Two problems complicate our task. The first is that the FCC classified BIAS as a service, which means that states may not promulgate laws or “jurisdictionally interstate” regulations that conflict or are the regulatory “inconsistent with” “comprehensive set out in the The FCC specifically barred states from Open Internet Order. framework” imposing that would restrict entry into the broadband “certification requirements” market, suggesting that such requirements would constitute state regulation inconsistent with the federal framework. Our challenge, then, will be to ensure that the CPUC maintains safety jurisdiction over all pole attachers, including BIAS providers, without restricting their market entry. The second problem is that, as this OII/OIR was in preparation, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would re-reclassify BIAS and broadband transport from their current status as telecommunication services back to information services. While the notice poses the question how it should into account our proposed FCC’s “take reclassification in our proposals with respect to pole the FCC remains attachments,” bound by the statutory language in section 224 that restricts pole attachments to cable providers and Title We will proceed under the current II “telecommunications carriers.” legal status of BIAS and broadband providers as “telecommunications carriers,” although we acknowledge that the notice injects uncertainty into our undertaking. FCC’s Thus, within the scope of this segment of the proceeding are the following issues: How BIAS providers should be classified under state or other law for purposes of extending section 224 rights to them. The identity of providers solely offering BIAS services in California, and which thus lack licensure either as a cable television corporation or a telephone corporation. The types of equipment such BIAS providers are planning to deploy. The types of service such BIAS providers are planning to offer. Whether the CPUC should create a registration process for BIAS providers that desire access to poles and conduit under section 224 and the Revised Right-of-Way rules. Commission’s
Two problems complicate our task. The first is that the FCC classified BIAS as a “jurisdictionally interstate” service, which means that states may not promulgate laws or regulations that conflict or are “inconsistent with” the “comprehensive regulatory framework” set out in the Open Internet Order. The FCC specifically barred states from imposing “certification requirements” that would restrict entry into the broadband market, suggesting that such requirements would constitute state regulation inconsistent with the federal framework. Our challenge, then, will be to ensure that the CPUC maintains safety jurisdiction over all pole attachers, including BIAS providers, without restricting their market entry. The second problem is that, as this OII/OIR was in preparation, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would re-reclassify BIAS and broadband transport from their current status as telecommunication services back to information services. While the FCC’s notice poses the question how it should “take into account our proposed reclassification in our proposals with respect to pole attachments,” the FCC remains bound by the statutory language in section 224 that restricts pole attachments to cable providers and Title II “telecommunications carriers.” We will proceed under the current legal status of BIAS and broadband providers as “telecommunications carriers,” although we acknowledge that the FCC’s notice injects uncertainty into our undertaking. Thus, within the scope of this segment of the proceeding are the following issues: How BIAS providers should be classified under state or other law for purposes of extending section 224 rights to them. The identity of providers solely offering BIAS services in California, and which thus lack licensure either as a cable television corporation or a telephone corporation. The types of equipment such BIAS providers are planning to deploy. The types of service such BIAS providers are planning to offer. Whether the CPUC should create a registration process for BIAS providers that desire access to poles and conduit under section 224 and the Commission’s Revised Right-of-Way rules.