Adam Bender

Comprehensive privacy legislation in Minnesota advanced in House and Senate committees Tuesday. In the morning, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously by voice to approve HF-2309 and send it to the State and Local Government Committee. In the afternoon, also on a voice vote, the Senate Commerce Committee approved SF-2915 after agreeing to harmonize its language with HF-2309. State Rep. Steve Elkins (D) said he based the House bill on a Washington state template that never became law there but that a dozen other states have since adopted. States should try to write similar laws in the absence of a federal law, which is unlikely soon, he said. One difference with other state laws is that Minnesota would include a section on automated decision-making, extending rights from the Fair Credit Reporting Act to other areas like employment and auto insurance, Elkins said. Minnesota’s bill lacks a private right of action and Elkins predicted a hefty fiscal note related to enforcement by the state attorney general. However, Elkins said the state AG office told him it can enforce the measure, if enacted. Elkins doesn’t expect any further substantive changes to the bill this session, he said.

Pole owners and attachers squabbled this week over who should pay for replacing poles. The New York Public Service Commission posted comments about the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) staff’s Dec. 18 white paper that recommends one-touch, make-ready for simple attachments and other ways to update pole-attachment rules to speed broadband deployment through infrastructure process updates. Raising safety concerns, electric companies urged the PSC to reject the DPS staff’s recommendation of halting the blanket prohibition of alternative pole-attachment methods.

A possible Florida ban on children using social media gained support in the state's Senate after lawmakers revised the proposal and included parental consent. Senators voted 30-5 for the measure Monday after Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Friday vetoed a previous bill (HB-1) that would have banned kids younger than 16 from having social media accounts, regardless of parental consent. However, tech industry groups and some Florida Democrats continue opposing the proposal that would require mandatory age verification.

Bipartisan support seems possible for a Minnesota bill that includes limits on social media, the House Commerce Committee’s lead Republican Rep. Tim O’Driscoll said during a livestreamed hearing Monday. The committee voted unanimously by voice to move the bill (HF-4400) to the Judiciary Committee. The measure, from Chair Zack Stephenson (D), would require more private settings by default on social media networks and for platforms to prioritize content that users prefer and perceive as high quality over posts that gain high engagement from other users. Also, the bill would set limits on how much users, especially new users, can engage with others on social media. Rep. Harry Niska (R) said he would support the measure, though he worries about the "constitutional thicket that we're stepping into." Minnesota should avoid regulating speech, said Niska, adding it might be good to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve NetChoice lawsuits against Texas and Florida social media laws. Also, Niska disagreed with the bill's inclusion of a private right of action; he favors leaving enforcement solely to the state attorney general. Stephenson aims to keep HF-4400 away from regulating content to avoid constitutional problems, he replied. Also, Stephenson conceded to having “mixed feelings” about the bill allowing private lawsuits and is open to talking more about that. The Chamber of Progress opposes the bill, which "would produce a worse online experience for residents of Minnesota and almost certainly fail in court,” said Robert Singleton, the tech industry group’s director-policy and public affairs for the western U.S. Among other concerns, imposing daily limits on user activity would restrict speech in violation of the First Amendment, the lobbyist said. The Computer & Communications Industry Association raised First Amendment and other concerns with HF-4400 in written testimony.

The Kansas House Telecom Committee considered if counties should be covered by broadband infrastructure rules like those that apply to cities. The panel heard support for HB-2806 from ISPs at a livestreamed meeting Thursday. HB-2806 would allow telecom, broadband and video service providers to "construct, maintain and operate poles, conduit, cable, switches” and other facilities in counties’ rights of way (ROW). It would require counties to apply ROW access and permit processes “in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner to all similarly situated providers." That would include fees, required documents for permit applications, permitting time frames and waiver options, the bill said. "No county shall create, enact or erect any discriminatory, unreasonable condition, requirement or barrier for entry into or use of the public right-of-way by a provider." Counties could assess fees for construction permits, excavation and inspection only for reimbursing "the county's reasonable, actual and verifiable costs of managing the public right-of-way,” it said. The bill would also let counties assess repair costs for provider-caused ROW damage and require providers to furnish performance bonds. "We all want to be treated the same [and] fairly,” said Cox Director-Government Affairs Megan Bottenberg. But some Kansas communities have offered benefits to some providers and not others, she said. The “equity-based bill” stops excessive county taxes on broadband while giving explicit authority to collect repair costs for damages and require bonds, said IdeaTek co-founder Daniel Friesen. A rural county once tried to charge his company an excessive $20,000 in permit fees, he said. Requiring counties to explain how their fees are based on cost could reduce litigation, he said. AT&T Kansas State Director Darin Miller supported the bill in written testimony. Kansas Association of Counties General Counsel Jay Hall wrote that the bill's rules for counties would differ slightly from those for cities. "This is particularly important given that HB 2806 would take this issue out of local hands and make it a statewide standard,” Hall said. “If the standard is statewide, should the requirements for cities and counties match?"

A fresh stab at creating a state net neutrality law met industry opposition this week. Connecticut’s joint General Law Committee held a hearing Thursday on a wide-ranging bill (SB-3) that would also require affordable broadband, ban junk fees, require streaming TV prorating and let consumers repair electronics. The legislature’s consumer protection bill “addresses inequities,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D).

Spreading high-speed internet will remain a key focus for the California Public Utilities Commission in the years ahead, CPUC President Alice Reynolds told Communications Daily during a wide-ranging Q&A. Reynolds addresses broadband funding, affordability issues, state USF and the FCC’s net neutrality rulemaking in written answers to our questions, lightly edited for length and clarity.

Sen. Joe Manchin told us Tuesday he supports Congress allocating funding for the FCC's affordable connectivity program (ACP). "The money's there," but congressional leaders must "get the bill on the floor," the West Virginia Democrat said after a speech at the NARUC meeting in Washington. Later, a NARUC panel said states should learn from Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) problems when setting rules for internet service providers to participate in the broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program.

NARUC’s Telecom Committee approved a proposed resolution Monday aimed at forestalling U.S. phone number exhaustion. Also during state utility regulators’ meeting in Washington, telecom industry officials urged state commissioners to join them in calling on Congress to renew funding for the affordable connectivity program (ACP). Another panel flagged pole attachment issues remaining after a December FCC order (see 2312130044).

An Ohio court can and should call Google Search a common carrier, the state argued Friday. "Ohio common carrier law needs no expansion … Google Search meets each and every criterion with no need to resort to the creative interpretation that Google proposes." In a separate opposition brief, Google protested that it’s nothing like a common carrier: "Google is not a 'dumb pipe' or 'mere conduit.' Ohio and Google responded to each other’s January cross-motions for summary judgment in case 21-CV-H-06-0274 at the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County (see 2401260074). Reply briefs are due March 15 and trial is set for Sept. 3 under the court’s schedule. Judge James Schuck refused to dismiss Ohio’s lawsuit in May 2022, ruling that Ohio “stated a cognizable claim” that Google could be a common carrier (see 2205260057). The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supported the company in a Thursday amicus brief, arguing that Ohio’s attempt to regulate the search company would be “anti-business.” Concerns about how a big tech company participates in public discourse "provide no basis for making a novel exception to well-established common carrier tenets,” wrote the chamber.