NARUC Pushes Senate to Approve Amendment Killing Preemption Language
NARUC pressed members of the Senate to vote for an amendment by Sen. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would remove from Sen. Stevens’ (R-Alaska) legislation provisions further limiting state regulatory oversight of wireless carriers. NARUC began to circulate a letter from state regulators late Fri. The Rockefeller amendment is expected to be one of the most contentious amendments set for debate when the Commerce Committee’s markup of the bill gets under way again on Tues.
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.
“CTIA claims state consumer protection could stifle growth and innovation in the wireless industry -- even though the industry has grown to over 200 million subscribers under the current regulatory regime,” NARUC said in the letter: “No Congressional hearing was held on the potential impact of the removal and no opportunity was given to explore its wide- ranging effects.”
NARUC said if a hearing had occurred it could have cited numerous incidents showing that state regulation of wireless remains important. NARUC cited an incident in Cal. where the PUC had to intervene after thousands of wireless customers were “knowingly sold wireless phones in areas where there was no service coverage and then were told contracts could not be cancelled without paying between $150 and $400 in early termination fees.” It cited an incident in Ariz. where the state had to step in after a carrier refused to terminate the contract of a woman who died. “After repeatedly agreeing to terminate the contract on the phone and never doing so, the wireless company sent collection agents after the widower,” NARUC said.
“It goes without saying why the CTIA made ridding its members of this state ‘interference’ in its business its number one legislative priority,” NARUC said: “But it does not explain why the provision was added without studying its impact. The following questions have not been asked or answered: 1) Who will assist wireless customers when the industry does not respond, and, 2) What will happen to the agreements and service concessions currently in force, 3) With state oversight and enforcement out of the way, what will the industry feel free to do to customers? 4) Is there a way to balance the needs of the industry and the needs of customers short of preempting states?”
One source said NARUC launched a grassroots attack against the provisions. “A lot of commissioners are talking to reporters and on the phone to state attorneys general,” the source said: “We'll see what can materialize. It’s one of the issues up there with net neutrality as far as determining the fate of the bill.”
“The legislation takes a thoughtful and balanced approach, providing the states and the FCC with meaningful and significant consumer protection roles,” CTIA said in response. “More importantly, the legislation recognizes the valuable benefits that consumers have realized from the existing 13 year-old wireless framework, which is increasingly threatened by inconsistent and costly state-by- state regulation.”