Public housing broadband grant recipients should provide free service without government subsidies, the California Public Utilities Commission could soon clarify. The CPUC may vote March 7 on a proposed decision that would adopt changes to the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband public housing account and tribal technical assistance program (docket R.20-08-021). Responding to some commenters’ questions about the public housing program’s no-cost broadband obligation (see 2312140034), the CPUC would clarify that "the Commission’s intent is for BPHA grant recipients to provide broadband service at no cost to residents of the low-income community, without public purpose subsidies or other funding, which is consistent with our determination in Resolution T-17775 that ‘no cost’ means unsubsidized service that is free to customers.” The CPUC rejected a cable industry challenge to that resolution in September, affirming that service the affordable connectivity program subsidizes doesn’t count as free (see 2309010006). In general, the CPUC’s possible changes to the broadband public housing account “expand eligibility for non-publicly supported housing developments and for project costs to facilitate deployment of broadband networks in low-income communities that lack access to free broadband service that meets state standards,” the proposed decision said Monday. Changes to the tribal technical assistance program would align it with the local agency technical assistance program, the CPUC added. In a separate proceeding on utility service affordability (docket 18-07-006), the California Broadband and Video Association warned the CPUC not to expand the proceeding's focus beyond gas, water and electric. ISPs aren’t public utilities, the state cable association said Thursday. “The broadband marketplace continues to be marked by extensive and rapidly increasing competition across a variety of technologies and platforms, which disciplines prices and improves affordability without regulatory price controls.”

The Utah Public Service Commission delayed until Feb. 8 evidentiary and public witness hearings that were planned for this Wednesday on Lumen’s carrier of last resort relief petition, the PSC said Friday in docket 23-049-01. The PSC said it delayed the case after the Utah Rural Telecom Association reported it was talking with Lumen and Utah’s Division of Public Utilities and Office of Consumer Services on a resolution. The parties clashed on a definition of the terms “captive customers” and “functionally equivalent” in prehearing briefs and testimony earlier last week (see 2401260059).

A Missouri bill clarifying that streaming content is exempted from paying video franchise fees cleared the House Utilities Committee on a 13-1 vote last week. The House could vote next on HB-2057. The South Carolina legislature approved a similar bill last week (see 2401250025).

A Washington state House panel voted 4-3 to clear a bill that seeks to share county 911 fee revenue with municipalities (see 2401160042). The Local Government Committee approved an amendment to HB-2258 that would effectively limit the bill’s scope to Spokane, the city where sponsor Rep. Timm Ormsby (D) last week said the bill was particularly needed. The panel’s three Republicans voted no. Ranking member Keith Goehner (R) said he worries the bill would set a precedent even with a limited scope.

Vermont state legislators could need to step in should the affordable connectivity program (ACP) end soon, the Vermont Community Broadband Board said last week. Losing the ACP would “remove the floor for low-income Vermonters, the most vulnerable of our residents, and require considerable alternative funding to achieve digital equity,” the board’s Executive Director Christine Hallquist said in a Thursday letter to Vermont legislators. The ACP helps 25,000 Vermont residents afford internet, the letter said. “When this program ends, many if not all these families may no longer be able to afford their internet service.” Hallquist noted the board supports a bill in Congress from Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., extending funding through the rest of the year (see 2401100056). But Congress hasn’t approved funding and ISPs are sending customers letters about the program’s possible end, Hallquist said. “We are nearing the time when State action may be required to ensure Vermonters do not suffer from the inaction of Congress. Whether this action requires a temporary, or a more permanent fix, remains to be seen.”

Florida House members unanimously approved a bill requiring age verification for pornography websites. Lawmakers voted 119-0 Wednesday to send HB-3 to the Senate. House members supported the bill in committee hearings (see 2401170061 and 2401110044). Earlier Wednesday, Florida's House passed a bill (HB-1) restricting children younger than 16 from using social media regardless of parental consent (see 2401240079). The Computer & Communications Industry Association condemned HB-1 after the vote. “Legislation like this violates federal law and positions the government to block access to legal information online -- a Constitutional right even younger users do have,” said CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender.

West Virginia will suspend its telecom relay service (TRS) fee on customer bills, effective May 1, the Public Service Commission decided Wednesday. “The fund is generating adequate revenue to pay the monthly charges incurred by TRS users,” the PSC order said. “It is unlikely the fund will be exhausted in the foreseeable future.” PSC staff said last week that West Virginia could fund relay services for 20 years even if it reduced the TRS fee to zero (see 2401190013).

Wisconsin's lower chamber supported prohibiting caller ID spoofing Thursday. On a voice vote, the Assembly concurred with the Senate-passed SB-531, while tabling the similar AB-559. The Senate bill still requires approval from Gov. Tony Evers (D). It would bar knowing transmission of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information through a call or text with intention to defraud or steal anything of value. Also, the bill would bar phone solicitors from blocking caller ID transmission. It would allow solicitors to transmit the name and phone number of the seller they represent, as well as authorized law enforcement activities. Violators could pay $100 to $10,000 penalties.

Indiana lawmakers may address social media legislation next year, Senate Commerce Committee members said at a livestreamed hearing Thursday. The panel heard testimony but didn’t vote on SB-201, which would require that social media companies verify a user's age and obtain parental consent before a minor can open accounts. Also, the bill would require smartphone makers to activate content filters by default for minors. Sponsor Sen. Spencer Deery (R) hopes to continue the conversation and “find something that we can come back next year with … that will enter Indiana into this space,” he said as the hearing wrapped. Likewise, Committee Chair Brian Buchanan (R) said “this is something I want to continue discussion on and possibly bring back next year.” Buchanan seeks a balance between keeping kids safe and maintaining parental rights, he said. Content filter mandates and social media restrictions for minors are unconstitutional, Edward Longe, director-technology and innovation for free-market think tank James Madison Institute, argued. "Content filters represent a one-size-fits-all government solution to a problem that has already been resolved by the market,” he said. “There is no age restriction to the First Amendment.” Rather than restrict minors, it’s better to require online media literacy training, as in a 2023 Florida law, he told the committee. Longe didn’t mention that Florida House members Wednesday passed a bill restricting children younger than 16 from using social media regardless of parental consent (see 2401240079). Deery doesn’t want Indiana to ban kids from social media but rather give parents power to consent, said the Republican: Literacy training alone won’t cut it. The Computer & Communications Industry Association opposed SB-201 in written testimony. “While CCIA strongly supports the overall goal of keeping children safe online, requiring a state-specific default filter is technologically infeasible and would create unobtainable expectations with regard to content that filters can reasonably block.”

The South Carolina House passed a bill clarifying that satellite TV and streaming video fall outside cable franchise fees. Lawmakers in the lower chamber voted 115-0 Wednesday to concur with Senate amendments to H-3782. The Senate approved it last week (see 2401190021). The bill next needs a signature from Gov. Henry McMaster (R).