Telecommunication

We can all agree that what we could do with less is the pull and push between federal, state, and local policymakers. We are in need of and should strive for a new era of cooperative regulation, that recognizes the states as laboratories of democracy, and your federal partners as a uniform guide where and when appropriate. So allow me to take some time this morning, to outline areas where we can work together, and other areas I feel, where states and localities should take the lead when it comes to privacy, universal service, pole attachments, rights-of-way access, and inmate calling.

Empirical research demonstrates that the Obama Administration’s aggressive regulatory agenda at the Federal Communications Commission reduced investment in the telecommunications sector between $20 and $40 billion annually, robbing the nation of a boom in network expansion the public wants and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act mandates.

As there is a direct relationship between network investment and jobs, the next logical question to ask is how this reduced network investment affected employment in the telecommunications sector. Using standard economic techniques and publicly-available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ford finds that over the period 2010-2016, the telecommunications sector lost approximately 100,000 jobs per year—many of them high-paying union jobs. This loss is the pay-equivalent of about 130,000 “average” US jobs.

On August 4, 2015, a number of public interest advocates (including the Benton Foundation) filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Federal Communications Commission to repeal Section 42.6 of the Commission’s rules, Retention of Telephone Records, that requires telephone companies to retain the detailed call records of their customers. The petitioners explained that the regulation was unduly burdensome and ineffectual and posed an ongoing threat to the privacy and security of American consumers. The FCC is seeking comment on the petition. Comments are due June 16; reply comments are due July 3.

For over a century, assessments of competition or the lack thereof have been central to how public policy treats the telecommunications industry. This centrality continues today. Yet, numerous foundational questions about this concept persist. In this paper, we chronicle how the definition of “competition” has evolved in economics and has been applied in the communications arena. The academic literature on competition hits an important inflection point in the mid-20th century with the development of “workable competition”: a term that is equated to “effective competition.” We find that while the concept of “effective competition” is central to policy formation at the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC’s own applications of “effective competition” are inconsistent. Given the centrality of this concept, and its inconsistent applications to date, we draw upon the seminal contributions to the development of the notion of “effective competition” to offer a modern definition suitable for application in 21st century communications markets.

The Justice Department is apparently OK with Liberty Interactive's proposed purchase of Alaska telecom GCI. That came in an early termination notice released June 8. That means the DOJ has found no reason to try and block or condition the deal and put an early end to its Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust review. The Federal Communications Commission must still weigh in on the deal. It goes beyond antitrust to look at the public interest impact of mergers in the communications space. That review will not be concluded until at least next month. On May 19, the FCC created a pleading cycle for the deal, with comments due June 19 and reply comments due July 5. The $1.1 billion deal was struck in April.

A complaint filed with the Pennsylvania public utilities commission has driven a Verizon-Communications Workers of America copper settlement involving maintenance of the company’s traditional landline network infrastructure. Verizon union workers represented by the CWA argued that the company was in violation of statutory obligations to provide adequate service to customers and that public and worker safety were endangered.

CWA filed the complaint in October 2015 and the PUC opened a proceeding to investigate the complaint in April 2016, according to a CWA press release. CWA said it submitted “exhaustive testimony” documenting inadequate maintenance on Verizon’s part. “For nearly two years, CWA documented Verizon’s failure to repair the copper network and equipment in areas where Verizon has chosen not to build out its FiOS fiber network,” said a CWA district vice president said.The Pennsylvania PUC action suggests, however, that some of the biggest challenges in phasing out copper may be more on the policy side than the regulatory side.

It is called ringless voice mail, the latest attempt by telemarketers and debt collectors to reach the masses. The calls are quietly deposited through a back door, directly into a voice mail box — to the surprise and (presumably) irritation of the recipient, who cannot do anything to block them. Regulators are considering whether to ban these messages.

They have been hearing from ringless voice mail providers and pro-business groups, which argue that these messages should not qualify as calls and, therefore, should be exempt from consumer protection laws that ban similar types of telephone marketing. But consumer advocates, technology experts, people who have been inundated with these calls and the lawyers representing them say such an exemption would open the floodgates. Consumers’ voice mail boxes would be clogged with automated messages, they say, making it challenging to unearth important calls, whether they are from an elderly mother’s nursing home or a child’s school.

Police should be allowed to unmask anonymous callers who have made serious threats over the phone, the Federal Communications Commission has proposed. The proposal would allow law enforcement, and potentially the person who’s been called, to learn the phone number of an anonymous caller if they receive a “serious and imminent” threat that poses “substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.” Specifics are still up in the air. The FCC is asking, for instance, whether unveiled caller ID information should only be provided to law enforcement officials investigating a threat, to ensure that this exemption isn’t abused.

AT&T-supported legislation in Illinois that would eliminate a requirement for the telco to offer landline voice service, or "plain old telephone service," has been met with opposition from the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) and the AARP, igniting new debate on legacy services. Senate Bill 1381, which was passed 56-2 May 24, would abolish the state requirement that incumbent carrier AT&T offer traditional phone service. CUB said that the bill would set in motion a process that would eventually allow the company to send "cease to offer" notices to its 1.2 million business and residential landline customers in Illinois. Additionally, the legislation would increase phone rates for current customers by allowing AT&T to eliminate the low-cost "Consumer's Choice" local calling plans.

[Commentary] The way governments in the United States treat telecommunications providers, you would think that the providers’ services came with a Surgeon General warning. Generally speaking, governments impose greater taxes on activities they want to discourage, such as smoking, or on things that their citizens are less likely to consume, such as rental cars. But telecom falls into neither category. So why is telecom taxed so heavily? And why are there so many different taxes and fees that some consultants and lawyers have built careers out of helping telecom companies decipher how much to pay and which forms to file? If we want more competition and more infrastructure, we should lower businesses costs by eliminating many of these taxes. At a minimum we need to continue to protect the internet from taxes and be diligent to not allow taxes and fees to slow down the internet of things.

[Jamison is the director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida; he served on President trump’s FCC transition team]