California Bill Guts CPUC Oversight of Broadband Monopolies

By Ernesto Falcon, Mar 29, 2019 | Original EFF article here.

AB.1366 Voice over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol Enabled Communications Services

AB.1366 text | AB.1366 history

At a time when we are fighting to keep the future of broadband access from reverting back towards a monopoly, it seems implausible that a legislator would suggest their state should follow the Federal Communications Commission’s lead to abandon oversight over a highly concentrated, uncompetitive market. But Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez wants to take that exact approach.

The recently introduced AB.1366 mirrors the FCC’s abandonment of consumers with one exception — California fought to establish its own net neutrality rules under S.B. 822 passed last year. Apart from that, AB.1366 removes any semblance of the state promoting competition for broadband access through its state regulator, the California Public Utility Commission (the state version of an FCC).

Instead, it appears to just hope that our cable and Telecom monopolies will be benevolent.

We Need to Promote Competition For Internet Access To Keep Pace With the Rest of the World

We need a plan to boost competition for high-speed broadband, because the current “no plan” approach by the FCC is setting us up for failure. The legislature, along with the governor and the CPUC, should be working hard to understand why most people are stuck with either a cable monopoly — or no access at all — and working to resolve those barriers. AB.1366 would instead wash the state’s hands of trying to promote competition under the premise that monopolists have the best interest of consumers in mind.

Abandoning oversight and letting this market revert to monopolies removes any incentive for those companies to invest in improvements and new deployments. In doing so, this bill essentially promotes the theory that we do not need a plan to ensure universally available, affordable, and high-speed networks. That kind of thinking sets us back.

No other country ahead of the United States on broadband access has adopted that theory. Instead, their governments aggressively supported competition by addressing monopoly choke points and other barriers to entry.

Both the EU and China are expected to vastly outpace the United States on gigabit fiber connections. In the EU’s case, they adopted a series of policy plans to promote gigabit fiber as far back as 2016 (the same time we began abandoning oversight) and that has helped launch the open access fiber industry, which holds real promise to connect rural people to fiber to the home. South Korea had adopted several national plans to deploy fiber gigabit connections starting as far back as three decades in order to achieve the broadband networks they have now. China is expected to connect 80 percent of their households to gigabit fiber in just a few years — more than 5 times the United States, under our current no-plan approach.

Tired of Your Broadband Monopoly? Tell Your California Lawmakers to Oppose AB.1366

It is unfortunate we have to spend effort to prevent the California legislature from making our broadband market measurably worse with AB-1366. We need to make it clear that Californians want their legislature to promote competition and access — not abandon them to their broadband monopoly. Let’s start working.


CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2019–2020 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill No. 1366

Introduced by Assembly Member Gonzalez

February 22, 2019

An act to amend Section 710 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to communications.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB.1366, as amended, Gonzalez. Voice over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol enabled communications services.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, prohibits the commission, a department, an agency, or a political subdivision of the state from regulating Voice over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol enabled service, as defined, except as required or delegated by federal law or as expressly directed to do so by statute.

This bill would extend indefinitely the qualified prohibition upon the commission, a department, an agency, or a political subdivision of the state regulating Voice over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol enabled service, with the additional qualification that the commission, a department, an agency, or a political subdivision of the state would be authorized to exercise regulatory jurisdiction and control as expressly and specifically directed by the Legislature in the interest of public safety or consumer protection.

  • Existing law explicitly exempts from this prohibition the commission’s authority relative to the construction and maintenance of underground facilities and overhead electric lines, as specified.
  • This bill would also exempt from the prohibition the commission’s authority relative to the safety of those lines and facilities.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 710 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

§710.

(a)

   (1) The commission shall not exercise regulatory jurisdiction or control over Voice over Internet Protocol and Internet Protocol enabled services except as in accordance with one of the following:

      (A) As required or expressly delegated by federal law.

      (B) As expressly directed to do so by statute or as set forth in subdivision (c).

   (C) As expressly and specifically directed by the Legislature in the interest of public safety or consumer protection.

   (2) This section does not expand the commission’s jurisdiction beyond the scope of that requirement or delegation. exceptions in paragraph (1).

(b)

   (1) No department, agency, commission, or political subdivision of the state shall enact, adopt, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, standard, order, or other provision having the force or effect of law, that regulates VoIP or other IP enabled service, except in accordance with one of the following:

      (A) As required or expressly delegated by federal law.

      (B) As expressly authorized by statute or pursuant to subdivision (c).

      (C) As expressly and specifically directed by the Legislature in the interest of public safety or consumer protection.

   (2) This section does not expand a department’s, agency’s, commission’s, or political subdivision’s jurisdiction beyond the exceptions in paragraph (1).

(c) This section does not affect or supersede any of the following:

   (1) The Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Law (Part 20 (commencing with Section 41001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) and the state’s universal service programs (Section 285).

   (2) The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 5800)) or a franchise granted by a local franchising entity, as those terms are defined in Section 5830.

   (3) The commission’s authority to implement and enforce Sections 251 and 252 of the federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. Secs. 251 and 252).

   (4) The commission’s authority to require data and other information pursuant to Section 716.

   (5) The commission’s authority to address or affect the resolution of disputes regarding intercarrier compensation, including for the exchange of traffic that originated, terminated, or was translated at any point into Internet Protocol format.

   (6) The commission’s authority to enforce existing requirements regarding backup power systems established in Decision 10-01-026, adopted pursuant to Section 2892.1.

   (7) The commission’s authority relative to access to support structures, including pole attachments, or to the construction, safety, and maintenance of facilities pursuant to commission General Order 95 and General Order 128.

   (8) The Warren-911-Emergency Assistance Act (Article 6 (commencing with Section 53100) of Chapter 1.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).

(d) This section does not affect the enforcement of any state or federal criminal or civil law or any local ordinances of general applicability, including, but not limited to, consumer protection and unfair or deceptive trade practice laws or ordinances, that apply to the conduct of business, the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), local utility user taxes, and state and local authority governing the use and management of the public rights-of-way.

(e) This section does not affect any existing regulation of, proceedings governing, or existing commission authority over, non-VoIP and other non-IP enabled wireline or wireless service, including regulations governing universal service and the offering of basic service and lifeline service, and any obligations to offer basic service.

(f) This section does not limit the commission’s ability to continue to monitor and discuss VoIP services, to track and report to the Federal Communications Commission and the Legislature, within its annual report to the Legislature, the number and type of complaints received by the commission from customers, and to respond informally to customer complaints, including providing VoIP customers who contact the commission information regarding available options under state and federal law for addressing complaints.

(g) This section does not affect the establishment or enforcement of standards, requirements, or procedures, including procurement policies, applicable to any department, agency, commission, or political subdivision of the state, or to the employees, agents, or contractors of a department, agency, commission, or political subdivision of the state, relating to the protection of intellectual property.