Adam Bender

State senators in California advanced a bill that could mean ISPs no longer must provide free internet to receive public housing broadband grants. The California Senate Communications Committee voted 15-0 to clear SB-1383 at a livestreamed hearing Tuesday. Backed by the cable industry, the bill would remove restrictions included in the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) public housing account. If the bill is enacted, the grants could support projects with plans that charge as much as $30 monthly. Also, the bill would let more types of organizations apply for and expressly authorize the California Public Utilities Commission to award funds for range extenders and other network enhancers. The fund is currently underutilized, said bill sponsor and committee Chair Steven Bradford (D). “Multiple low-income housing providers” say that the account’s free internet condition “is a major deterrent” to applying for grants, he said. Requiring free broadband “is a major deterrent,” echoed Amanda Gualderama, California Broadband and Video Association director-legislative and regulatory advocacy. The CPUC last year denied the cable industry group’s petition to reconsider what counts as free broadband service as it doles out public housing grants (see 2309010006). Last month, the commission approved changes to the public housing account with a clarification that grant recipients should provide free service without government subsidies (see 2403080010).

Maryland could lighten the load for 911 call centers by letting AI handle nonemergency 311 calls, state Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D) said at a House Health and Government Operations Committee hearing Wednesday. Kagan urged the committee to approve her SB-1068, which would direct the Department of Information Technology to evaluate the feasibility of an AI-based, statewide 311 system and possibly launch a pilot. She estimated that about 80% of the calls received by Baltimore’s call center are nonemergency. AI could help answer 311 callers’ questions while controlling costs, she said. Some committee members asked about adding more guardrails to the bill to avoid possible AI problems like implicit bias. Kagan said she is open to amendments, though she said the department would consider those issues, and she doesn’t want to be too prescriptive with the bill. Committee Chair Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D) said the bill will go to a subcommittee for further discussion. Also at the hearing, the committee considered SB-974, which would establish a 25 cent monthly 988 fee on landline and mobile services. There would also be a 25 cent fee on each retail transaction for prepaid wireless. The bill mirrors HB-933, which previously passed the committee. The House voted 121-17 to pass HB-933 March 18.

A Maine privacy bill with strict data minimization standards is moving to the final stages. The joint Judiciary Committee voted 7-1 Tuesday evening to say that the Democratic caucus’ LD-1977 “ought to pass,” while rejecting a Republican alternative (LD-1973). A nuanced exemption for broadband providers, currently in LD-1977, could mean that the proposed law would still apply to mobile services provided by a company that’s covered by the state’s 2019 ISP privacy law, two consumer privacy advocates said Wednesday.

The Missouri Senate Commerce Committee supported extending the sunset date for the state’s 2018 small-cells law to Dec. 31, 2029, from Jan. 1, 2025. The committee voted 9-0 for SB-1411 at a livestreamed hearing Tuesday. The 2018 law preempted local governments on right of way in an effort to streamline 5G infrastructure deployment. The House has a similar bill, HB-1995. The Senate panel also heard testimony on HB-2057, which would explicitly exempt streaming content providers from paying video franchise fees. The House passed the bill Feb. 29 (see 2402290065). The Senate committee last month OK’d the Senate version, SB-947. Dish Network, DirecTV and Netflix lobbyists supported HB-2057, while the Missouri Municipal League and others representing cities opposed the measure. No regular constituents have ever testified for the bill, said Korein Tillery attorney Steve Berezney, who said he represented cities involved in litigation to collect fees from streamers. "This is something that is being pushed by the industry." Also at the Commerce Committee meeting, AT&T, Missouri Cable Telecommunications Association and other ISPs supported SB-1018, which would require the state or municipalities to reimburse internet and video service providers whenever they require them to relocate their infrastructure. Sponsor Sen. Justin Brown (R) proposed an amendment to match the bill’s language with the House’s HB-2056. At a meeting Monday, the House Fiscal Review Committee voted 7-0 to clear HB-2142, which would provide a tax deduction for broadband grant funds for 2022 and later tax years.

New Florida restrictions on kids' social media use can withstand First Amendment scrutiny, state government leaders stressed during a Monday news conference for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signing HB-3. Tech industry group NetChoice probably will sue "the day after this bill is signed," said House Speaker Paul Renner (R). "But you know what? We're going to beat them."

State enforcers of net neutrality report no legal actions against ISPs more than five years after the laws took effect. A Communications Daily public records request showed that Washington state’s attorney general's office received 21 complaints related to net neutrality since enacting its first law in March 2018, but most were resolved informally. Half the states with such laws told us they hadn’t received complaints.

