404020049).

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.”