New York lawmakers are ready to move forward on net neutrality bills, after language to codify limits on state procurement didn’t make the final cut of the FY 2020 budget passed Sunday, their offices said Monday. Striking open-internet rules from the budget sets up a public debate on net neutrality in a state where Democrats with a political trifecta have introduced at least five bills.
A Montana Senate panel voted 7-6 to defeat a state net neutrality bill that would have ordered a Public Service Commission rulemaking to make rules like those rescinded by the FCC. In the state where the GOP controls the legislature, Democratic members supported and Republicans opposed SB-355 at the webcast Thursday hearing of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee. Gov. Steve Bullock (D), who last year issued an executive order restricting state procurement to net-neutral ISPs, supported the bill, testified his chief legal counsel, Raphael Graybill. By making net neutrality rules cover all ISPs, the bill is “one step better” than the EO, Graybill said. GOP members don’t think the legislation is necessary. “I'm not convinced we need this bill at this time,” said Sen. Mike Cuffe (R). It tries to solve a nonexistent problem, said Sen. Doug Kary (R). The open market works better than regulation, said Sen. Keith Regier (R). Democrats responded that they didn’t see how the bill would harm ISPs that claim to be net neutral already. It’s better to avoid a problem than to wait for one, said Sen. Mike Phillips (D). Vice Chair Mary McNally (D) isn’t holding her breath for a federal answer. The telecom industry opposed the Montana bill. It “threatens regulation by speculation,” said Montana Telecommunications Association General Manager Geoff Feiss. Lawmakers should be more concerned about Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google that "prevent competitors from offering services on their platform,” he said. Graybill doesn’t deny there are problems with those companies, he said, but raising that concern is an “effort to sidestep what we’re trying to do here.” A Colorado net neutrality bill last week moved closer to final passage (see 1903280058).
The California Public Utilities Commission approved a settlement between Frontier Communications and the California Emerging Technology Fund over CETF’s claim that Frontier failed to meet a condition on low-income broadband adoption in the CPUC’s OK of its acquisition of Verizon wireline assets (see 1811290037). The CPUC unanimously cleared the agreement at Thursday’s livestreamed meeting as part of the consent agenda. Also, commissioners unanimously cleared extending the statutory deadline for its California Teleconnect Fund review to July 15, and the deadline for state LifeLine program tweaks to Oct. 23. To get California OK for the Verizon deal, Frontier promised to help community groups bring internet to 50,000 low-income households by giving $3 million and 50,000 devices. The settlement “significantly expands Frontier’s commitment to making Internet service and devices available to low-income residents throughout its service territory,” CPUC said in the proposed decision granting the settlement in docket A15-03-005. Frontier committed to providing up to 43,474 more Wi-Fi devices, and completing by March 1, 2020, the installation of public Wi-Fi hot spots at 33 remaining locations required by the deal OK. “The agreement continues the partnership with Frontier to provide grant funding and computing devices to community-based organizations for getting a total of 50,000 low-income households online,” said CETF President Sunne McPeak. “We also appreciate that Frontier revised their affordable offer and is continuing to sign up digitally-disadvantaged residents towards their aspirational goal of another 150,000 low-income customers. As another goodwill commitment, Frontier is immediately contributing $25,000 to increase advertising about affordable offers in their service territories.”
Colorado should pass net neutrality legislation this year, before Colorado gives out grants through its state broadband fund, urged SB-78 sponsor Rep. Chris Hansen (D) at a livestreamed Thursday hearing of the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. The 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.”
The telecom industry lined up against a California anti-robocalls bill but couldn’t stop a Senate panel from passing the bill by wide margin at a Wednesday hearing. A state patchwork would slow a national effort, said cable, wireless and wireline lobbyists. Similar bills to crack down on caller ID spoofing, which have seen bipartisan groundswell this year (see 1902150048), moved forward in Arkansas and Mississippi.
Wireless small-cells bills could soon be law in Georgia and West Virginia, possibly increasing the number of states with such 5G laws to 23. Several other states aren’t far behind with bills meant to streamline wireless infrastructure deployment by pre-empting local governments in the right of way. In Arkansas, where two small-cells hearings were scheduled this week, some lawmakers asked about benefits for rural areas.
Texas telecom providers opposed a state bill to expand state USF to rural broadband, at a livestreamed House State Affairs Committee hearing Monday. Phone companies said they’re open to a separate bill allowing rural electric cooperatives to provide broadband. The committee took testimony but didn’t vote on those and multiple other broadband bills at the hearing, continuing late into the afternoon.
