Colorado House Panel Weighs Pre-emption Concerns at Net Neutrality Hearing

panel voted 4-3 to send the bill to the full chamber. The Senate earlier passed the bill in the state where Democrats have a political triefecta (see 1903080029). The bill would prevent grants from going to an entity that can bid lower than others because its business model is based on non-net-neutral policies like throttling or paid fast lanes, said Hansen. Voting no, Rep. Dave Williams (R) raised concerns the bill could be federally pre-empted. "We are not trying to regulate the internet," but Colorado has authority to decide how it spends state money, said Hansen. Industry is committed to an open internet and prefers one federal rule to many state regulations, said witnesses for CTIA and the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association. States can’t regulate interstate services, they said. The proposal is “well crafted” to avoid federal pre-emption issues but falls short because it conflicts with federal policy that internet should be unfettered by state or federal regulation, said Brent Skorup, Mercatus Center senior research fellow. Focusing on grants puts more pressure on small providers aiming to serve rural areas needing broadband, he added. Montana, which took similar action by executive order, hasn't been sued, countered Colorado Common Cause Policy Manager Patrick Potyondy, supporting the bill. Rep. Jovan Melton (D), voting yes, said he struggled to understand industry’s view that Colorado would be pre-empted from putting net neutrality rules in the state’s own grant program. Connecticut’s net neutrality bill recently “died in committee,” emailed a spokesperson for Connecticut Senate Democrats. Connecticut Consumer Counsel Elin Swanson Katz, one of the bill’s supporters, said she believes “the lack of tangible harm and the focus on other issues, like privacy, sucked the air out of it.”