Pennsylvania lawmakers should reject a plan deregulating incumbent local exchange carriers, the state’s Consumer Advocate Patrick Cicero said Tuesday. Yet with two 7-4 party-line votes, majority Republicans on the Senate Communications Committee advanced a deregulation bill (SB-85) with an amendment that says the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission lacks VoIP and broadband authority. The Democratic minority -- which controls the governor’s office and has a slim House majority -- raised concerns that the bill would harm consumers.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.

Federal law doesn't preempt New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friday. In a 2-1 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, which had barred the state from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act (ABA). The ABA required $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households.

Federal law doesn't preempt New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friday. In a 2-1 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, which had barred the state from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act (ABA). The ABA required $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households.

Some California lawmakers want to take broadband responsibilities from the California Public Utilities Commission and create a broadband office, similar to many other states. At a webcast hearing Wednesday, the Assembly Communications Committee advanced Democratic Chair Tasha Boerner’s AB-2575, which would establish a department and commission on broadband and digital equity. The committee also cleared bills concerning the 211 helpline, video franchising and shot clocks for utilities to review broadband applications.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit should deny Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net's Feb. 14 petition challenging the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the two companies provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2402200044), said the FCC’s opposition Wednesday (docket 24-1027).

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit should deny Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net's Feb. 14 petition challenging the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the two companies provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2402200044), said the FCC’s opposition Wednesday (docket 24-1027).

Most industry groups opposed the FCC's decision restoring net neutrality rules and reclassifying broadband internet access service (BIAS) as a Communications Act Title II service Thursday. Most disagreed with Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on the order's legal standing, warning it could likely be overturned if a challenge is brought (see 2404250004). The Wireless ISP Association will "carefully review" the order and "determine what legal recourse we should take," Vice President-Policy Louis Peraertz said. Several consumer advocacy groups praised the order.

Industry and consumer groups have lobbied the FCC in recent days on whether to maintain its proposed language regarding forbearance of Universal Service Fund (USF) contributions for broadband internet access service (BIAS) in its draft order restoring net neutrality rules, according to an analysis of recent ex parte filings in docket 23-320. The FCC in its draft order to be considered Thursday during the commissioners' open meeting tentatively decided to grant ISPs forbearance from Communications Act Section 254(d) requirements, which govern USF contributions (see 2404050068).