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.
Federal law doesn't preempt New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friday. In a 2-1 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, which had barred the state from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act (ABA). The ABA required $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Kelly Pinn filed suit to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that IJ Wireless makes telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry as a representative of the FCC’s “affordable connectivity program,” said her class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-02315) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Texas resident further alleges that IJ Wireless violated the TCPA by phoning consumers without their written consent and by contacting people who had previously asked to no longer receive the calls, it said. Pinn’s personal residential phone number has been listed for years on the national DNC registry, yet she received at least four automated calls from various spoofed caller IDs between Dec. 15 and Feb. 5, said her complaint. The plaintiff and members of her proposed classes have been harmed by the acts of IJ Wireless “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said.