NARUC, States Argue FCC Lifeline Broadband Process Usurps State ETC Authority

NARUC and 12 states said an FCC Lifeline order improperly bypassed state authority to designate USF-eligible telecom carriers (ETCs) under the federal Communications Act. NARUC said the commission's Lifeline broadband provider designation process order "displays a purposeful disregard of the Congressional scheme and lack of reasoned decision making" and deserved no judicial deference under the Chevron precedent. "Congress specified that State commissions, in the first instance, designate all ETCs," said the state regulators' association brief (in Pacer) Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NARUC v. FCC, No. 16-1170. The order "claims to 'preempt' that §214(e)(2) State procedure based on the facially illogical claim that this Congressional mandate 'thwart[s] federal universal service goals.' Instead, the Order permits only the FCC to designate a new category of the federal Lifeline carriers -- Lifeline broadband internet access service providers," a process that also "undermines State universal service programs, service quality to the end-user, and increases the chances for ETC fraud and abuse," NARUC said. It asked the court to vacate the designation process and other aspects of the order, including FCC decisions giving federal ETCs the initial say over low-income consumer access to state Lifeline subsidies and using forbearance authority to eliminate state service mandates. Twelve states led by Wisconsin's attorney general filed another brief (in Pacer) saying the order "attempted to amend federal law by regulatory fiat to increase its own authority, while taking away the States' statutory rights." Joining were officials from Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont. An intervenor brief from the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates is due Monday. The FCC brief is due March 16.