Save Access

from: Telecom Web

Gov't Lawyers Blast Telecom Bill's State Pre-Emptions

At least 41 attorneys general have told the U.S. Congress they "strongly oppose" provisos in pending telecom legislation that would, in their opinions, pre-empt states from enforcing consumer-protection laws applicable to wireless carriers and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers.

In a seven-page letter sent to all federal lawmakers under the auspices of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the lawyers reflect widespread lower-government objections to sections of the now troubled Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform (ATOR) Act (H.R. 5252) that is stalled and running out of time for passage in the Senate (TelecomWeb news break, Sept. 18).

According to the letter circulated by the Washington, D.C.-based NAGG, ATOR's intent not only is unwarranted in its pre-emptive direction, but it also would keep states from "taking proactive action to prevent industry practices which have caused substantial harm to our citizens, and with no effective federal protection to fill the void that will be created via this pre-emption." For the past five years, the attorneys general say, NAAG surveys have shown that telecom-related problems have ranked in the top four of all consumer complaints received by officials.

"The number of telecommunications complains ranks comparably with complaints related to automobiles, home-improvement scams, Internet goods and services, and telemarketing fraud," they add. "Much of the volume of these complaints has been about wireless service, billing practices and inadequate disclosures to consumers."

The lawyers take aim specifically at ATOR's Section 1006 government wireless company contract terms and conditions with customers - including so-called "truth-in-billing enforcement" - as well as Section 1008 meant to clarify jurisdictional issues connected with such emerging service providers as VoIP companies. In both cases, the propose legislation tends to give decision-making authority and enforcement powers to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rather than individual states.

But critics - including NAAG members - say the agency doesn't have the resources to handle the consumer complaint-and-protection job, and the U.S. government doesn't have the right to remove relevant policing and litigation protection measures out of state hands. "Consumers cannot rely on the FCC as the sole enforcement agency in the area," the letter states.

The attorneys general also counter wireless industry assertions to Congress that the industry itself can meet consumer needs far more effectively and quickly than can state regulations; this has not been proved and is not supported by the facts, according to the letter, which urges federal lawmakers to strike the two sections from the ATOR bill.

Signatories to the letter represent Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.