After a fun and interesting Day 1, I thought I might provide some thoughts and reflections on my experience.
 
Some of the most thought-provoking experiences from yesterday included two policy panels that I attended, "Mobile Industry Hot Topics" and "US Wireless and the World."
 
A common theme that I heard explicitly discussed at the Hot Topics panel, and as an under-current in the “US and the World” panel, was that of wireless national framework.
 
CTIA has researched international regulatory systems, and according to our findings, the US's system of both federal and state-by-state wireless regulatory authority is unique. 
 
The possibility of expanded state regulatory authority over wireless is one that simply doesn't make sense. Wireless’ defining characteristic is its mobility -- because of that, wireless is inherently an interstate, not intrastate service. I certainly appreciate the need for state governments to enforce the generally applicable laws and look out for the best interest of their citizens. But, that being said, to allow expanded state-specific regulatory authority over a mobile, interstate service might bring with it unintended consequences.
 
By subjecting wireless carriers to 50 different regulatory systems, we potentially jeopardize the incredible levels of investment and innovation that have characterized our industry.
 
Think about that -- the innovation and investment of the domestic wireless industry is among the most impressive in the world. The regulations of today might not be relevant to the technological realities of tomorrow. To allow short-sighted regulatory preferences to potentially affect this evolving, constantly-changing industry brings with it the possibility of short-changing the American wireless consumer by depriving them new services and technologies.

Click here to listen to our "US Wireless and the World" podcast!

State policymakers are engaging in an important debate concerning wireless governing philosophy.

To date, many state legislators and regulators have believed that adopting standards for wireless service in their state, regardless of the standards in other states, would ultimately benefit their consumers. Now, many state legislators and regulators are concluding that the national wireless framework  partly established by Congress back in 1993 has been a windfall to consumers in reducing rates while increasing the variety and use of wireless services such as voice, text and data. Rather than supporting a state by state approach to wireless consumer laws and regulations, policymakers are seeing the need and opportunity for a set of uniform national wireless standards that will consistently benefit consumers across the country. 

CTIA President & CEO Steve Largent recently spoke to the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory and Utility Commissioners to share his thoughts on how the wireless industry continues to respond to consumer demand, and why a comprehensive national framework makes sense. The NARUC telecommunications committee  voted to adopt a resolution supporting state enforcement of a national wireless framework, established by the FCC and enforced by state regulators. However, NARUC's board requested that the Telecommunications Committee review it further at its summer meeting in Portland, Oregon.

Also, at its fall forum, the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) adopted a Twenty-First Century Communications policy which urged state and federal policy makers to work together to ensure that  industry-related consumer protections can be applied within a national framework and enforced by state attorneys general.

Currently, Congress is also considering the national wireless framework. It is likely that NCSL and NAURU will play integral roles in the ultimate outcome of the federal effort.

Clearly, there are still disagreements regarding which state body should enforce national standards. However, I think these state organizations are having a  positive and critical debate. The right approach for wireless is to have a set of uniform national standards that will be consistent for consumers no matter if they are in Manhattan, New York or Manhattan, Kansas. What do you think?