PREFILED STATE BILLS SHOW TELECOM CONCERNS FOR 2003

CLECs in Tex. formed new alliance to oppose draft legislative proposal for 2003, supported by SBC, that would prohibit Tex. PUC from imposing any regulations on incumbent telcos’ DSL services unless identical regulations were imposed on their DSL competitors. Bill draft is similar to Okla. law passed last year. New group, called Competitive Telecom Alliance, consists of Birch Telecom, NTS Communications, Sage Telecom, Ver-Tec Telecom and CLEC trade groups ASCENT and CompTel. Alliance said its goal was to ensure continued competition for all services in Tex. SBC said its legislative agenda for 2003 was to support bills that would make local markets more competitive, not to avoid obligations to its competitors. SBC said it hoped legislation would provide certainty that regulators wouldn’t impose obligations that would hinder its ability to make DSL more accessible. CLECs said legislation represented start of effort by SBC to recreate local monopoly now that it had long distance authority.

Prefiled bill in Tex. would allow wireless customers to place their numbers on state’s no-call list. List currently protects landline customers only from unwanted telemarketers, but under HB-147, they also could put their wireless numbers on list. Bill would require wireless providers to notify their Tex. customers of option to put their numbers on no- call list through widely disseminated means such as bill inserts at least annually. Another prefiled Tex. bill (HB- 46) would extend life of Tex. Telecom Infrastructure Fund and its governing board by 4 years. Fund is scheduled to sunset in Sept. 2005, which measure would postpone to Sept. 2009. It also would increase maximum size of fund to $2 billion from $1.5 billion.

Prefiled HB-1008 in Ark. would impose restrictions on sexually explicit unsolicited e-mail ads and other forms of spam. Senders would have to include their name, address and Internet domain name in message. Subject lines would have to contain “ADV:” for general advertising and “ADV, ADULT:” for sexually explicit merchandise. Senders also would have to provide free and convenient way for recipients to indicate they didn’t want to see sender’s messages. Recipients or ISPs through whom offending spam was sent could prosecute senders. Maximum penalty would be greater of actual damages, or $10 per message or $25,000 per day.

N.J. bill filed for 2003 would require ISPs to inform subscribers about which of their access numbers might subject individual subscriber to toll charges. SB-2083 would affect any ISPs that advertised, displayed or informed subscribers about access numbers. It would address consumer complaints about running up big phone bills using access numbers suggested by ISPs that customers thought were local calls.

Ore. PUC called on 2003 legislature to pass tougher laws against slamming and cramming. Agency wants measure that would authorize it to opt into FCC’s slamming rules, which would give PUC authority over all slamming cases in state. Proposed bill also would authorize PUC to order restitution for slamming victims. Companion bills would give it authority to impose rules against slamming and to fine companies that engage in slamming or cramming. Currently, only Ore. Attorney Gen. Office has authority to penalize slamming or cramming offenders. PUC said its proposed bills would allow it to handle individual customers’ problems, freeing AG to go after flagrant and chronic violators.

Utah PSC called on next legislature to expand agency’s jurisdiction to cover wireless services so it could perform its consumer protection role. Recommendation was included in PSC’s annual report to legislature on status of telecom industry. It said that while FCC allowed states to regulate wireless service quality and conditions of service other than rates and entry, Utah law currently denied PSC any jurisdiction over wireless carriers, so it had to refer wireless consumer complaints and inquires to FCC or courts even where customer could be better served by PSC action.

Utah PSC also urged review and amendment of laws to remove any unnecessary legal impediments to deployment of new telecom technologies. PSC advised legislature against measures to artificially stimulate demand for broadband and other advanced services and said removal of legal barriers would allow market forces to work. It said market might not develop at same pace in rural and urban areas, but nothing would be gained by stimulating availability of advanced services where customers had shown no interest in buying them. PSC also advised against any legislative attempt to curtail its authority over unbundled network elements (UNEs) or to eliminate UNE platforms, saying such action could snuff out residential competition just as it was starting to take hold in state. .

Mont. Attorney Gen. Mike McGrath and State Auditor John Morrison called on legislature to pass no-call telemarketing bill in 2003 session. They said Montanans faced “constant barrage of telemarketing calls” and no-call list would give them tool to reduce intrusion. Their draft bill would set fine of up to $5,000 per offending call, with prosecution either by individuals or AG’s office. List would be updated quarterly. Exemptions would include charities, political organizations, regulated companies, businesses calling by invitation and businesses contacting established customers.

Republican majority in Wash. Senate established new Technology & Communications Committee, starting in 2003 session, to handle all bills relating to telecom products, services, regulation, policy, technology. Chmn. of new panel is state Sen. Luke Essex (R-Bellevue).