Top State Senator Urges Connecticut to Separate From 'Pack,' Pass Net Neutrality
Connecticut carriers and business groups lined up against proposed net neutrality and ISP privacy rules in written testimony for a Tuesday hearing of the Connecticut Joint Committee on Energy and Technology. But the Senate majority leader and two state officials backed legislation that could have momentum this year after Democrats gained a political trifecta in the 2018 election. Nobody wrote in against a separate bill before the committee to curb caller ID spoofing.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Connecticut net neutrality stalled last year in the Senate when that chamber was under split control. Now leading a Democratic majority, Sen. Bob Duff urged support for the joint committee-sponsored SB-6, which would require the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to apply and enforce net neutrality rules for ISPs, and would establish broadband privacy rules like those repealed by Congress. “While we won't be one of the first states to protect our residents,” said Duff, “we still have an opportunity to separate ourselves from the 'pack' and pass net neutrality.”
“Connecticut can lead in this area,” said Connecticut Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz. “It is entirely appropriate for the Connecticut General Assembly to put minimum protections into place while the legality of the FCC’s order runs through the federal administrative appeals process.” The more state laws, the more likely it is that the FCC and telecom companies will come to the table with states and others “to work together to find a more balanced compromise,” she said.
“Net neutrality supports the fundamental principles shared by Connecticut and its citizens: inclusion, fairness and opportunity,” said Connecticut Comptroller Kevin Lembo (D). The American Civil Liberties Union and Connecticut’s League of Women Voters also backed the bill.
Carriers said they already have good practices for privacy and net neutrality, and that federal legislation would be less burdensome than a state-by-state approach. “Connecticut consumers are well protected against anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices," including by the FCC, FTC, federal antitrust laws and existing state law, said CTIA Vice President-State Legislative Affairs Gerard Keegan. The state bill is “unnecessary, addresses issues more appropriate for action by the U.S. Congress, is preempted by federal law, and would hurt Connecticut’s business climate,” wrote AT&T.
“The concept of asking broadband providers to manage their business to potentially 50 different sets of regulation is both irrational and inefficient,” and “likely to lead to further reductions in capital spent to enhance broadband speeds and expand availability,” said Frontier Communications Senior Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Allison Ellis.
State business associations claimed SB-6 would hurt the economy. “Thoughtful consideration is being given to the issue of internet regulation at the federal level and Congressional action is likely later this year,” testified Eric Brown, Connecticut Business and Industry Association vice president-manufacturing policy. “Taking this aggressive and preemptive stand in Connecticut will not only create confusion for businesses and consumers alike, it will put our state at a competitive disadvantage when working to attract and retain businesses.”
Connecticut is one of more than a dozen states weighing net neutrality bills this year (see 1901230008). A Minnesota measure Monday cleared the House Commerce Committee and was referred to the Government Operations Committee. A Hawaii bill, which also would restrict state procurement to providers that adhere to net neutrality rules, Friday passed the Senate Technology Committee and goes next to the Commerce, Consumer Protection and Health Committee.
Meanwhile, a Connecticut bill meant to curb robocalls that pretend to come from local phone numbers got no written opposition Tuesday. “Passing this measure will send yet another strong message that Connecticut ... will not tolerate those who try to deceive the public,” wrote Senate Republican Whip Dan Champagne. He said he wanted to include language in SB-225 to "hold phone companies accountable for these scams which are perpetrated on their watch" but decided to hold back because it's “a federal jurisdiction issue.”
Caller ID spoofing “is an issue of great consumer concern and outrage,” Katz said. That’s why lawmakers from both parties in more than 10 states support such bills, said the state consumer counsel, citing our recent report (see 1902150048). Illinois state Sen. Dave Syverson (R) Friday pitched a spoofing bill, which is at least the sixth such proposal in that state.