WASHINGTON-California Public Utilities Service Commissioner Susan Kennedy could be forced to strengthen her proposal to overhaul the telecom consumer bill of rights before a scheduled vote next month, according to one of her fellow commissioners, Geoffrey Brown.
Brown, a Democrat, whose bill of rights was approved in May 2004 only to be put on hold seven months later, said that while CPUC President Michael Peevey (D) and Commissioner John Bohn, a Schwarzenegger Republican appointee, may be aligned with Kennedy’s campaign to replace the existing bill of rights with a deregulatory rule, they may call for stronger consumer protections before the agency rules on a proposed rewrite.
The briefing cycle on Kennedy’s bill-of-rights plan was completed last week, and a proposed decision-based on new public comments and hearings-is scheduled to be issued later this month. A CPUC vote on the proposed decision is slated for Dec. 15.
Political maneuvering may cause that date to slip.
“I have no compunction about taking a long, hard look at this,” said Brown.
Peter Hanson, an adviser to Brown, was more direct.
“It may be more in play than we know. … It’s not yet a done deal,” said Hanson.
Brown and Hanson noted Bohn has yet to be confirmed by the California Senate, a situation that could give Democratic lawmakers some political leverage in light of their failure to get Sen. Martha Escutia’s (D) bill-of-rights measure out of the state legislature. Escutia and other Democratic lawmakers pursued telecom bill-of-rights legislation after the CPUC voted to suspend its bill of rights earlier this year.
Commissioners Peevey, Bohn, Kennedy and Dian Grueneich-a Schwarzenegger Democrat-could not be reached for comment.
The U.S. wireless industry, which has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars on California lobbyists to fight the bill of rights, finds itself in somewhat of a dilemma. The industry does not want to see the California bill of rights become a model for other states, but it has not thrown its support behind Kennedy.
Industry’s fear is well founded. The Massachusetts legislature is considering a cellular-specific consumer bill of rights.
Wireless carriers argue no additional wireless regulations are necessary because state consumer-protection laws are already on the books. In addition, the wireless industry argues strong competition and its voluntary code of conduct are sufficient safeguards against abuses and problems with billing, service quality, marketing, contracts and other aspects of the wireless business.
Consumer and disability advocates, as well as California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, want Brown’s bill of rights reinstated.
Meantime, the battle over state wireless regulations is playing out in court, in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission.
Cingular Wireless L.L.C., Sprint Nextel Corp. and the FCC are fighting to defeat a truth-in-billing appeal filed by the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and the Vermont Public Service Board. The litigation is pending in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. The FCC late last month withdrew its motion to dismiss the NASUCA challenge based on the group’s new representation as a consumer of wireless service, but still plans to fend off legal challenges to its new truth-in-billing rules.
The FCC in March extended truth-in-billing to wireless carriers, but rejected NASUCA’s request to ban line-item regulatory recovery fees charged by mobile-phone carriers to offset the cost of implementing federal mandates such as local number portability, enhanced 911 and universal service fund contributions. The FCC also pre-empted state regulation of line-item charges.
Mobile-phone carriers are lobbying Congress and the FCC to further pre-empt state regulation of wireless phone operators. CTIA, the cellular phone association, has asked the FCC to rule whether early termination fees are “rates charged” under 1993 legislation. The legislation, now law, barred states from regulating wireless rates and market entry, but left to states oversight of “other terms and conditions” of commercial wireless service.
The wireless industry would like to see remaining state wireless jurisdiction reined in on any telecom rewrite or broadband legislation in Congress.
