9th Circuit Sees Calif. USF Contribution Change as 'Fair Response'

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.