The California Public Utilities Commission needn’t delay investigating T-Mobile’s MetroPCS while related litigation is pending at U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (CPED) said Thursday in docket I.22-04-005. The CPUC said in April that Metro faces up to $230 million in possible fines for failing to remit California USF payments for prepaid phone service, but Metro asked in May to dismiss the probe due to the pending court case (see 2205190013). The CPUC investigation "seeks only to determine the intrastate surcharges owed by MetroPCS on intrastate communications under the Prepaid Act and in no way seeks to impede the regulation of interstate communications by the FCC,” CPED said. “This issue is separate and distinct from the Federal Litigation." Metro disagreed: "The Commission should not move forward with any portion of the [investigation] until the MetroPCS Litigation concludes."

All companies should receive Oregon USF support “at similar levels based not on the size of the company, but on the characteristics of the areas they serve,” Lumen commented Tuesday in the Oregon Public Utility Commission’s OUSF update docket (AR 649). “Absent a rational basis for any differentiation, there is a risk the rules would be discriminatory under state and federal law.” At least maintain current funding levels if telecom companies “are to continue to offer service to all customers in their territories as carriers of last resort,” Lumen said. The Oregon Telecommunications Association “still has serious reservations” about using a CostQuest model to determine OUSF size, said OTA. Tribal provider Warm Springs Telecommunications (WST) said it tentatively supports the proposed rule but warned a "significant reduction in OUSF would put into jeopardy the efforts the [Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs], through WST, has undertaken to provide quality and affordable services to its Native American population.” The PUC is scheduled to adopt rules at a July 26 meeting.

The Universal Service Fund should be revised and the FCC should consider requiring contributions from tech companies, said a bipartisan group of current and former commissioners on a virtual panel Wednesday hosted by the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council. The group, including former Chairs William Kennard and Richard Wiley, also discussed the lack of an FCC majority, the digital divide and media ownership.

NAB and tech industry groups still don’t agree on proposals to expand the base of regulatory fee payors, according to reply comments filed in 21-190 by Monday’s deadline. “It is inconceivable that Congress would prefer to see small broadcasters struggle to provide service to their local communities so they can subsidize massive technology companies,” said NAB. The FCC doesn’t have the authority to charge fees to companies it doesn’t regulate, said TechFreedom: “Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, an administrative agency can’t undertake new regulations just because it’s a good idea -- they must be grounded in clear statutory authority.” In the short term, the FCC should exempt broadcasters from paying for the costs of the USF and for Media Bureau full-time equivalents connected with broadband policy, and cap the fee increases for broadcasters in the current draft order at 5%, said NAB. A group of 53 broadcasters said the agency should credit application fees against regulatory fees. “Cherry-picking one type of regulatee to exclude from contributing their share of the Commission’s indirect costs would threaten the administrability of the regulatory fee program as a whole,” said CTIA. The FCC “lacks legal authority to add a new regulatory fee category for broadband internet service providers,” said the Wireless ISP Association. The agency should develop a reduced fee category for small satellites and charge an interim fee in the meantime, said Spaceflight and Turion Space. “It is essential to the development" of the on-orbit services industry, "and not premature, that the Commission act now so that regulatory fees developed for traditional" non-geostationary satellite orbit "are not imposed on OOS missions,” said Spaceflight. The Satellite Industry Association disagreed: “The record supports the Commission’s conclusion that OOS services are still too immature for their own regulatory fee category at this time,” said SIA. “An interim regulatory fee schedule as suggested by Spaceflight is unnecessary.”

Industry disagreed whether the FCC should consider an Alternative Connect America Cost Model (ACAM) Broadband Coalition proposal to extend the program through increased deployment obligations in exchange for additional funding (see 2205190023). Some sought to expand eligibility to carriers receiving other high-cost USF support, in comments posted Tuesday in docket 10-90. Others said the FCC should defer new high-cost support until programs funded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are completed.

The Texas Public Utilities Commission “will comply” with the Austin state Court of Appeals’ June 30 order to “fully fund” the state’s USF, a spokesperson for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) emailed us. TPUC approved an increase Thursday in the USF surcharge to 24% from the previous 3.3%, effective Aug. 1 (see 2207140060). The hike was a response to the Court of Appeals’ ruling on a lawsuit by rural LEC associations Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative. The court agreed with TTA and TSTC that a 2020 TPUC increase in the USF surcharge to 6.4% violated the state’s constitution and utility and administrative procedure laws (see 2207010045). Abbott vetoed a bill last year to revamp TUSF by adding VoIP providers to the contribution base (see 2106210048). The legislature meets every two years and will return in January.

The Texas Public Utility Commission quietly approved a whopping increase to the Texas USF surcharge Thursday. Texas will raise the TUSF revenue-based surcharge to 24% from 3.3% on Aug. 1, commissioners decided on unanimous consent, without discussion, at a livestreamed meeting. Legislators could provide relief soon, said state Sen. Drew Springer (R) in an interview. Industry and a consumer advocate supported broad TUSF contribution changes.

Texas commissioners will weigh increasing the state USF surcharge to 24% from 3.3% at Thursday's meeting, the Texas Public Utility Commission said Wednesday. The Texas USF (TUSF) revenue-based surcharge would increase effective Aug. 1, said a memo in docket 50796-58. The PUC attributed the increase to reduction of intrastate voice revenue. “Currently, the fund is losing $10 to $11 million per month and the fund currently is in arrears $192 million,” it said. “Additionally, this fiscal year the commission is completing rate of return adjustments for some small and rural ILECs to increase their support payments, which could add an additional $18 million in expenditures per year.” A state court said last month the Texas PUC violated the state’s constitution and utility and administrative procedure laws when in June 2020 it chose not to increase the surcharge to fully fund TUSF (see 2207120028).

Making one monthly Texas USF payment to AMA TechTel Communications doesn’t satisfy a court order to pay full amounts owed from Dec. 1, 2021, the CLEC said Monday at the 3rd District Texas Court of Appeals in Austin. Texas disagreed last week it must pay retroactively to make up the difference of reduced payments (see 2207080032). Texas tries to “preempt an inquiry into what this Court’s order commands,” responded AMA in case 03-21-00597-CV. “They have failed on the facts and the law.” The Texas Public Utility Commission paid $1.34 million, but the full amount owed, dating back to December, is about $8.59 million, said AMA. The PUC is scheduled to consider a TUSF assessment item at its Thursday meeting.

Texas doesn’t have to retroactively pay Texas USF (TUSF) support it kept from AMA TechTel Communications due to insufficient available funding, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said Thursday. The 3rd District Texas Court of Appeals in Austin ordered the PUC June 30 to pay full amounts owed (see 2206300045). Paxton told the appeals court AMA on July 5 received a full monthly payment for June of about $1.34 million but now is asking a lower court to order the PUC to pay all support owed since Dec. 1. The court didn’t “unlawfully require retroactive payments,” the AG said. It could take until at least mid-September before the PUC can make full payments to all TUSF recipients, Paxton said. “The TUSF presently lacks sufficient money to pay all amounts owed from the fund,” so the PUC would first have to raise the assessment rate and wait until enough revenue accrued before it could pay, said Paxton. He noted the PUC has an item on TUSF assessment on this Thursday’s meeting agenda. AMA didn’t comment Friday. In a separate, similar case, the appeals court ruled June 30 that the PUC violated the state’s constitution and utility and administrative procedure laws when it chose not to fully fund TUSF (see 2207010045).