Today: FCC Blog on Raiding 9-1-1 Fees, California Broadband Grant

FCC Commissioner O'Rielly Blog on Raiding 9-1-1 Fees

In a blog posting, FCC Commissioner O’Rielly said it is “unconscionable that some states divert fees collected for legitimate and needed 9-1-1 communications capabilities to unrelated purposes, threatening the public's safety for short-term budget relief.  After almost fifteen years of working on the problem, we are no closer to resolving it.  I suggest that the appropriate policymakers must implement new measures to end this practice once and for all.  This may require uncomfortable conversations with states or taking forceful actions, as suggested below, but the current mechanism of shame and hope isn't working.”  He points to the FCC’s most recent report on the topic which shows that eight states and one territory diverted almost $220.3 million (or 8.4% of the total nationwide collections) from 9-1-1 functions.  He suggested the following ideas:

• Interstate Services Prohibition – “The Commission maintains sole jurisdiction over interstate communications services and, as such, we retain the right to bar diverting states from imposing 9-1-1 fees on the interstate calls.   That means a good percentage of wireless services, landline voice services and all VoIP services, at least in my opinion, would be off limits for such states, while ensuring no greater burdens on affected industry. … By prohibiting interstate services from being included as revenue sources, the pot of money diverting states would have to pickpocket would be minimized, sending a strong signal that the Commission is no longer going to sit on the sidelines with regards to this matter…This would be similar to universal service where states may assess fees on intrastate services, but only to the extent that doing so would not be inconsistent with the Commission's rules.”
• Prohibit Collection and Remittance by Providers – “The Commission has previously prevented communications providers from including misrepresentations or inaccurate information in requisite consumer bills.  And it prohibits providers from collecting universal service fees in excess of what is required for the universal service fund.  For diverting states, the collection of funds above what will be spent directly on 9-1-1 services is by definition misleading to consumers.  The Commission can prevent any providers from collecting such funds or requiring them to remit the funds to diverting states.  As part of this effort, the Commission could also define what are inappropriate uses of 9-1-1 funds and ensure providers are held harmless in the process.
• Commission Advisory Committees –O’Rielly suggests the FCC “exclude any person from a diverting state from participating on an advisory committee.”

California Broadband Grant

California PUC Resolution T-17561 approves grant funding in the amount of $450,000 from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) Rural and Regional Urban Consortia Account) for the grant application of the Southern Border Broadband Consortium.  This project will further broadband deployment, access and/or adoption in the Southern region of California.  By furthering broadband deployment, access, and adoption, this project is expected to enhance public safety in the San Diego and Imperial county regions of California in the event of fire, flooding, and earthquakes.

____________________________________________________

The Regulatory Mix, TMI’s daily blog of telecom related regulatory activities, is a snapshot of PUC, FCC, legislative, and occasionally court issues that our regulatory monitoring team uncovers each day. Depending on their significance, some items may be the subject of a TMI Briefing.