The Utah Public Service Commission refused to reconsider its decision not to relieve Lumen’s CenturyLink of carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations. In March, the Utah PSC denied CenturyLink’s original petition in docket 23-049-01 (see 2403180034). On April 11, CenturyLink sought rehearing. But the agency’s three commissioners decided Monday they were right the first time. "CenturyLink has not effectively marshaled the evidence in its Petition and thus has not carried its burden of persuasion,” the commission said. “The errors of fact and law it claims support the exemption largely ignore the persuasive opposing evidence and misconstrue our reasoning.” The Utah PSC added, “While a day may come when CenturyLink is relieved of its COLR obligations, based on the present record, CenturyLink has not carried its burden herein to eliminate this fundamental obligation of the incumbent carrier.” The company didn't "meaningfully contradict or even attempt to explain" the error of the PSC's finding that the carrier provided incomplete evidence showing effective competition, the commission said: CenturyLink didn't show there are functionally equivalent, substitutable and reasonably available alternatives at comparable prices and quality. And the commission disagreed that wholesale broadband can be considered functionally equivalent because it receives funding from Utah USF (UUSF). "The plain language of" Utah Code Section 54-8b-3 "provides no basis for concluding that the wholesale broadband services addressed in the UUSF statute constitute a telecommunications service that is functionally equivalent to, or substitutable for, CenturyLink’s stand-alone voice service." In addition, the record “shows that satellite and broadband services typically only provide voice service as an add-on at an additional cost,” the PSC said. The company’s promise that it will continue serving existing customers doesn’t save the petition for COLR relief, the commission added: "Utah’s population is rapidly growing,” and granting relief “could eliminate the option for customers to have a basic residential voice line if they relocated.” The company can seek Utah Supreme Court review within 30 days. Lumen declined to comment Tuesday.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said in a report Monday that no state "is performing particularly strongly or particularly poorly in every area examined” as plans for the broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program take shape. In a report card, ITIF gave better grades to states whose plans include using a variety of network technologies, streamlining regulations and crafting digital inclusion strategies. ITIF awarded A’s to Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Idaho, Oregon and Virginia. Receiving C's, the nonprofit's lowest grade, were Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana and Nevada. No state’s “trajectory is set in stone,” ITIF noted. “Addressing broadband needs and successfully implementing the BEAD program is a complex, ongoing task that requires a thoughtful, collaborative approach and must be able to adjust when the broadband landscape, available resources, or even community needs change.”

The Vermont legislature passed bills on privacy and kids’ online safety Friday. After back-and-forth on amendments, the House and Senate agreed to a comprehensive data privacy bill (H-121). While final text wasn’t available Monday, “reports indicate that it has a narrow private right of action focused on data brokers and larger data holders and limited to the bill’s sensitive data and consumer health data provisions,” Husch Blackwell attorney David Stauss blogged. That might be a first among states (see 2403220040). The legislature also agreed to an age-appropriate design code bill (S-289) like the California law. Pouncing immediately, tech industry group NetChoice urged Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) to veto S-289. The bill “would chill lawful speech online and negatively impact Vermont’s vibrant small business community,” wrote NetChoice General Counsel Carl Szabo: “Similar requirements … have already been challenged and are currently enjoined.” Design It For Us, a youth advocacy group that originally campaigned to pass California’s kids code law, applauds the legislature “for working to protect young people from online harms and passing much needed Kids Code legislation despite industry efforts to defeat it,” said co-Chair Zamaan Qureshi in a statement. Accountable Tech, another supporter of such laws, also lauded passage of S-289. “It’s clear that momentum is on the side of young people fighting for safer online spaces as Vermont becomes the third state to pass age-appropriate design code legislation with the Vermont Kids Code,” said Executive Director Nicole Gill.

Maryland will consider using AI for its 311 system. Gov. Wes Moore (D) signed SB-1068, directing the Department of Information Technology to evaluate the feasibility of an AI-based statewide 311 system and possibly launch a pilot. The 311 hotline is used for reporting nonemergencies and getting information about city services.

The South Carolina legislature approved a measure requiring age verification to keep kids younger than 18 off pornographic websites. On Thursday, the House passed an amended HB-3424 and the Senate concurred. The bill will go to Gov. Henry McMaster (R).

A possible shakeup of Vermont's universal service passed the legislature Thursday. The House concurred with the Senate’s amendment to HB-657. Rather than the current 2% revenue-based state Universal Service Fund mechanism, the bill would assess 72 cents monthly per retail access line, including VoIP and postpaid wireless (see 2404030046. Also, the bill would add the 988 mental health hotline to a list of what state USF may support and repeal Vermont taxes on telephone personal property and alternative telephone gross revenue. However, the Senate removed a proposed fee structure for communications facilities using state right of way that was in the version originally passed by the House. Instead, the Senate amendment orders a Transportation secretary study on the subject, due Oct. 15, 2025. Gov. Phil Scott (R) must sign the bill before it can become law.

