WASHINGTON-The California Public Utilities Commission again will postpone a vote on a controversial bill of rights for telecom consumers, increasing prospects for either major changes to the current draft or the introduction of alternative proposals that may be more to the wireless industry’s liking.
The CPUC was set to vote on Commissioner Carl Wood’s bill-of-rights plan on Sept. 25, but the proposal fell off the agenda and was rescheduled for Oct. 2 to give commissioners more time to study prickly issues like disclosure, advertising and marketing, privacy, billing, contracts and early termination fees. Last Wednesday, Commissioners Geoffrey Brown and Susan Kennedy met with industry lobbyists and consumer advocates for several hours in San Francisco for the third time to discuss the revised bill of rights issued on July 24. But they did not finish hashing out differences over the proposed rules.
A fourth all-parties meeting is scheduled for Oct. 8 to debate the pros and cons of planned changes to the privacy rule for mobile-phone carriers and other telecom service providers.
“If I see this thing getting stuck, I’ll propose an alternative,” said Brown.
But Brown said that is not his preference. “I keep telling the parties I want to get it right,” he stated.
Brown said he plans to meet with Wood after the fourth meeting to determine whether the bill-of-rights author is amenable to modifications. Brown said he is uncomfortable with disclosure and advertising rules in Wood’s draft decision.
“Carl Wood took time with this. We want to take a little more time,” said Brown. He said the commission is unlikely to vote on the bill of rights until November.
Despite being a part of the process that has contributed to the delay, Brown appears to be part of a potential voting bloc with Commissioners Wood and Loretta Lynch that would like to move a bill of rights forward. Commissioners Michael Peevey and Susan Kennedy may be less inclined to approve a bill of rights-at least in its current form.
The five commissioners face public and media pressure on the issue. Last Monday, the lead editorial in the Los Angeles Times-the state’s biggest and most influential newspaper-called on the CPUC to pass Wood’s bill-of-rights plan.
Kennedy has been meeting separately with executives from wireless and wireline telecom carriers.
“She’s finding a lot of it helpful,” said Ross LaJeunesse, chief of staff to Kennedy. “They’re [industry executives] really engaging us.”
LaJeunesse said it is not unusual for commissioners to offer alternative proposals, though he acknowledged he does not know whether Wood’s draft will be revised or whether new proposals will surface.
“People are being very careful about what they’re saying,” said LaJeunesse.
Studies sponsored by the mobile-phone industry claim the bill of rights will cost carriers hundreds of millions of dollars and cause thousands of job losses in California.
“We’ve been successful in pointing out there are serious operational and implementation problems with major elements of rules we’ve examined,” said Michel Day, an attorney for the Cellular Carriers Association of California.
Wood did not return a call for comment.
Consumer advocates still think they have the momentum.
“I think they’re trying to bullet-proof their decision,” said Carl Hilliard, president of the Wireless Consumers Alliance.
