NARUC Panelists Expect More State Regulatory Reform; Consumer Harm Warned
States are likely to see regulatory reforms going forward, panelists said at NARUC’s winter meeting Wednesday. But state legislators need to ensure that deregulation doesn’t harm consumers, some said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
States are responding to changes in technology through regulatory reforms, said John Stephenson, director of the Telecom and Information Technology Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council. Recent state deregulation efforts have focused on several key areas, including pricing, franchise, wholesale and tax, he said. Stephenson cited deregulation efforts in Wisconsin (CD May 13/11, p17), which is the latest in a string of Midwestern states -- including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan -- to pass deregulation bills. The Wisconsin law eliminates some authority of the state Public Service Commission over telecom utilities. Other priorities for state regulators include broadband adoption, investment and innovation as well as consumer protection, Stephenson said.
North Dakota legislators are looking at deregulation opportunities, said state Rep. Blair Thoreson (R). He’s seeking an open seat at the state public service commission to replace retiring Commission Chairman Tony Clark. There’s no regular legislative session this year at North Dakota but several legislators are looking into reform possibilities in 2013, he said. Winners and losers in the market should be determined by customers instead of regulation, said Ramona Carlow, a vice president of public policy at AT&T. Consumer demand should be the best matrix of the effectiveness of telecom reform, she said.
Complete deregulation would leave consumers in states like Pennsylvania with nowhere to go when they have service problems, said Commissioner James Cawley with the Pennsylvania commission. Without authority over telecom services, state regulators have no tool to help consumers, he said. “How much can we deregulate without harming consumers?” Each state is different in the level of deregulation, said Commissioner Ronald Brise with the Florida Public Service Commission. State legislators need to evaluate if deregulation would benefit the vast majority of consumers, he said. The level of deregulation is up to the level of competition, said Dan Lipschultz, partner with Moss & Barnett. Regulatory reform is driven by competition instead of technological changes, he said.
Meanwhile, the jurisdictional certainty in a legacy voice world has been replaced as networks move to IP, said Michael Santorelli, a director at Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute at New York Law School. The Telecom Act no longer provides certainty on who should regulate and what to regulate, said Hank Hultquist, vice president for federal regulatory affairs at AT&T. An overhaul of basic statutory structure might be a good start to define jurisdiction, he said.