Washington state House members shared a plethora of questions Wednesday about the Senate’s proposed privacy bill, especially on enforcement and facial recognition. “This bill is not yet scheduled for executive session, so we have some time to work on it,” said Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D), concluding the hearing livestreamed from Olympia. “I have a list of about 20 items that I heard come up over and over again that we need to look at.” Members may not “love every word,” but the bill’s basic concepts are important, said Rep. Shelley Kloba (D), sponsor of the bill’s House version (HB-2742). Rep. Norma Smith, the committee’s ranking Republican, asked Microsoft Senior Director-Public Policy Ryan Harkins to explain why the company doesn’t support a private right of action here even though Microsoft Corporate Vice President Julie Brill seemed to support a limited such right at a recent U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing (see 1912040045). Hudgins said he had the same question, but citing time constraints, told Harkins and other witnesses to answer members’ questions later in writing. Witnesses raised concerns about the bill instead opting for enforcement by the state attorney general. Hudgins sees a “spectrum” of enforcement options, not a “binary” choice. Smith asked the Washington State Association for Justice if it has suggestions to trim the exemptions list, which she said exceed the pages devoted to consumer rights. Kloba asked Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney for more detail on her comment that there’s widespread noncompliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Members asked academic witnesses to get back to them about facial recognition queries. Smith asked how the bill would apply online, since it deals mainly with use on physical premises. Rep. Gael Tarleton (D) asked for more on how individuals use that technology. Rep. Vandana Slatter (D) asked about a facial recognition moratorium sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, including how long it would last and if studies would continue. The hearing was "to begin the discussion on the policy and to recognize the positive work done over the interim, ahead of the bill being voted out of the Senate," Hudgins emailed stakeholders Tuesday. "The legislature has less than half the time this short session to keep up with the rapid and evolving discussion on privacy. I hope to be a 'fast follower' of the Senate discussion so as to accelerate progress in the House." He and Smith told us the chambers remain at loggerheads (see 2001170021).
TRENTON -- New Jersey justices waded into a growing national debate whether the Fifth Amendment stops law enforcement from forcing someone to enter a password to unlock an encrypted smartphone. The Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday in State v. Andrews; other state courts have split in similar cases where states argue limiting law enforcement could create a zone of lawlessness. “We’ll reach a tipping point where the U.S. Supreme Court has to step in pretty soon,” Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Andrew Crocker told us outside the courtroom.
Washington state's Senate overstated House support for its privacy bill, said Democratic and Republican heads of the committee overseeing the issue in the House. The chambers are edging toward agreement, said House Innovation and Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins. Hudgins, a Democrat, and the panel's ranking Republican Norma Smith told us they remain concerned about enforcement and other parts of SB-6281. Compromise is possible, said Future of Privacy Forum Senior Policy Counsel Stacey Gray.
Municipal broadband supporters see an opening to lift restrictions in Virginia, after Democrats flipped the legislature blue in the November election, they said in interviews this month. In week one of this year's session, Democrats floated three bills to explicitly authorize localities to provide broadband service. They're HB-1052 by Del. Mark Levine, HB-1242 by Del. Steve Heretick and SB-351 by Sen. Louise Lucas. Local advocates said it's a big policy turn from a 2017 bill to tighten such restrictions (see 1702210037).
Washington state senators’ privacy bill lacks teeth and should have a private right of action, said the state attorney general’s office at a Senate Environment and Technology Committee hearing. Microsoft supported the bill, and other tech and internet companies said they are almost on board. The American Civil Liberties Union raised concerns, including on facial recognition bias and no private right of action. Also Wednesday, facial identification also got a U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing (see 2001150035).
Facing continuing local opposition, a Pennsylvania House committee canceled a Tuesday vote on the latest version of a small-cells bill that failed for the past three years. HB-1400 aims to streamline 5G wireless infrastructure deployment by pre-empting localities in the right of way (see 1906180060). The Consumer Affairs Committee and Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Frank Farry (R) want to "work with some of the stakeholders over the next weeks to smooth out some of the language," emailed Dawn Pelletier, legislative assistant for bill author Farry. "I don’t expect anything to happen on the bill before March." Three state associations for boroughs, municipalities and township commissioners remained opposed, in a Monday letter to House Consumer Affairs Chairman Brad Roae (R) and Minority Chairman Robert Matzie (D). The latest amendment aligns with FCC rules “on the size and height of the facilities and makes improvements to the indemnification and restoration provisions, as well as the addition of a rural broadband component,” the groups wrote. “These issues are secondary in nature, however, compared to our central issue, which is the preemption of local zoning authority over the management of wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way.” Local governments could become “neutral with concerns” if legislators further amend the bill by lengthening shot clocks on approving applications, preserving local zoning authority for new poles and allowing some municipalities to charge more than $270 as allowed by the FCC wireless infrastructure order.
