New Jersey regulators continue looking at potentially statewide service problems with Verizon and other ILEC networks, said Board of Public Utilities officials in interviews. Asserting state power to protect consumers, the board is fighting lawsuits by cable operator Altice on a prorating rule. The Rate Counsel Division supports public hearings about telecom problems but worries the agency won’t aggressively respond, Director Stefanie Brand told us.
Before a key vote Friday on Washington state’s privacy bill, Democratic and Republican leaders of the House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee proposed amendments to the Senate-passed SB-6281. Chairman Zack Hudgins (D) floated one tightening enforcement and removing local preemption. It would give a private right of action, and clarify violations are enforceable under the state Consumer Protection Act. It wouldn’t preempt local laws about facial recognition, or local personal data laws adopted before the state law takes effect. The amendment would make the bill applicable to legal entities that have data of at least 25,000 consumers and get 25% of gross revenue from selling personal data. It’s 50% in the current bill. Ranking Republican Norma Smith proposed in one of multiple amendments to remove a controversial facial recognition section in its entirety. Rep. Debra Entenman (D) proposed to require opt-in consent before controllers use facial recognition on a consumer’s image, and require facial recognition training include information on error rates based on demographical differences. Enforcement and facial recognition have been sticking points, with Microsoft and the tech industry against a private right of action that consumer groups support (see 2002210053). The hearing starts 8 a.m. PST.
The telecom industry disagreed with Connecticut consumer advocates about whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invited state net neutrality rules through its Mozilla decision. Connecticut’s Joint Energy and Technology Committee held a Thursday hearing on SB-5, a hybrid net neutrality/ISP privacy measure that would reverse repeals of past FCC orders on those topics. The court didn’t "free the states” to make rules, said AT&T in written testimony. “While the DC Circuit vacated the express preemption provisions in the 2018 Order, the Court stressed that its decision did not preclude the FCC from relying on established principles of conflict preemption or any other implied preemption doctrine to invalidate state laws that actually undermine that order.” USTelecom Vice President-Strategic Initiatives Mike Saperstein urged at “minimum” to “delay further consideration of this legislation until courts resolve the pending challenges to state open internet laws.” USTelecom is part of ISP lawsuits in Vermont and California, plus another against a Maine ISP privacy law. American Civil Liberties Union-Connecticut policy counsel Kelly McConney Moore wrote that state regulation is “clearly permissible” post-Mozilla. Pua Ford of Connecticut League of Women Voters agreed: “Connecticut may now confidently follow Washington, Oregon, California, and other states in drawing up its own regulations.” Industry said a national policy would be best. Consumer advocates said that’s not likely soon. “States enacting protections against the worst overreaching of the FCC order will help to make it more likely that the FCC and telecommunications companies come to the table with the states and other stakeholders to work together to find a more balanced compromise,” wrote acting Connecticut Consumer Counsel Richard Sobolewski. Maryland lawmakers heard similar testimony Wednesday (see 2002260057).
ANNAPOLIS -- A Maryland House vice chair asked why the state should pass net neutrality given litigation against other states and possible constitutional hurdles. The Maryland House Economic Matters Committee heard testimony Wednesday on a hybrid net neutrality/ISP privacy bill (HB-957). Two other privacy bills at the hearing covered topics that could be part of an effort this summer by a working group led by Del. Ned Carey (D) to develop a comprehensive data privacy bill for next year, said Comcast Vice President-State Government Sean Looney.
South Dakota’s Senate Commerce and Energy Committee voted 7-0 Tuesday to stop telemarketers from using misleading caller ID, sending HB-1131 to the Senate floor. The House earlier voted unanimously for the call-spoofing bill that would empower the state attorney general to investigate upon receiving a complaint (see 2002130009). “Not going to tell you it’s going to end the calls,” said Chief AG Deputy Charles McGuigan at the hearing livestreamed from Pierre. “It’s going to give us another tool.” AARP South Dakota Advocacy Director Erik Nelson supported the bill. The committee voted 5-2 to clear a Verizon-backed bill. SB-151 would make it a crime to trespass, damage or tamper with critical infrastructure including communications facilities.
