California Net Neutrality Bill Makes National Splash

Six of 25 GOP Assembly members voted yes with all 55 Democrats, with the final tally on SB-822 recorded at 61-18, with one Republican abstaining. “You’re welcome,” tweeted Assemblymember Dante Acosta, one Republican who supported SB-822. Observers saw Assembly passage as a key step on the path to enactment, though the bill was awaiting Senate final vote late Friday to concur with Assembly amendments. A companion net neutrality bill limiting government contracts with ISPs (SB-460) was awaiting a vote in the Assembly and concurrence by the Senate.

“California has once again proven its disregard for the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and how the Internet actually works,” said O’Rielly. “If this bill is ultimately signed into law, its radical, harmful and antagonistic approach will need to be addressed.” Rosenworcel tweeted, “Thank you for getting right what the @FCC got wrong.” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s spokesperson declined comment.

“Congress will come under intense pressure to restore and standardize net neutrality rules as states make it clear they'll move ahead,” emailed Demand Progress Campaign Director Robert Cruickshank. “The only viable path to doing that is through the Congressional Review Act effort to overturn the FCC.” More Republicans may support it as midterm elections approach with more than a half dozen competitive House seats from California, he said: The California vote “shows Republican votes can be flipped, and that the power of Big Cable can be overcome by grassroots mobilizing.”

“Policymakers in Washington must not ignore what the California net neutrality bill means,” said Public Knowledge Vice President Chris Lewis. “California is the country’s largest state and the world’s fifth largest economy.” California has the strongest bill of any state, said Demand Progress campaigner Carli Stevenson. “This should send a message to other states as well as to members of Congress -- Americans are serious about the importance of net neutrality.” SB-822 “would set a tremendous precedent, with the power to shape the internet market not just in California, but across the country,” said Consumers Union Senior Policy Counsel Jonathan Schwantes.

Big ISP groups want a federal law. “Consumers expect a single, national approach to keeping our internet open, not the confusing patchwork of conflicting requirements passed today,” said USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter Thursday evening. “The California Assembly’s vote today keeps the country strapped into a rollercoaster ride of state net neutrality regulations, but won’t get us any closer to the stable and consistent net neutrality protections consumers deserve.”

“What the country needs is permanent bipartisan federal legislation that will benefit consumers and ensure consistent rules of the road for all companies and across all websites,” said CTIA and the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. They said California legislation “includes extreme provisions rejected by the Obama FCC in 2015 and could threaten the innovation and investment that are the backbone of California’s economy.” The associations testified in hearings that zero-rating and interconnection provisions go beyond the 2015 rules (see 1808230034).

A federal bill like ISPs want isn’t likely this year or early next, but the FCC "Restoring Internet Freedom" order could be undone without Congress if the commission loses pre-emption arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said Electronic Frontier Foundation's Ernesto Falcon in an interview. ISPs sought a federal bill, but they worked to repeal strong federal rules, Lewis said. “Actions speak louder than words.”

California could be the fourth state to make a net neutrality law after Washington enacted comprehensive rules, and Oregon and Vermont limited procurement. Montana, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island have executive orders that similarly limit state contracts. States have avoided lawsuits.

Not Over in California

California’s net neutrality fight would go next to the governor’s office, where Gov. Jerry Brown (D) would have until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.

CCTA will ask Brown to veto, emailed President Carolyn McIntyre. Brown doesn’t usually comment on pending legislation, his spokesperson said. State Sen. Scott Wiener (D) hasn’t heard where Brown stands, said a spokesperson for the California net neutrality bill author.

Brown probably supports open internet rules, but supporters shouldn’t “take anything for granted, especially as we thought the net neutrality debate was settled by the FCC three years ago,” Schwantes said. Falcon said he’s hopeful but expects a fight. “If we assumed Democrats are easy pickings, we wouldn’t have had to work so hard in California.”

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that litigation is soon to follow,” emailed Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates, an advocacy group with partners including AT&T and Uber. It’s only “a matter of time,” said Falcon. Before suing states, ISPs may wait for the D.C. Circuit’s decision on whether the FCC has power to pre-empt states, though seeking an injunction could be a strategy to buy time, the EFF official said. Lawsuits against California would likely wait until the bill’s effective date Jan. 1, noted Schwantes.

California’s contracts bill “is important because it’s much less vulnerable to court challenges than” the comprehensive net neutrality bill, blogged Tellus Venture Associates President Stephen Blum. “Hobbling it counts as a win for telecoms lobbyists, who continue to try to kill both bills.”