DOJ's defense of T-Mobile's buy of Sprint “unnecessarily and without legal basis seeks to undermine the states’ important and independent role in enforcing antitrust laws,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) wrote Monday in a letter (in Pacer) to Judge Victor Marrero at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ferguson joined state plaintiffs objecting to the DOJ and the FCC urging deference to their conditional OKs (see 2001090023). Ferguson, from T-Mobile’s home state, isn't one of the states suing. “The Statement’s comments on state merger enforcement bears a far closer resemblance to a defense of DOJ’s settlement with the Defendants than sound competition policy,” the AG wrote. “Co-enforcement is woven into the fabric of the nation’s antitrust laws, and diminishing the role of the states in merger enforcement both overlooks the law and is shortsighted.” Ferguson disagreed with Justice that anticompetitive effects in local markets can’t stop a national transaction. “The Washington state AG misreads the Antitrust Division’s Statement of Interest," a DOJ spokesperson emailed Tuesday. "The Antitrust Division expressly noted that states have an independent role in antitrust enforcement. It explained, however, that the court should not issue a nationwide injunction that would undo the substantial pro-consumer benefits of this merger given the remedies secured by the Antitrust Division and the FCC." T-Mobile and Sprint responded (in Pacer) Monday to state objections to the U.S. statement. “Plaintiffs both misstate their legal burden and mischaracterize the nature of the federal review and the importance of a uniform, national antitrust policy,” the carriers said. The deal “will have unambiguous competitive effects,” said economists who asked (in Pacer) to submit an amici brief. “DOJ proposes to permit this merger subject only to a complex and ultimately unworkable set of conditions on the conduct of the merged company and an entirely new outside party,” wrote seven economists including New York University’s Lawrence White and Nicholas Economides and Northeastern University's John Kwoka. “This is not a substitute for the actions necessary to preserve competition in mobile wireless service.” Closing statements at the SDNY trial start Wednesday at 10 a.m. in lower Manhattan.
Connecticut union workers opposed a pole-attachment proposal meant to reduce delay, while Crown Castle said the Public Utility Regulatory Authority could go further, in exceptions filed Friday in docket 19-01-52. PURA plans to vote Wednesday on an interim order to allow pole attachers to employ third-party contractors for surveying and engineering work to mitigate delay by single pole administrators and ILECs (see 1912260016). The plan saves time at the price of union jobs and public and worker safety, and would direct Frontier Communications to violate its collective bargaining agreement with the union, wrote Communications Workers of America Local 1298 President David Weidlich. The draft correctly solves several problems but is incomplete, not acknowledging wireless attachers even though small cells are growing fast, said Crown Castle. PURA should soon address make-ready problems and ILEC underground conduit policies, the wireless infrastructure company added. Verizon and the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association supported the draft; the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel said it has no objections.
The FCC estimates 19.5 percent of cellsites are out in Puerto Rico from recent earthquakes, mostly due to power outages, said the disaster information reporting system Thursday report. That’s down from 31.7 percent the previous day (see 2001080006). A Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board spokesperson estimated outages at 26 percent Thursday, the same as the day before. Cable and wireline companies reported nearly 173,400 subscribers out of service, down from about 258,600. Liberty Cablevision is assessing its network, including fiber rings, cables and posts, and so far hasn’t found major damage, CEO Naji Khoury said in a statement. Infrastructure is “operating at full capacity,” but power outages in 35 municipalities are disrupting service, it said: About 51 percent of its customers have access to their internet service.
T-Mobile and states opposing the carrier’s Sprint buy re-emphasized their positions, before closing argument Wednesday at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Arguing (in Pacer) plaintiffs don’t have to prove anticompetitive intentions, states highlighted companies’ internal documents cited at trial as showing such motives, including a 2011 Deutsche Telekom slide deck saying one transaction benefit is a "rule of three" that would reduce price competition (see 1912100029). States questioned Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen’s credibility: "There is considerable reason for this Court to doubt whether DISH will build the promised network; and, even if it does, DISH’s most optimistic projections still fall well short of being timely, likely, or sufficient to replace the lost competition that Sprint has long provided.” States rejected (in Pacer) DOJ and the FCC urging the court defer to federal agencies’ conditional OKs (see 1912200043). "States are independent enforcers of the antitrust laws, and it is the role of the Court -- not any federal agency -- to decide the lawfulness of the merger," they said. “A prosecutorial decision by” DOJ “not to challenge a transaction is not a determination that the proposed merger is lawful under the Clayton Act,” and the same goes for a commission OK, the plaintiffs said. T-Mobile said (in Pacer) DOJ and the FCC agree the deal will mean lower prices, better wireless service and increased competition: “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to prove that the world with this merger is likely to be substantially less competitive than the world without it." If not allowed, T-Mobile and Sprint will suffer and Dish won’t enter the market, they said. It's false to say the biggest U.S. carriers welcome the takeover, defendants said. “AT&T has been working with third parties to thwart the merger,” said T-Mobile, citing a July 17, 2018, email from AT&T Executive Vice President-Regulatory and State External Affairs Joan Marsh to Communications Workers of America Telecom Policy Director Debbie Goldman. Marsh wrote that she “wanted you to be aware of potential [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)] issues that some are raising.” The attachment raises possible national security concerns, including T-Mobile and Sprint using Chinese equipment, Softbank’s relationships with Chinese companies, and a foreign-owned company potentially holding more spectrum than U.S. carriers. "As far as I know, AT&T has not taken a position on the merger," a CWA spokesperson emailed: The union opposes the deal "because it would hurt working people." AT&T didn’t comment. A settlement between states and the carriers is deemed unlikely (see 1912300033).