WASHINGTON-State regulators are concerned the Federal Communications Commission this week will adopt an item suggesting calling party pays is a commercial mobile radio service exempt from state regulation.
There is nothing new about state regulators not wanting to be pre-empted by the FCC. But the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners also questions other aspects of CPP, including whether wireless call costs would be the same as wireline call costs. NARUC reminded the FCC of its concerns last Thursday in a letter filed just before the sunshine notice went into effect prohibiting further lobbying on agenda items.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has lobbied the FCC to exempt CPP from state regulation. CTIA’s position is based on two legal arguments, said Michael Altschul, CTIA vice president and general counsel.
First, CTIA is hanging its hat on a Supreme Court decision from the early 1980s, which said since wireline handsets were used for both local and long-distance calling, the handsets had a “mixed jurisdiction” and therefore came under federal control. Since wireless local calling areas often cross state boundaries, it would be impossible to tell whether a call to a wireless subscriber was out-of-state, so the mixed-jurisdiction argument applies here as well, Altschul said.
Second, CTIA believes the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which created the CMRS classification, pre-empted any state regulation.
Bob Rowe, chair of NARUC’s communications committee, said the same law allows states to regulate terms and conditions. “We think that under [the 1993 budget act], it would be an appropriate term or condition that states may regulate,” Rowe said.
NARUC’s letter questions many of the assumptions made in the FCC’s 1997 notice of inquiry. For example, NARUC pointed out the “CMRS market is growing at a steady and rapid rate without CPP.”
Additionally, NARUC questions whether CPP will lead consumers to realize that the costs for placing wireless calls are comparable to wireline calls. Calling-party-pays proponents believe per-minute charges for wireline calls are comparable to those for wireless. CPP opponents counter that since most wireline customers pay a flat rate for local calling, customers won’t make that connection.
NARUC is not specific in its criticisms, but certainly has questions, said James Bradford Ramsay, NARUC assistant general counsel for telecommunications issues. Ramsay believes it will be state regulators who will be contacted by angry customers who do not want to pay to call a wireless subscriber.
Additionally, many states-including Florida, which doesn’t even have authority to regulate wireless-are concerned about CPP, Ramsay said.
