Schneiderman

New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman resigned late Monday after four women accused him of physical abuse, causing a political earthquake in Albany and potentially stalling several important telecommunications-related cases that were championed by the Democrat.

The New Yorker magazine published an article late Monday with the accounts of the four women who said Schneiderman subjected them to non-consensual physical violence during romantic encounters.

Schneiderman issued several statements denying he assaulted anyone or took part in non-consensual sex. His resignation announcement said the allegations will effectively prevent him from carrying out his office’s work.

He had been a vocal proponent of the #MeToo movement against sexual assault and harassment, including filing a lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein, one of the many high-profile men in politics, entertainment and business accused of assaulting women.

Schneiderman was also one of the country’s strongest advocates of holding telecom companies to their agreements. He was actively involved in pursuing the state’s dominant cable company, Charter Communications, for allegedly selling internet speeds his office claimed the company knew it could not deliver, and was more recently investigating Charter for its failure to adequately expand its rural service area to comply with the 2016 merger agreement between Charter, Time Warner Cable and the state’s Public Service Commission.

Schneiderman was elected in 2010 on a platform of pursuing equal justice for all New Yorkers. His website noted, “As the highest ranking law enforcement officer for the State, Schneiderman believes there has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or powerful.”

On Tuesday, the governor announced New York Solicitor Barbara Underwood, also a Democrat, has stepped in to serve as acting attorney general.

Underwood, 73, has been the state Solicitor General since 2007 when she was appointed by then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Schneiderman left her in place after he won election to the attorney general position in 2010. Underwood has no record of being a political advocate and has no intention to run for the position in the fall elections, making her largely a caretaker of the office. Her role has traditionally been to represent the state in appeals cases.

Underwood

Her lack of political intention was cited by Gov. Cuomo in his remarks introducing her as Schneiderman’s replacement.

Traditionally, caretaker heads of the Attorney General’s office continue existing cases and rely heavily on staff attorneys and their supervisors to continue litigation. But few observers expect Underwood will break ground on new cases or attempt to shift priorities in the office. Because the next scheduled election for New York’s attorney general is this year, most anticipate Underwood will keep a low profile until the election or the legislature replaces her. Had the governor appointed an acting attorney general with political ambitions, most would have expected an active summer and fall of high profile cases to build a list of accomplishments to promote in the fall campaign.

The last Republican to hold the position, Dennis Vacco (1995-1998), told the press the sudden opening of the office could spark considerable interest among Democrats and Republicans. The Attorney General slot has recently proved to be an important position for anyone considering a run for governor in New York. Both Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo served in this position before being elected to the governor’s office.

Vacco told the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle he expects few changes in the office if Underwood remains a caretaker until the next election.

James

“If she is not a candidate for election, I think that she will be much more status quo-oriented,” he said.

But if the state legislature moves to appoint an interim replacement, the individual chosen will very likely have a political interest in winning the office at the next election opportunity. Vacco said that individual may want to put her or his own imprimatur on the office operations, which means the cases pursued in the future will not likely be the same as those chased by Schneiderman. The idea is “put[ting] distance between yourself and Schneiderman.”

There are multiple Democrats actively considering or who have been mentioned as possible candidates for the position this week:

NY City Public Advocate Letitia James: Favored by Gov. Cuomo, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, James is no pushover for cable companies. James has led the charge against Charter Communications’ performance in Manhattan and has held Verizon’s feet to the fire over their slow deployment of FiOS in New York’s largest city.

Former Manhattan U.S. attorney Preet Bharara: Has the support of several prominent admirers in New York and Washington, D.C. His indefatigable prosecution of public corruption cases has him feared in some circles and admired in others. He is also a fierce critic of the president. Consumer groups are uncertain what types of cases would get his attention if he were to win the position.

Rep. Kathleen Rice, the former Nassau County district attorney is actively mentioned as a candidate, as is Queens state Sen. Michael Gianaris, and former gubernatorial candidate Zephyr Teachout. Teachout has been actively involved in promoting broadband issues including net neutrality. Another person who has been approached by Democratic officials to weigh a possible run is Ben Lawsky, the former superintendent of the state Department of Financial Services and a former federal prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office.

