We want to thank Ann Treacy from the Blandin Foundation for getting out and reporting on many events dealing with telecommunications. We know we can rely on her to faithfully share her findings via the Bladin on Broadband blog.

Last week, Ann attended the Labor, Workplace and Regulated Industries Committee at the Minnesota House of Representatives. It is early in the session in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and legislators are being briefed on the basics. At the January 24th meeting, the Minnesota Public Utilites Commission (PUC) provided an overview and an update on the workings of the agency. Right around nine minutes into the presentation, the discussion shifted to telecommunication. While other areas, including energy, came up in the conversation, a large part of the meeting focused on telecom. You can listen to the entire discussion (a little over an hour) from the Committee Audio and Video Archives page.

Questions regarding telecom ranged from regulatory authority, to policy changes over time, to challenges we need to address. There was a basic message regarding broadband from the PUC - that broadband is a critical element for our schools, libraries, and government. PUC officials acknowledge that "there really is no regulation per se" in the broadband industry and that decisions are driven by private providers. The PUC representatives also expressed their concern on consumer protection due to de-regulation in the areas of telephone service.

Listening to legislative committee meetings on overview is a great way to learn how  mechanisms operate at the agency level. The meetings usually give a hint of legislators' concerns and what proposals you will see. You may hear something surprising or revealing; you will always be better informed.

Northern District Mississippi Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley is unhappy with a new state law that will strip oversight over AT&T. Presley plans to personally file suit in Hinds County Circuit Court against the law, calling it unconstitutional. “It violates the state constitution,” Presley said of the bill during an interview with the Daily Journal. “There’s no doubt AT&T is the biggest in the state, and this bill will allow them to raise rates without any oversight at all.” House Bill 825 strips away rate regulation of Mississippi landline service and removes the oversight powers the PSC formerly had to request financial data and statistics dealing with service outages and consumer complaints. The law also permits AT&T to abandon rural Mississippi landline customers at will.

AT&T and Verizon, the dominant telephone companies, want to end their 99-year-old universal service obligation known as "provider of last resort." They say universal landline service is a costly and unfair anachronism that is no longer justified because of a competitive market for voice services. The new rules AT&T and Verizon drafted would enhance profits by letting them serve only the customers they want. Their focus, and that of smaller phone companies that have the same universal service obligation, is on well-populated areas where people can afford profitable packages that combine telephone, Internet and cable television.

AT&T and Verizon also want to end state authority to resolve customer complaints, saying the market will punish bad behavior. Tell that to Stefanie Brand. Brand is New Jersey's ratepayer advocate whose experience trying to get another kind of service - FiOS - demonstrates what happens when market forces are left to punish behavior, she said. Residents of her apartment building wanted to get wired for the fiber optic service (FiOS) in 2008. Residents said, "We want to see your plans before you start drilling holes, and Verizon said, 'We will drill where we want or else, so we're walking,' and they did," Brand told me. Verizon confirmed that because of the disagreement Brand's building is not wired. And there's nothing Brand can do about it. Verizon reminded me the state Board of Public Utilities no longer has authority to resolve complaints over FiOS.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will convene an informational meeting in the format of panel discussion to examine the implications of the FCC Order with respect to (i) universal service funding, (ii) intercarrier compensation and (iii) the substantive and procedural tasks that the Commission can be expected to face in the coming months. The meeting will commence with opening remarks by Commission Chair Ellen Anderson and Commissioner Michael Rothman of the Minnesota Department Commerce. The panel discussion will be moderated by Commissioner Betsy Wergin. The panelists are:

• Jeff Lindsey; CenturyLink
• Brent Christensen; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
• Dan Lipschultz; Moss Barnett PA, competitive carrier perspective
• Tom Cohen; Kelley, Drye Warren LLP for the American Cable Association
• Dave Conn; T-Mobile
• Dennis Ahlers; Minnesota Department of Commerce.

The Commission will welcome questions from attendees as time permits.

Kevin O’Grady, a staffer for the Public Utilities Commission, called Thursday’s 5-0 vote “uneventful.” He said that aside from a protest from the Minnesota Cable Communications Association that was withdrawn just before the vote, the application was “nothing out of the ordinary.” The cable association, which faces competition from the fiber project, had complained that the county, without a public vote, couldn’t be the legal authority to provide telecommunications services under Minnesota law. The commission, responding to the complaint, said the authority would be granted to Lake Communications, which it deemed had a proper relationship with the county in providing the service. … The county plans to build the network and lease the lines to Lake Communications for revenue. In its original response to the cable association’s complaint, the state commission said Lake Communications’ application “complies with the requirements typically applied by the commission to applications” across the state. It also stated that Lake Communications’ financial statements were “sufficient and consistent with the financial information filed by other applicants for authority.”