Maine “shouldn’t just wait around to act” on net neutrality “because the federal government may or may not do something,” state Rep. Nicole Grohoski (D) said Wednesday at the legislature’s Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee hearing. Grohoski’s LD-1364 would ban government contracts with companies that don’t follow the FCC’s rescinded 2015 net neutrality rules. NCTA, CTIA and Telecom Association of Maine (TAM) officials disagreed Maine should act. The bill is unnecessary, bad policy and unlawful, said Latham & Watkins' Matthew Brill for NCTA. A state can’t require ISPs to adhere to a repealed FCC order, he said. Rep. Chris Caiazzo (D) bristles at the idea Maine can’t control its own spending. Brill responded it might be OK for government to specify terms in its own contracts, but the bill would leverage state spending power to improperly regulate terms for all of an ISP’s customers. CTIA Vice President-State Legislative Affairs Gerard Keegan agreed. When Caiazzo followed up asking if Maine could restrict state funds for broadband infrastructure -- a concept Colorado proposed in its open-internet bill (see 1904080051) -- Keegan said he would need to ask his wireless members. LD-1364 would force Maine wireline companies to violate federal law, but TAM would be willing to work with legislators to come up with acceptable rules, said Vice President Beth Osler. The committee also heard testimony on LD-1371, which would require cable companies give nondiscriminatory treatment to public, educational and governmental channels. Sponsor Sen. David Woodsome (R) wants to stop “channel slamming” that moves PEG channels away from the broadcast channel lineup area to a much higher number, he said. The bill would require PEG to be carried in HD if available, he said. It aims to spur rural deployment by requiring cable TV franchises to provide line extensions to areas with a density of 15 homes per mile. Many PEG and local government officials supported the bill, saying such channels provide a valuable service to their communities that cable decisions are stunting. The bill is pre-empted by federal law, said Charter Communications Senior Director-Government Affairs Melinda Kinney. Not all towns want PEG channels, and consumers consume TV content differently than in the past, she said: “You don’t have a dial anymore.”
State senators cleared a bill to tighten enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) after fierce debate over possible consequences of adding a private right of action to the 2018 measure. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Tuesday after several members voiced reservations and industry trade groups lined up against the first draft (see 1902250067) of SB-561 by Chair Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) and Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D). "There is grave concern about the condition that it is in," said Sen. Anna Caballero (D), voting yes but warning she will later vote no without changes.
Washington state legislators failed to agree on a privacy bill, House sponsor Rep. Zack Hudgins (D) said Tuesday. Legislators seemed to run out of time to move the much-debated measure after the House Appropriations Committee didn’t act Monday on SB-5376 “after 12 hours of work on a large agenda,” Hudgins said in an email update. "In legislative language, we would describe the bill as 'dead for now.'"
With Colorado poised to enact net neutrality legislation, observers said the state might be less likely than others to attract a lawsuit. Longtime net neutrality supporter Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) is expected to sign SB-78 to restrict high-cost support or other state broadband funding to companies that adhere to open internet principles, and require government entities give preference in procurements to ISPs that follow rules.
Expect the District of Columbia Public Service Commission to be “more active” in FCC proceedings, including Lifeline, Chairman Willie Phillips said. A commissioner since 2014, Phillips took the PSC’s top seat this year after three-term Chairman Betty Ann Kane retired. In an interview, Phillips raised concerns about state-federal coordination on the Lifeline National Verifier, which soft-launched in D.C. in February and will hard launch in May. Also, Phillips said he wants to support 5G deployment in the District.
The California Supreme Court said cities may consider aesthetics of telecom equipment when reviewing permit applications. Thursday's opinion affirmed two lower courts’ decisions supporting a San Francisco ordinance providing the city that discretion. Local governments cheered rejection of the 2016 appeal by T-Mobile West, ExteNet and Crown Castle from the California 1st District Court of Appeal (see 1705170046).
Washington state’s privacy bill cleared 5-4 the House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Wednesday. Rep. Jeff Morris (D) joined three Republicans voting no, and even Democrats voting yes agreed that the House-amended S-5376 isn’t perfect. The committee’s executive session started Tuesday and carried over to Wednesday to allow more time for the public to read the latest version (see 1904020068). While taking several amendments, the committee rejected a proposal by ranking member Norma Smith (R) to remove a private right of action, leaving enforcement to the state attorney general. “To put a private right of action … will create greater chaos than we need and really short circuits ability for effective implementation,” Smith said at the livestreamed hearing. The legislature could reconsider giving a private right in two years, under her proposal. Chairman Zack Hudgins (D) replied that the bill doesn’t put a new private right of action into statute but relies on the existing right in the state’s Consumer Protection Act, so Smith’s amendment would “peel back” what consumers already have. There’s no point in giving rights to consumers if they can’t exercise them, said Vice Chair Shelley Kloba (D). Smith and other opponents said they still saw much work ahead. Morris, the only Democratic no, resisted what he called a “Cheshire cat bill.” He sees too many parties wearing “big grins” and worries the legislature is giving too much away. The bill might violate the state’s two-subject rule by addressing private data and facial recognition in one measure, he added. Hudgins agrees with all the members’ comments, for and against. “There’s some very serious concerns about the bill moving forward, but I do think it’s better in many ways than it came to us,” he said. “There’s some more specifics, there’s more focus on consent [and] there’s more concern about bias in the technology. We are still trying to protect innovation.”
AT&T “will have no other choice” but to sue certain Florida local governments the carrier claims are flouting the state’s 2017 small-cells law and FCC infrastructure rulings, unless the Florida legislature passes a bill to tighten the law pre-empting local governments, said AT&T Senior Counsel Tracy Hatch Tuesday. Some members at the livestreamed House Ways and Means Committee hearing questioned the extent of problems. Oregon lawmakers weighed different ways to spur broadband deployment in another hearing Tuesday.
Industries sought clarification or carve-outs to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), in comments last month to Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D). The state Department of Justice released a 1,305-page PDF Tuesday containing March 8 comments from its pre-rulemaking after our Public Records Act request (see 1903120036) and we obtained others (see 1903110042). Technology, finance, medical, insurance, entertainment, advertising and other industries weighed in. Hot topics included implementation date, verifying consumer requests, and definitions of households, personal information and other terms.
A revised Texas bill to scale back a 2011 state law against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) would provide the “strongest protections for the media anywhere in the United States,” House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee Chairman Jeff Leach (R) said at a livestreamed Monday hearing. Leach said he counted 45 witnesses signed up to testify on his HB-2730. The Electronic Frontier Foundation last week claimed the bill would gut free-speech protections (see 1903280011). Leach conceded an earlier draft wasn’t “close to perfect” but said a committee substitute should address concerns. While praising the 2011 law’s intent, Leach said “unintended consequences have proven to be quite troubling.” The law created confusion and increased litigation, testified former Texas Supreme Court Justice Dale Wainwright. The law’s language is overly broad, overwhelming courts, agreed former Texas 3rd Court of Appeals Justice Scott Field. “This is a huge judicial economy issue.” The proposed bill “strikes the right balance” protecting free speech while eliminating abuses, said AT&T Associate General Counsel David Tate, saying the carrier’s interest stems from its recent Time Warner Media buy. Opponents including Yelp, the American Civil Liberties Union, Institute for Justice and Protect Free Speech Coalition raised concerns that some revisions could leave some unprotected, such as by limiting protections to public speech on matters of public concern, a term they said is vaguely defined. While the 2011 law wasn't perfect, it allowed many valuable public conversations to "flourish," said ACLU Texas Senior Policy Analyst Matt Simpson.