A Minnesota net neutrality bill cleared the House State Government Finance Division in a Thursday voice vote. The panel re-referred HF-136 to the Ways and Means Committee. The bill would prohibit ISPs from blocking lawful websites, impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic, paid prioritization and unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging broadband users. It would restrict government contracts to ISPs that follow rules. The House panel’s GOP members voiced skepticism of the bill. “Why would you want to enforce and put into statute a law that you know full well will be litigated by the FCC?” asked Republican lead, Rep. Tony Albright, at the recorded hearing. Albright noted lawsuits challenging the California net neutrality law. That litigation could be resolved by the time HF-136 takes effect, replied sponsor state Rep. Zack Stephenson (D), supporting delaying the enactment date to allow time for resolution. Witnesses from the American Civil Liberties Union and Minnesota’s Scott County supported the proposed law, but officials from AT&T and the Minnesota Cable Communications Association opposed it. AT&T follows net neutrality principles, so the legislation is “a solution looking for a problem,” said Minnesota State President Paul Weirtz, saying the company prefers national to state-specific rules. Democrats control the House and governor’s office and Republicans run the Senate. In Maine, seven Democrats and one Republican introduced net neutrality legislation (LD-1364) in the House and Senate that would prohibit state funding to ISPs unless they agree in writing to follow the FCC's 2015 open internet rules. Maine Democrats have a political trifecta.
Exemptions for financial institutions and others in an Indiana bill to curb robocalls could increase calls consumers receive, Indiana attorney general office officials warned state lawmakers Thursday. The Senate Utilities Committee voted 10-0 for the House-passed HB-1123. The bill would give the AG more tools to stop illegal calls, including by increasing penalties, providing more funding for prosecutors to extradite bad actors, and expanding registration on the state do-not-call list, said AG Director-Government Affairs Parvonay Stover at the livestreamed hearing. But the measure is no “silver bullet,” and the AG office opposes the first section giving exemptions for financial institutions or communications service providers that have an established business relationship with the consumer, said Marguerite Sweeney, senior deputy AG-data privacy and identity theft unit. Banks support the exemption because it lets them tell customers about new products, said Indiana Bankers Association Senior Vice President Dax Denton. The do-not-call law is too restrictive, he said. The carve-outs are good because the state do-not-call law is too strict, said sponsor Rep. Jeff Ellington (D). Exempting communications providers could help spread broadband, he added. Wednesday in Wisconsin, a bipartisan group of 60 state senators and representatives introduced a bill (SB-132) banning caller ID spoofing, with civil penalties of $100 to $10,000. The Wisconsin bill exempts authorized law enforcement activities.
Challenges to FCC wireless and wireline infrastructure orders will be paused, pending review by a special master, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. Challenges by Sprint and 11 others to a September order restricting local fees and reviews of small-cell siting applications were consolidated under Sprint v. FCC, No. 19-70123, said an order (in Pacer) of Judges Richard Tallman and Mary Murguia. The September order case will be assigned to the same merits panel that reviews Portland and American Electric Power Service challenges to an August ruling/order barring local infrastructure moratoriums and revising pole-attachment processes. The latter two were also consolidated under Portland v. FCC, No. 18-72689, said another order (in Pacer) of the two judges. The court referred all the cases to its special master, Appellate Commissioner Peter Shaw, for a case management conference he will schedule. “The special master shall consider any issues he deems appropriate to manage the petitions effectively, including but not limited to the development of a briefing plan for the above-listed twelve petitions,” said the first order. The judges granted in part the FCC’s motion, opposed by localities (see 1903070059), to hold the Sprint case in abeyance. Noting the FCC's request to continue a stay in the Portland case, the second order stayed the now-consolidated case pending the conference. “Proceedings in these consolidated petitions other than the case management conference are stayed pending [that] conference,” said both orders: "Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court following the ... conference." The decisions mean “we’re in abeyance for what I hope will be a short period of time,” emailed local government attorney Ken Fellman. “Given the number of parties, different case filings and complexity of the issues, we’ve thought that a case management conference would be necessary to delineate the process of getting from here to a decision.” Local governments are pleased because the FCC had "asked for an indefinite abeyance," but the court "simply delayed matters until after the scheduling issues can be considered at a case management conference," said Best Best attorney Joseph Van Eaton. "We are hopeful that the process established by the 9th Circuit will result in expedited resolution of this appeal. At the very least, we suspect the FCC will be asked to explain why it has not decided the pending reconsideration petitions." The agency didn’t comment.