WASHINGTON-CTIA President Steve Largent was rebuffed in his effort to implore the Senate Commerce Committee to include a national framework for regulation in the telecommunications-reform bill.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, told reporters following a hearing on the Communications Act of 2006 that total pre-emption of state regulation would not be included when the committee releases a revised draft, which is expected early next month.
The news was praised by a state regulator lobbying group. “Resisting industry entreaties to eliminate state consumer protections is a good strategic decision. The bill needs to stay narrow if it’s going to move this year,” said Brian Adkins, telecommunications legislative director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
Adkins said he believed the attempt to keep telecommunications reform narrow was the reason pre-emption was not included in a bill passed by the House Commerce Committee last month.
Pre-emption of state regulation has been CTIA’s top priority in telecom reform, and the association has been scrutinized and criticized for not being able to convince lawmakers to include it in legislation. The trade association said it is educating lawmakers while playing defense.
“We fully anticipate and recognize that the bill-from a wireless perspective-may get worse before it gets better. This is a very fluid process and we look forward to continuing to educate members and staff on our issues,” said Joseph Farren, CTIA director of public affairs.
It was more difficult for the wireless industry to explain why wireless pre-emption was not included in the 135-page bill offered in the Senate. “The bill we are discussing today is the appropriate vehicle to reinstate the national framework,” said Largent. “If this committee adopts a national wireless framework, we will see the next wireless renaissance.”
Stevens told reporters he expects the bill will have to be expanded to get the necessary 60 votes to be passed by the Senate, but did not say what expansions he would support. Expanding the bill is bound to bring heartache to some of CTIA’s biggest members, which are affiliated with entities trying to enter the video market. These companies want a video-franchise-only bill similar to what the House Commerce Committee passed-sans any mention of the sticky network-neutrality issue.
After Stevens releases a revised draft June 5, the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to hold another hearing on the bill before considering it June 20.
CTIA has employed a multi-prong strategy to combat state regulation.
In addition to its Capitol Hill lobbying, CTIA has taken its message directly to the nation with a series of TV advertisements urging a national-regulatory framework. CTIA is also working at the state level to combat regulation at the source.
And finally, CTIA is going to court to fight for federal pre-emption. Briefs recently have been filed at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to overturn a wireless-industry victory in Minnesota. When Minnesota enacted the Consumer Protection for Wireless Consumers statute, the wireless industry went to court claiming the law was pre-empted by section 332 of the Communications Act, which prohibits state regulation of wireless rates and market entry, but reserves to states oversight of other terms and conditions. Consumer advocates, state regulators and the mobile-phone industry disagree over the interpretation of “other terms and conditions.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed with the industry’s interpretation, but Minnesota and a coalition of state regulators and consumer advocates want the Supreme Court to overturn the 8th Circuit.
“In addition to enacting the state law based on its inherent rights, Minnesota predicated its enactment of this law based on a clear and manifest intent as expressed by Congress when it set forth the federal-state regulatory scheme for the wireless-telephone industry. The federal Communications Act specifically preserves to the states the rights to regulate certain terms and conditions of wireless contracts,” reads a friend-of-the-court brief filed by several states in support of Minnesota. “The states have a substantial interest in ensuring that their citizens are protected from unconscionable contract provisions and have express congressional authority to provide protections for wireless-telephone consumers.”
The industry believes the 8th Circuit’s decision is the right one.
“There is no error of the 8th Circuit’s analysis. The 8th Circuit correctly determined that section 332’s ban on rate regulation covers state action that fixes the rates of wireless-service providers. The 8th Circuit then properly applied that rule of federal law to the specific piece of state legislation at issue here,” said Helgi Walker, outside counsel of record for Verizon Wireless.
Pre-emption was a central theme of oral argument last week in Atlanta challenging a 2005 Federal Communications Commission ruling that bars states from regulating non-tax line items on wireless bills. The FCC decision was part of broader decision that extended federal truth-in-billing regulations to mobile-phone carriers.
The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and the Vermont Public Service Board appealed the FCC ruling.
NASUCA wanted the FCC to ban regulatory recovery fees. NASUCA asserts the fees are deceptive because they can look like state and federal taxes. Mobile-phone operators argue the fees let subscribers know exactly what they are paying for.
In its decision last year, the FCC agreed with mobile-phone carriers’ contention that state attempts to forbid wireless line items amount to illegal rate regulation.
RCR Wireless News Washington Bureau Chief Jeffrey Silva contributed to this report.
