A Florida bill requiring social media literacy training in public schools cleared the Senate Education Committee in a bipartisan 11-0 vote Tuesday. The state should educate kids on “the addictive nature of social media,” said SB-52 sponsor Sen. Daniel Burgess (R) at the livestreamed meeting. A substitute amendment adopted Tuesday refines the bill to ensure kids’ social media use is focused on career development and sharing information with families and friends, said Burgess: It won’t prevent class-specific uses of social media, such as a career-building class that teaches how to use LinkedIn. Co-sponsor Sen. Rosalind Osgood (D) said the bill is much needed. When she was on a school board, Osgood saw “all the trauma that young people endure because of social media,” she said. "We can't just leave our children alone with their phones.” She later added, “We have to train [children] just like before we give them a car. ... We missed that step with social media.” Sen. Erin Grall (R) said the final bill should ensure social media curriculum keeps up to date and that only age-appropriate content is shared to kids of different ages “so we're not introducing traumatic topics prematurely.” Saying he remains open to suggestions, Burgess agreed reviews should be mandatory to keep educational content current. The bill will help students make “correct use of social media,” and understand its downsides, said Sen. Shev Jones (D), noting he would like to co-sponsor the measure.
Nebraska senators debated shifting broadband responsibilities to the state’s department of transportation (DOT) from the Public Service Commission. Some senators at Tuesday's livestreamed hearing questioned the need to change who handles mapping and distributing federal support from NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. Nebraska PSC Chairman Dan Watermeier (R), officially testifying as neutral on the bill, cautioned that the BEAD program has strict deadlines the state must move quickly to meet. Any proposed transition may require NTIA approval, he said.
An Oregon bill to regulate data brokers advanced through the House Business and Labor Committee in a 10-1 vote Monday. Also at the livestreamed hearing, state telecom groups opposed an anti-robocalls bill. The committee voted unanimously to amend the data broker bill (HB-2052) to clarify that an exemption for state and local governments includes public corporations. The amendment also made other technical fixes including to tweak the definition of “licensed” to align with Vermont’s data broker law. Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis voted no on the amended bill. The Republican said she opposed exempting government. Oregon DOJ Legislative Director Kimberly McCullough said she doesn’t think the government engages in data brokering. Another reason for the exemption is structural, said McCullough: It’s usually better to write separate laws for public and private sectors than to try to address them together. “If the government’s not involved in sharing that kind of data, then I’m not sure why they would be exempted in the first place,” responded Boshart Davis. Because the bill has fiscal impact, HB-2052 must go next to the Ways and Means Committee before getting a full House vote. The committee heard testimony but didn’t vote on the robocalls bill (HB-2759), which sponsor and committee Chairman Paul Holvey (D) said would give the Oregon attorney general the authority to hold accountable gateway telecom providers that pass along telemarketing calls from overseas. The bill also includes a private right of action. Oregon DOJ supports the bill, which aligns state law more closely with federal statute, said Deputy Legislative Director Kate Denison. Gateways providers are "actively choosing to ignore suspicious activity because carrying more calls equals more profit," she said. HB-2759 also got support from Oregon Consumer Justice and Oregon Public Interest Research Group. The Oregon Telecommunications Association (OTA) and Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association opposed the bill. OTA members aren’t telemarketing companies and don’t know who the telemarketers are, said Executive Vice President Brant Wolf. "This bill will hold us responsible for something we really can't avoid doing,” he said. "If a number is dialed, we have to complete the call.”
The California Privacy Protection Agency voted 4-0 to approve California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) rules Friday. Also at the virtual meeting, the agency agreed to seek comments on a proposed rulemaking on risk assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decision-making. The privacy agency’s executive director said in December the CPRA rules could take effect in April or later (see 2212160040). The statute took effect Jan. 1.
Securus failed to show that California’s interim cap on incarcerated person calling services (IPCS) intrastate rates must be set aside, the 2nd District California Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. The court affirmed the California Public Utilities Commission’s 2021 decision to provide interim relief by capping the rate at 7 cents per minute and banning ancillary fees.
Some business groups urged delay in enforcing Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) rules from July 1 when the comprehensive state law is to take effect. Staff for Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) presented an overview of proposed rules and took comments at a partially virtual rulemaking hearing Wednesday. Industry and consumer privacy advocates shared laundry lists of additional revisions they seek for a set of proposed rules now in its third draft.
A New Hampshire House committee Wednesday soundly defeated a bill to regulate social media. But in Kansas, state senators at another hearing the same day appeared largely supportive of a proposed bill that would restrict online platforms from editing or removing political speech. Many state legislators have floated measures to regulate or investigate social media this session while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear industry challenges to Texas and Florida laws from 2021 (see 2301230051).
State commissioners may consider draft telecom resolutions on the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and the agency’s spectrum auction authority at NARUC’s Feb. 12-15 meeting. NARUC distributed drafts Tuesday. The RDOF resolution by Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Chairman Gladys Brown Dutrieuille would address situations where the FCC rejected a bidder’s long-form application, as the agency did with SpaceX and LTD Broadband. The resolution would urge the FCC to make sure any proceeds won by the disqualified bidder for a specific area should remain in that jurisdiction. The draft notes “the underlying need for support … in those jurisdictions identified as eligible for the Auction 904 support will remain notwithstanding any final order of the FCC and the courts rejecting any bidder application.” The FCC should refer the matter to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to recommend procedures and requirements that would apply to RDOF support retained in those places, the draft said. Also, NARUC may consider a draft resolution by Nebraska Public Service Commissioner Tim Schram (R) that would urge Congress to extend the FCC’s auction authority beyond March. Divert some proceeds to state grants for next-generation 911 and the FCC’s “rip and replace” program that requires carriers receiving federal subsidies to remove equipment from Chinese vendors that may pose a security risk. Current 911 funding isn’t enough for NG-911 and some need more funding to start rip-and-replace projects, the draft notes.
Legislators in two western states weighed extensions Tuesday to state telecom subsidies. Small rural telcos testified at livestreamed hearings that high-cost support provided by the Colorado and Washington state programs remains vital. Meanwhile, an Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) state USF rulemaking could be imminent.
Virginia legislators cleared a children’s privacy bill Monday despite pleas from internet groups for them not to follow in California’s footsteps. Multiple state legislatures are weighing such bills in 2023 after last year’s passage of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, a state law that NetChoice is challenging in court (see 2212140063).