Among members of the state legislature, who could quickly appoint a replacement until the fall election, James appears to be the current leading candidate. James would be New York’s first African-American attorney general, and would represent another instance of a female replacing a disgraced male official. She declined comment about her interest in the position.

On the Republican side, lawyer Manny Alicandro is running for the nomination for attorney general. His candidacy is likely to be challenging, given the Democratic enrollment advantage in New York and a mid-term election likely to drive more Democrats to the polls.

Hoitenga

In what must be a new speed record, Michigan’s Republican state Representative Michele Hoitenga introduced and then effectively pulled support for her bill that would have banned community broadband initiatives across the state.

Introduced Oct. 12, the bill succinctly banned any use of public funds to construct a municipal internet alternative to the phone and cable companies. The bill came under immediate criticism for its content and accuracy, erroneously transposing speeds of a “qualified internet service” as one offering at least 10Mbps upload speed and 1Mbps download speed.

The Public Utilities Commission of California, almost routinely under an ethical cloud, may have to wait a little while before getting its two latest nominees seated at the table.

At a confirmation hearing last week, California Senate leader Kevin de León announced he was withholding his support for Gov. Jerry Brown’s nominees to the PUC — Cliff Rechtschaffen and Martha Guzman Aceves, because of open questions about their fitness and independence from the industries they are expected to regulate.

Consumer groups in California have howled in protest over the appointment of two of the governor’s senior advisers to an agency that has its own revolving door between regulators and the enormous utility and telecom companies being regulated.

Rechtschaffen

Mr. de León told members attending the hearing, “the PUC is very cozy with the utilities it regulates.” That is something Stop the Cap! declared last year when the PUC essentially rubber-stamped Charter’s acquisition of Time Warner Cable with almost no deal conditions of merit to protect California ratepayers. In a 2015 special report, Stop the Cap! exhaustively detailed the PUC’s sordid and often corrupt closeness with the energy companies it regulates. The particular closeness the Commission has with electric, oil, and gas producers was topic number one at the hearing, where members were reminded about the PUC’s ethics cloud over a disastrous 2010 gas line explosion in a San Bruno residential area, and the state auditor’s report that accused the PUC of “the appearance of improper influence in its public decision making.”

The PUC also appeared to approve a sweetheart deal in 2014 surrounding the closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California, saddling 70 percent of the closure costs on ratepayers. Only later was it revealed the deal was made in a private hotel room in Warsaw between a top Southern California Edison executive and the disgraced former president of the PUC Michael Peevey, who had to resign after demands were made to reopen the case.

Critics contend Brown’s appointments to the PUC have amounted to little more than his personal “yes men,” who vote at the behest of a governor trying not to alienate the powerful energy and telecommunications companies that donate handsomely to his campaign.

Brown counters that Aceves and Rechtschaffen have a proven record of “sound judgement and a commitment to protecting ratepayers.”

Aceves

Rechtschaffen in particular has come under severe criticism for his apparent protection of big oil and gas companies.

“Aliso Canyon was the biggest methane well blowout in U.S. history, and we still don’t know why it happened,” complained Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog. “Governor Brown has nominated Cliff Rechtschaffen, his top oil and gas aide with a long history of aiding industry at the public’s expense, to one of the PUC’s five seats. Rechtschaffen is responsible for ignoring rules that could have prevented the blowout at Aliso Canyon that sickened thousands of Californians. If Rechtschaffen is confirmed, the oil and gas industry will have placed an invaluable ally with a proven track record in a critical post.”

The group is particularly upset the PUC regulators reopened the facility without the necessary environmental and safety reviews, so there is no way to be certain the same accident won’t happen again. It also pointed to Rechtschaffen’s past actions, including firing tough oil well regulators and weakening well safety standards at the behest of Occidental Petroleum, followed by many safety scandals, including contaminated groundwater and the Aliso Canyon methane leak.