Frontier Communications is “clearly violating” the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act by failing to provide broadband speeds as high as what it promises customers in contracts, said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Paul Bailey (R) at a Tuesday hearing webcast from Nashville. The panel voted 6-1 for SB-2851, which designates such failure as an unfair or deceptive practice under the act and allows the state attorney general to assess $5,000 to $15,000 per violation. Bailey cited numerous complaints over the past few years that he said were met by excuses or silence by Frontier. The carrier promised to submit a corrective plan to Bailey by the end of last week, but he never received it, the senator said: “At a time when Tennessee continues to invest in rural broadband, this company is hindering our ability to provide this important service to individuals who desperately need it.” Several states are probing the telco and responding to reports the company might seek bankruptcy protection (see 2002200022). The phone service provider didn’t comment.
Trying to spur rural broadband by removing regulatory oversight of electric cooperatives could have consequences for electric rates, reliability and other consumer protections overseen by the commission, cautioned Maryland Public Service Commission Chairman Jason Stanek at a Senate Finance Committee hearing livestreamed Tuesday from Annapolis. Officially, the commission is neutral on SB-540. Commissioner Anthony O’Donnell urged lawmakers to “think very carefully” about ramifications of removing oversight. Maryland Deputy People’s Counsel William Fields fears deregulation could raise consumers' electric rates. Sen. Malcolm Augustine (D) agrees. The legislation is critical to cleaning up state barriers keeping co-ops from providing broadband service to the eastern shore, said sponsor Sen. Stephen Hershey (R). “If we don’t do this, we have no other options on the table." Rate hikes are less a danger with cooperatives that are regulated by members, he said. Verizon supports the proposal as good for consumers and competition, and Hershey is working on getting Comcast support, he said. The bill would immediately support Choptank Electric Cooperative’s broadband business model, said Hershey and co-op officials. Choptank would be able to start rolling out service in Q1 2021, and within 10 years cover Maryland’s entire eastern shore with gigabit fiber service, testified CEO Mike Malandro. Comcast supported SB-790 at the hearing. It would direct the Department of Information Technology to waive resource sharing agreement fees for last-mile broadband projects in unserved areas and exempt private entities from DoIT project reviews if they have a separate right to access to install communications lines and facilities in the right of way. DoIT last summer misinterpreted a 1996 law and started to charge resource-sharing fees to ISPs, said Comcast Vice President-State Government Sean Looney. That stopped work by Comcast, Verizon and others in the right of way for eight months, he said.
A federal judge sided with a New York town in a wireless siting lawsuit. Crown Castle claimed Oyster Bay violated sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act when it banned wireless facilities amid public opposition resulting from “unfounded fears” of RF emissions (see 1807240047). Friday at U.S. District Court in Central Islip, Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay recommended (in Pacer) Crown Castle’s Telecom Act claims “be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims be denied, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims be granted and Plaintiff’s motion to strike be denied as moot.” Lindsay agreed with the city that the court lacks jurisdiction under Section 332 because the company’s claims aren’t ripe -- Crown Castle never applied for necessary permits so the town never denied them. Crown Castle failed to point to a regulation or any part of the town code that violates Section 253, the judge said. “We’re pleased the court acknowledged the Town’s claim to be valid,” as Oyster Bay “issues building permits to protect the welfare and safety of the public,” a spokesperson emailed Monday. The company declined comment. U.S. District Court in Delaware heard argument Monday in another wireless siting dispute, T-Mobile v. Wilmington (see 2002240036).
PHILADELPHIA -- “You can bring the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink,” said U.S. District Court of Delaware Judge Eduardo Robreno at oral argument here Monday after a T-Mobile lawyer turned down a Wilmington offer for mediation in a wireless siting dispute. The company sought summary judgment that the city’s zoning board didn’t cite enough evidence to block a T-Mobile rooftop installation in 2016 and violated the FCC’s effective prohibition standard.
Washington state’s privacy bill continues to face sharp criticism from the state attorney general and consumer advocates on enforcement language and its handling of facial recognition technology used by the private sector. Senators nearly unanimously voted for SB-6281 (see 2002180024), but communities that feel vulnerable disagreed sharply with Microsoft and other tech industry supporters at a House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee hearing Friday. Without changes, the bill may “severely limit” her office’s ability to enforce the law, said Assistant Attorney General-Consumer Protection Andrea Alegrett.