The Wyoming Telecommunications Act: Necessary Regulation or Covert Social Program?

Would your representative vote to require single mothers to pay an extra one percent on their phone bills to cover the cost of extending lines to a $4 million mansion someone decided to build on their newly acquired rural property? In the coming session, the Wyoming legislature will find itself faced with the sunset, or scheduled end, of the outdated Wyoming Telecommunications Act, originally drafted ca. 1995.

In 1995: Qwest was the largest telephone provider in Wyoming, only two percent of mobile traffic was data, 14 percent of American adults used the internet, and there were not enough wireless numbers for 25 percent of the population.

Today: Motorola, Ericcson, Sony, Nokia, Blackberry, Apple, Samsung, and others, have had their turns as the most widely used mobile device, video alone accounts for 35 percent of mobile traffic, and we have more mobile phone numbers than people in the United States. In short, the telecommunications industry is changing rapidly.

In all fairness, the legislature will need to act even if the Act were to sunset; there are too many issues that would need to be resolved for an orderly unwinding of the act while retaining authority required for companies to comply with federal laws through registering with the state. The Act has fallen behind the industry in many ways, despite a 2007 effort to extend it by updating the Act to contemplate wireless, VoIP, and cable providers who provide voice services. Regardless of the legislature's decision regarding extent of regulation, the Act is in need of a rewrite.

With this task in mind, the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee has held several meetings to discuss what a future act should look like. Interested parties, including my organization, AARP, and telephone and broadband internet providers, have weighed in with recommendations. Despite our stance that sunset is preferable, we provided a proposed draft of legislation designed to regulate non-competitive areas of the state.

Surprisingly, the discussion has had very little to do with the need for regulation of telecommunications as an industry or service. The areas of primary concern have been the Wyoming Universal Service Fund (WUSF) and Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations.

The WUSF is a fee collected from customers (i.e., taxpayers) for redistribution to companies providing service in high-cost areas. Although currently small, the WUSF looks to increase significantly as the Federal Universal Service Fund (now the Connect America Fund—CAF) transitions to funding broadband internet service. As currently structured, the WUSF would essentially pick up the slack as CAF is rolled back: the WUSF would increase to make payments previously made under CAF.

The extent of COLR requirements, on the other hand, cannot be found anywhere in the existing legislation. COLR truly lies in rules promulgated by the Public Service Commission (PSC). The phrase "carrier of last resort" is not found in the PSC's regulations, but is an understood result of these regulations. COLR essentially requires companies to undergo some level of expansion for new customers—though only up to an individually mandated maximum cost—and prevents the companies from withdrawing from an area they are currently certificated to serve—though it does not prevent them from withdrawing a certificate.

Not surprisingly, the PSC prefers to retain all of its current power and advocates simply extending the current act. Other organizations advocate minor changes that are favorable to their business model, if advocating any change at all. But, as mentioned above, none of this discussion really involves the government regulation of telecommunications companies. Instead, it is focused on social programs that are disguised; hidden in the Wyoming Telecommunications Act and the PSC's regulations, is a social program for redistribution to reduce the bills of some.

What if our legislators did not hide this social program? What if their charge were, instead, to pass a new Wyoming Telecommunications Act focused solely on the regulations legislators believed necessary? If this were the case, legislators would have to separately pass legislation that would outline a social program for providing telephone service to certain groups of people.

Our legislators would be best served by a simple guideline: if they would be unwilling to pass something as stand-alone legislation; if they would be unwilling to tell taxpayers they wish to collect money for a program, then they should not vote to pass such a program simply because it is hidden within legislation—or even further hidden by being the result of several regulation authorized by the legislation they vote for.

Legislation should not be passed simply because it preserves the understanding of telecommunications 20 years ago. Legislation should not be passed because it preserves a particular company's ability to collect money from the customers of other companies. Legislation should not be passed because change is feared. Legislation should be passed because the legislators believe it is the right thing for Wyoming and Wyomingites.