Under examination by Rules Committee members, Aceves and Rechtschaffen insisted their appointments signal a new era of transparency and accountability for the agency. Rechtschaffen said he wants to “change the culture of the PUC.”

Critics contend that isn’t good news for consumers but may be very good news for California’s largest energy and telecommunications companies who may have yet more allies at a regulator charged with protecting the interests of California consumers and ratepayers.

If you have not filed a reply comment with the Federal Communications Commission on the subject of Net Neutrality, you now have two extra weeks to send one.

At the request of consumer groups and some members of Congress, the FCC extended the deadline for reply comments — those in response to existing filings — until Aug. 30, 2017. The two-week extension is far less than the eight weeks requested by many, and was granted despite objections for any extension from the cable, wireless, and telephone company lobbying organizations.

“While it is the policy of the Commission that ‘extensions shall not be routinely granted,’ we find that an extension of the reply comment deadline is appropriate in this case in order to allow interested parties to respond to the record,” the FCC wrote. “While we recognize that Movants have requested an eight-week extension of the reply comment deadline, we find, consistent with past Commission precedent granting partial extensions, that an additional two weeks is an appropriate period of time to extend the reply comment deadline in order to provide parties additional time to analyze the technical, legal, and policy arguments raised by initial commenters.”

Few in Washington expect the more than 11 million comments on the issue of keeping an open internet will make much difference to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai or his Republican colleague Michael O’Rielly, both fierce opponents of Net Neutrality. The third Republican Commissioner, Brendan Carr, was sworn in with returning Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel last Friday. Carr has a paper trail opposing Net Neutrality, while Rosenworcel is on record supporting it, along with her colleague Mignon Clyburn. In the end, the vote is likely to be 3-2 in favor of repealing Net Neutrality.

Unusually, the FCC has taken the step of characterizing the quality of comments received on the Net Neutrality issue, calling the vast majority of them exceptionally brief and containing little more than a declaration of the author’s “ultimate policy preferences.” It also suggested a large number of comments were “apparently fabricated,” noting that many were signed without the consent of the person named and others lack any names at all.

The telecom industry characterized the delay as giving more time for what Lawrence Spiwak, president of the telecom industry-friendly Phoenix Center calls “sophistic clicktivism” to “pad the record” in favor of Net Neutrality. Other groups funded by the telecom industry have spent months attempting to discredit the enormous number of comments — the most ever received by the FCC — by suggesting the majority were fake or fraudulent and not worthy of being taken seriously.

O’Rielly

Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly wants the FCC to prohibit states from attempting an end run around the current majority’s broad-based deregulation of ISPs, likening it to a war of socialist forces vs. free market capitalism.

Speaking at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Spring Task Force Summit Annual Summit in Charlotte, N.C. on May 5, O’Rielly made it clear he intends to stop states from writing broadband privacy rules to replace those killed by the Republican majority in Congress and also wants to restrict states from enacting new rules impacting Voice over IP and broadband. O’Rielly told the audience he had already spoken to Chairman Ajit Pai about his ideas, potentially giving his agenda a majority vote on the Commission. Currently, the FCC has just three commissioners – Ajit Pai, Mike O’Rielly, and Democrat Mignon Clyburn.

In earlier remarks, Pai rejected allowing states to make their own decisions about broadband privacy policies.

“It is both impractical and very harmful for each state to enact differing and conflicting privacy burdens on broadband providers, many of which serve multiple states, if not the entire country,” said Pai. “If necessary, the FCC should be willing to issue the requisite decision to clarify the jurisdictional aspects of this issue.”

FCC action could potentially pre-empt any state laws from at least 10 states that have either passed ISP privacy laws or are planning to.

O’Rielly declared he intends to move broadband regulation away from the agenda favored by the Obama Administration’s FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler and return to hands-off policies allowing cable and phone companies to manage their businesses without government interference. O’Rielly told a cheering audience at the corporate-funded conference that under Chairman Pai’s watch, the FCC will return to “its previous approach to broadband that enabled staggering innovation, creativity, competition, disruption and consumer benefit.”