California might deny AT&T's application for carrier-of-last-resort (COLR) relief. The state's Public Utilities Commission will vote during its June 20 meeting on a proposed decision dismissing the carrier’s application in docket R.23-03-003. Comments are due May 30. Also, the CPUC said it plans to open a rulemaking on possibly revising COLR rules. The state commission’s withdrawal rules require another existing COLR or a replacement in the area where a company is leaving, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola said in the proposal. “No other COLR serves AT&T’s service territory. No potential COLR applied to replace AT&T.” The commission delayed the proceeding so it could find possible replacements (see 2403120052). The CPUC received more than 5,000 public comments about the AT&T application and more than 5,800 people attended eight public forums around the state, said a CPUC news release. Many raised concerns that wireless and VoIP were unreliable, the agency said. “Despite AT&T’s contention that providers of voice alternatives to landline service -- such as VoIP or mobile wireless services -- can fill the gap,” the CPUC’s tentative decision finds that the carrier “failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition,” the CPUC said. The COLR rules don’t stop AT&T from retiring copper or investing in fiber, the agency added. AT&T is disappointed because “we’d hoped the commission would allow us the opportunity to demonstrate why the number of options for voice service available to customers make the COLR obligation unnecessary,” a company spokesperson said. “Not surprisingly, no providers were interested in bidding on a service with a declining number of customers given the competitive options available in today’s marketplace.” AT&T looks forward to participating in future CPUC evidentiary hearings on COLR rules, the spokesperson added.

AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless will pay about $10.25 million to the 50 states and the District of Columbia under an agreement that settles claims of deceptive and misleading advertising practices, multiple state AGs announced Thursday. The bipartisan AGs signed a pact with AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to resolve the investigations. The three carriers “baited consumers with deceptive claims about ‘unlimited’ data, ‘free’ phone offers and incentives to switch, only to switch the offer and not deliver on their advertised claims,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said. In addition to the monetary penalties, the carriers agreed to make future ads truthful, accurate and not misleading, Ellison's office said. Going forward, unlimited must mean no numerical limits and such plans should disclose any data speed restrictions and what triggers them, it said. Carriers offering to pay for customers to switch companies must clearly disclose what and how they will pay consumers, it said. Among other requirements, the carriers must present clear terms and conditions for so-called free devices or services, it said. A CTIA spokesperson said the “voluntary agreements reflect no finding of improper conduct and reaffirm the wireless industry’s longstanding commitment to clarity and integrity in advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions about the products and services that best suit them.” T-Mobile said, “After nine years, we are glad to move on from this industry-wide investigation with this settlement and a continued commitment to the transparent and consumer-friendly advertising practices we’ve undertaken for years.” AT&T and Verizon referred us to CTIA’s statement. State AGs slammed the carriers as they applauded the settlement. New York AG Letitia James (D) said it’s a good resolution after carriers “lied to millions of consumers.” Many wireless carriers' deals are “too good to be true,” California AG Rob Bonta (D) said. Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) said “it's unacceptable to make false promises about what consumers might expect from their wireless carriers.”

T-Mobile voluntarily dismissed its complaint against the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the state’s shift to a per-line universal service fund surcharge. The 9th Circuit Court last month affirmed the U.S. District Court for Northern California decision to deny a preliminary injunction against the CPUC (see 2404260066). The 9th Circuit said the carrier failed to show a likelihood of success. “This notice of voluntary dismissal is being filed with the Court before Defendants have served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment … and by operation of law, the dismissal is without prejudice,” T-Mobile said Thursday at the district court (case 3:23-cv-00483-LB).

Four of five Pennsylvania public utility commissioners supported a Frontier Communications settlement Thursday that resolves a service quality complaint. The PUC approved an administrative law judge’s decision to accept without modification a pact between Frontier and state consumer and small business advocates (see 2403220066). Under the settlement, Frontier agreed to spend $100 million on its Pennsylvania network through 2026 and give bill credits to customers with service problems prospectively and retroactively. Commissioner Kimberly Barrow was upset that the agreement lacked a civil penalty for Frontier. Its customers were “without access to telephone or broadband services which could impact the customer's access to education, medical or emergency services, work, and/or personal communications and interactions,” Barrow wrote. “It is well known that access to telephone and broadband services is critical to everyday life and lack of access could have a serious impact, thus the consequences of Frontier's alleged conduct should be deemed serious.” While Frontier agreed to invest $100 million in infrastructure and workforce, the carrier should have been doing that already, said Barrow: The settlement doesn’t “provide a deterrent for future behavior or punish for past behavior.” Frontier didn't comment.