Tate Seen Having Consumer-Centric Approach, Favoring Federal-State Partnership

Tate, a TRA dir., was nominated by the White House (CD Nov 10 p1) to replace departed FCC Chmn. Michael Powell. She would serve the rest of a 5-year term expiring June 30, 2007. Her nomination to the FCC will be considered today (Tues.) at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.

Tate seems to have left few footprints in the wireless trade. That’s not surprising, considering state commissions’ limited role in regulating wireless services, sources said. “Most state commissioners don’t [deal with] a lot of wireless issues because they don’t have jurisdiction,” an industry source said. For example, the TRA concluded on April 11, 2003, it lacked jurisdiction over Advantage Cellular Systems for ETC designation purposes. That order, signed by Tate and others, dismissed an Advantage ETC application and referred the case to the FCC.

Tate’s closest brush with wireless as a state regulator seems to have been a Sept. order denying a request by the Tenn. Coalition of Rural Incumbent Telephone Companies & Coops to suspend wireline-to- wireless local number portability (LNP) obligations. The order, decided by a 3-member panel on which Tate served, said “rural customers are entitled to the same level of services and choices that are available in all parts of Tennessee and the nation” and “the LNP mandate is but one step in ensuring that advanced services are available.” Rural companies “should be afforded certain protections,” but “they should carry the burden of proof required by law in order to afford themselves that protection,” panel members said.

Tate’s interest in consumer protection shows in many TRA rulings. She was on a panel that put conditions on release of requested information to the FTC from the Tenn. do-not-call registry to ensure Tenn. consumers stayed protected. The FTC wanted Tenn. to share the data in its DNC registry with the national database. But TRA said the FTC first should assure TRA Tenn.-specific information would be shared with telemarketers complying with Tenn. registration requirements.

“Tate is consumer-friendly and that may impact how she views issues such as early termination fees [ETFs] and truth-in-billing (TIB),” an industry source said. The FCC has yet to act on a CTIA petition asking the agency to confirm that ETFs in wireless carrier service contracts represent “rates charged” for CMRS, meaning they are exempted from state rules by Sec. 332 of the Communications Act. In the TIB proceeding, the FCC this year preempted states from requiring certain fees to be stated separately on a wireless bill or be rolled into the rate. That decision is on appeal at the 11th Circuit. The FCC is considering whether to adopt more state preemption measures. “Tate didn’t establish any record on the wireless but I hope she will be coming with an open mind,” the source said.

Consumer protection is where states should step in, Tate has said repeatedly. “One could look for clues” on how she may view the state role in regulating wireless in her remarks on VoIP, an industry source said. Tate last year urged the FCC to partner with states in setting “a consumer-centered and unified regulatory regime” for IP- enabled services. “I propose… to allow states to do what they do well, such as enforcing consumer protection rules, resolving customer complaints and ensuring access to the disabled,” she said in her individual comments filed in May 2004 in the IP-Enabled Services proceeding. Public policy issues related to VoIP, such as CALEA, E- 911 services and Homeland Security, also are of “concern” to state policymakers nationwide, she said in an article in the Aug. 2005 Nashville Bar Journal.

Calling the wireless industry “highly competitive,” Tate indicated VoIP providers could use it as a model in handling consumer issues. She suggested IP providers, like their nonregulated cellular counterparts, voluntarily provide information to state commissions on their customer services and billing dispute process. “Just as we have developed a positive working relationship with mobile/cellular providers and meet regularly to share information regarding improved consumer services, we would encourage and welcome similar relationships with the IP providers,” Tate said in comments. Firms would benefit from such a relationship, she said, as “most commissions have developed excellent consumer-oriented staff, protocols and have had considerable expertise in dealing with those issues.” The Fla. PSC, for example, helps customers get in touch with nonregulated wireless companies to resolve issues, she said.

Tate’s strong support for federal-state partnership shows up elsewhere in the record. In a Jan. 2003 letter, she urged the Commission to permit “the continued role” of state commissions in establishing state lists of UNEs. Tate didn’t take a position on the UNE-P, but said: “There have been and will continue to be situations in which the states need to supplement FCC decisions in order to achieve pro-competitive policies across the country.”

Tate supports “a uniform intercarrier compensation arrangement,” under which all traffic, no matter what the jurisdiction or type, is exchanged “at a uniform rate to be negotiated between individual carriers without the distortion of past regulatory policies,” she said in comments. In regard to a Telecom Act rewrite, Tate called this year for “flexibility that can survive longer than a few months or a few years.”