O’Rielly characterized groups fighting for consumer legislation banning zero rating/data caps, rate regulation, oversight, and consumer protection laws as part of a nefarious “progressive agenda to vanquish capitalism and economic liberty.” Like ALEC, O’Rielly claimed, the FCC has been unfairly attacked by progressive groups that call out both Chairman Pai’s agenda at the FCC and ALEC itself for ghostwritten legislation actually written by large corporate interests and passed for their welfare.

“Like ALEC, the new commission is facing its share of unwarranted and inappropriate criticism,” O’Rielly complained.

O’Rielly’s speech declared war on three hot issues broadband companies and consumers are concerned with: Net Neutrality, community-owned broadband networks, and state regulators seen as meddling with the free market.

• Net Neutrality: “All of the propaganda in the world cannot paper over the fact that these new burdens were not in response to actual marketplace events but hypothetical concerns dreamed up by radical activists.”
• Regulation of Voice over IP Phone Service in Minnesota to assure quality of service: “Such inappropriate jurisdictional overreaches by states should be nipped in the bud.”
• Municipal Broadband: “It would be easy, as some have done, to blindly support any means necessary to get more and faster broadband to people they represent.”

O’Rielly sought a tighter partnership with ALEC to stop consumer groups from enacting new laws that protect an open internet:

“The members of ALEC can serve an important role as the new Commission seeks to restore free market principles to broadband offerings. Many of you know all too well of the pressure on us to buckle and acquiesce to the whims of the misinformed screaming for Net Neutrality. You likely face it at your respective statehouses as you debate the various matters before you. The ‘progressive agenda’ being pushed in so many settings is really an effort to use government as a means to redistribute hard earned assets from one group of people to favored interests. Do not let your voices go unheard as Net Neutrality advocates slowly, but surely, seek to drag the U.S. economy toward socialism.”

On municipal broadband, O’Rielly stretched his premise into a comparison of communities that want to have the ability to build their own networks with past offers of discounted heating oil from former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, suggesting good deeds on the surface may lead to unintended consequences later on.

Byron is on ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force

O’Rielly has also been infuriated with Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission, which has been sparring with Charter Communications over its cable “digital phone” service in the U.S. District Court in St. Paul.

In March 2013, Charter Fiberlink Companies transferred 100,000 Minnesota customers to “an affiliate, Charter Advanced Services Companies, which provided VoIP phone service that was not certified” by the PUC, the Commerce Department said.

Better known as Spectrum Voice, Charter’s VoIP service had failed to collect any fees to support the state’s Telecommunications Access Minnesota program, which provides equipment for hearing-impaired and blind consumers who use the Minnesota Relay Service. Charter also refused to credit low-income consumers who would otherwise qualify for Lifeline phone service at discounted rates.

If the court determined VoIP was a “telecommunications service,” Minnesota regulators could force Charter to comply with state law. If determined to be an “information service,” federal rules exempting Charter would apply.

The week after O’Rielly delivered his speech a Minnesota federal charge ruled in favor of Charter and against the state regulator.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson relied on arcane terminology that lets Charter avoid state regulation:

“The court agrees with Charter Advanced that Spectrum Voice engages in net protocol conversion, and that this feature renders it an ‘information service’ under applicable legal and administrative precedent,” according to the opinion. Although Judge Nelson agreed that “the frank purpose” behind Charter’s customer shuffling was to “limit the reach of state regulation, thereby enhancing Charter’s market competitiveness,” she said the service fit the qualifications of an information service.

“The touchstone of the information services inquiry is whether Spectrum Voice acts on the customer’s information — here a phone call — in such a way as to ‘transform’ that information,” the opinion said.

Regardless of the judge’s decision, O’Rielly wants to prevent a recurrence of state regulator interference in the cable industry’s phone business.

“The commission should have just declared VoIP to be an interstate information service,” O’Rielly told the audience. “Arguably, VoIP is just an application not even subject to FCC jurisdiction much less that of individual states.”