Adam Bender

Stronger state laws are needed to combat a rising trend of copper thieves damaging telecom infrastructure, panelists said Tuesday at NARUC’s conference in Anaheim, California. On Wednesday, the NARUC board passed resolutions on phone number conservation, the Universal Service Fund and utility coordination on broadband deployment. The Telecom Committee cleared those measures Monday (see 2411120014). Copper prices are up and therefore so is theft, said Dan Gonzalez, Charter Communications group vice president-state regulatory affairs. The cable company’s lines don’t contain copper, which is common in traditional phone networks, but thieves don’t know the difference, and they damage Charter infrastructure when seeking copper, he said. Networks are exposed and easily accessible, making theft a low-risk, high-reward activity, he said. In addition, many state laws don’t classify the networks as protected critical infrastructure or impose adequate penalties, said Gonzalez. Charter sees fewer incidents in states with broader definitions of critical infrastructure and stronger penalties, including Florida, Tennessee and the Carolinas, he said. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is receiving more copper theft reports than previously, said Richard Mitchem, CISA supervisory protective security adviser. Mitchem agreed that identifying the networks as critical infrastructure is a good idea because that would mean stronger repercussions for damage. Todd Foreman, Recycled Materials Association law enforcement outreach director, said raising awareness about the issue is important because law enforcement resources are limited and not all police are looking closely for sales of stolen copper. He agreed that increasing penalties would help discourage theft.

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- The NARUC Telecom Committee on Monday cleared draft resolutions on phone number conservation, the Universal Service Fund and utility coordination on broadband deployment. A USF panel that day described how reform could happen with Republicans controlling the FCC and Congress next year. Also, the affordable connectivity program (ACP) could return in 2025 despite Washington’s partisan climate, said Sanford Williams, deputy chief of staff for FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, during a collocated National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) meeting. State utility regulators are holding their annual meeting here this week.

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- An executive from a phone number warehouse defended his company’s practices Tuesday during the NARUC conference. However, the executive, NumberBarn Chief Technology Officer Brian Scott, seemed to heighten concerns for state officials and telecom attorneys who attended the panel. North American Numbering Council Chair Karen Charles, also a Massachusetts commissioner, said she planned to mention warehouse issues at a future NANC meeting.

California Public Utilities Commission members Thursday supported regulating interconnected VoIP. Commissioners at the livestreamed meeting backed the controversial order as part of a unanimous vote on a consent agenda. Also at the meeting, the CPUC waived penalties for Verizon related to migrating Tracfone customers and approved nearly $160 million in last-mile broadband grants from the agency’s federal funding account and $50 million from the broadband loan loss reserve program.

The GOP seemed poised to sweep state commission elections Tuesday, based on unofficial results Wednesday. All the races were in states that went red for President-elect Donald Trump and mostly for commissions that the GOP already dominated. It appeared that Democrats would lose their lone seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) and miss a chance at flipping the Louisiana Public Service Commission blue.

With more than $1.8 billion in federal cash from the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program on the line, USTelecom asked the California Public Utilities Commission to reconsider its rules for implementing the state’s BEAD initial plan volume 2. In a rehearing application (docket R.23-02-016) posted Friday at the CPUC, the national ISP association said it “cannot stand by and risk the Commission’s adoption of a collective set of requirements that will severely limit participation in and the overall effectiveness of California’s BEAD Program.” The commission should deny USTelecom's application, a consumer advocate urged.

Telecom companies balked at consumer advocates’ call to apply California carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations to broadband. The California Public Utilities Commission posted reply comments Thursday in a rulemaking about how to update the state’s 30-year-old COLR rules (docket R.24-06-012). In initial comments last month, carriers subject to COLR requirements asked that the CPUC shed those obligations in many parts of the state, while consumer advocates said COLR obligations remain necessary and should be updated to include high-speed internet service, not just voice (see 2410020037). Frontier Communications replied Wednesday that it opposes expanding the proceeding to do “a complex, controversial evaluation of legal and policy matters pertaining to the Commission’s potential regulation of broadband services.” Likewise, Consolidated Communications said the CPUC should "decline the invitation to undertake a substantial review of its regulatory jurisdiction over broadband services.” TDS protested that the consumer groups "seek to greatly expand this OIR beyond its intended purpose” without providing factual or legal reasons. Don’t let public advocates "transform this … into a generic telecommunications industry reexamination docket,” said a coalition of small rural local exchange carriers. Representing cable companies, the California Broadband and Video Association warned that adding broadband to the definition of a basic service or extending COLR obligations to broadband providers would be federally preempted. Meanwhile, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office pushed back on companies that said COLR obligations are outdated and should be eliminated. "In reality, the COLR concept remains essential to the guarantee of universal service, but must be updated to reflect the state’s transformed telecommunications landscape,” PAO said. AT&T disagreed. "Maintaining COLR obligations where they are superfluous would divert resources from vital broadband investments to outdated [time division multiplexed] networks, which are increasingly unwanted by consumers,” the carrier said. “It would not only stifle competition by arbitrarily constraining ILECs alone but also result in unnecessary operational costs and increased environmental harm due to prolonged use of copper networks.”

The California Public Utilities Commission should consider recent federal actions on incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) before adopting a permanent intrastate rate cap, industry and consumer groups argued in comments posted Wednesday. However, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) suggested lowering the cap again on an interim basis. The CPUC received comments Tuesday on a Sept. 30 staff proposal recommending a permanent intrastate rate cap of 4.5 cents per minute for IPCS voice calls.

NARUC Telecom Committee Chair Tim Schram seeks better coordination and greater cost sharing related to digging amid an influx of government funding for broadband deployment, the Nebraska Republican said in an interview. NARUC circulated draft resolutions Tuesday for the state utility regulator association’s Nov. 10-13 meeting in Anaheim. In addition to a Schram proposal about coordination, the Telecom Committee plans to weigh drafts on optimizing phone number resources and defending the constitutionality of the federal universal service fund (USF) surcharge mechanism.

Florida “cannot begin to show that its draconian access restrictions are necessary to advance any legitimate interest it may assert” to protect children, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) wrote in a complaint Monday at the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida. The tech industry groups filed a First Amendment challenge against a Florida law set to take effect Jan. 1.