Vermont could be the first state to include a private right of action in a comprehensive privacy bill. The Vermont House voted 139-0 Friday to approve H-121, which would allow individuals to sue in privacy cases and give the state's attorney general an enforcement role. The bill will go next to the Senate. Initially, the House Commerce Committee decided not to advance H-121 in 2023 after members determined it needed work (see 2304060060). But on Thursday, lawmakers amended the bill, teeing up H-121 for a Friday vote. The Commerce Committee considered privacy testimony for four years to draft a “protective but largely technology-and industry-neutral proposal,” Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said. The amended bill would align with privacy laws in Connecticut and many other states, taking some features from each, Priestley added. Some would be “unique to Vermont,” including the private right of action and restrictions on “how businesses may use data to what is consistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers,” she said. For the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the “private right of action is our main point of concern with the bill's current language,” said CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender: “The bill otherwise is largely harmonized with existing privacy frameworks” like Connecticut’s. Private rights of action in state laws such as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act “have resulted in plaintiffs advancing frivolous claims with little evidence of actual injury,” Boender said. No other comprehensive privacy bill has a broad private right of action, though the California Consumer Privacy Act has a narrower one, said Husch Blackwell privacy attorney David Stauss. Whether it survives the Vermont Senate is an open question, he said. "I certainly expect that there will be significant pushback."

The California Public Utilities Commission scolded Verizon Wireless in an order Thursday for its handling of a case of alleged customer fraud. The CPUC granted relief to a family of complainants through a 4-0 vote on a consent agenda during a Thursday meeting. Verizon could face further sanctions, the agency said. “During the course of this proceeding, Verizon failed to disclose material information concerning the porting and reassignment of at least one of Complainants’ mobile phone numbers,” said the draft decision in docket C.23-12-005. “This proceeding will remain open in order to explore an Order to Show Cause against Verizon for this material omission.” The complainants alleged that, without notice, Verizon terminated service to and locked their five iPhones and associated phone numbers for reasons of fraud. The customers said that, as a result, they had to buy five phones and suffered irreparable injury to their businesses because they couldn’t port their locked numbers to another carrier. Verizon asked to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because its agreement with customers requires arbitration. However, the CPUC said the arbitration clause doesn’t circumvent the commission’s authority. Also, the carrier argued that it may terminate customers’ phone services without notice under its agreement and in exigent circumstances. Verizon argued that it acted after determining that the customers committed fraud. The CPUC agreed that the carrier could terminate customers’ service, but was “not satisfied with the way Verizon's Fraud Department handled this case and the allegations against the Complainants.” Accordingly, the CPUC required that Verizon confidentially “submit a comprehensive report of the procedures and criteria used … to identify and accuse customers of fraud,” with “specific evidence that supported Verizon's claim that the Complainants in this case engaged in fraudulent activity.” Also, the CPUC said the customer agreement “does not authorize Verizon to lock a phone or lock a number associated with a mobile phone.” So, the agency required Verizon to unlock five iPhones and their associated numbers. In addition, the CPUC required the carrier to refund the customers the costs of three of the five locked phones, plus the five replacement phones they bought after their service was terminated. Verizon declined to comment.

The telecom industry continued to raise concerns about a Minnesota broadband safety and workforce bill. SF-4742 would set aside a portion of federal broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program funding for companies that agree to workforce “best practices” including payment of prevailing wages and annual skills training. At a livestreamed Wednesday meeting, the Minnesota Senate Energy Committee amended the bill and voted 8-6 to advance it to the Agriculture Committee. The committee delayed voting on the bill Monday after multiple senators and the telecom industry raised concerns that it would slow high-speed internet expansion (see 2403180048). Sponsor Sen. Jennifer McEwan (D) said she had “productive” talks with stakeholders during the previous 48 hours, leading to a Wednesday amendment with “more inclusive language.” There still isn't “perfect agreement," said McEwan, but talks will continue. The amendment doesn’t resolve the Minnesota Cable Communications Association’s concerns, testified the association’s counsel, Anthony Mendoza. Then "this bill still has more work to do," responded Sen. Andrew Mathews (R), who voted no on clearing the legislation. Sen. Glenn Gruenhagen (R) also opposed the bill, saying the state should have a “level playing field” when seeking grants. The Wireless ISP Association opposed SF-4742 in a Wednesday letter to the committee. The bill’s proposed changes to state broadband law “will significantly impair WISPA members’ ability to compete for grant dollars, will delay important broadband expansion projects, and will put increased strain on an already challenging workforce availability landscape,” the association wrote.

Lumen’s CenturyLink faced regulatory setbacks at multiple state commissions last week. On Friday, the Utah Public Service Commission denied a CenturyLink petition seeking statewide exemption from carrier of last resort (COLR) requirements for new customers. Earlier in the week, a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge recommended that the commission find the carrier failed to provide adequate service. In addition, the Montana PSC denied a CenturyLink petition and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission recommended a penalty.