States March Forward on Net Neutrality, ISP Privacy, Small Cells

The Washington state panel scheduled a Jan. 25 vote on the net neutrality bills. State Reps. Drew Hansen (D) and Norma Smith (R) said they’re merging their HB-2282 and HB-2284. “The differences are evaporating,” Hansen said. One difference is that Hansen’s bill gives a private right of action, whereas Smith’s assigns enforcement to the state attorney general, the lawmakers said. Hansen and Smith agreed the bill won’t give a role to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, which Hansen said was “not enthusiastic” about participating. California lawmakers similarly discarded an initial plan to involve state commissioners in net neutrality legislation (see 1801180056).

Washington's ISP privacy bill should be renamed the "Erasing the Partisan Divide bill," Committee Chairman Jeff Morris (D) remarked after both parties supported the state rules. “Yes, indeed,” responded Smith. The House last year passed Hansen’s HB-2200 three times with bipartisan votes, but it was never taken up by the then GOP-controlled Senate that’s now in Democratic hands. The latest version is like last year’s bill, but bipartisan talks with the telecom industry led to adding a trigger that would cancel the law if the same rules take effect at the federal level, Hansen said.

Industry supported a third bill meant to spur 5G deployment by pre-empting local government authority in the right of way. Rates for small cells in the right of way remain the main area of contention between industry and local governments on HB-2592, said Morris, the state bill’s sponsor. Verizon saw “great progress” with municipalities on two other issues -- access to the right of way and streamlining permitting, said Milt Doumit, Verizon vice president-Washington state government affairs.

Industry Resists

Industry sees no need for state net neutrality and ISP privacy rules because the FTC will protect consumers and many ISPs have stated they won’t violate the principles, CTIA and other industry officials said at Thursday's hearing. But lawmakers and a state official voiced doubts.

Industry should like Washington's net neutrality proposal better than what was repealed at the FCC, Smith said. Industry’s “primary issue was Title II,” the Republican said. The Washington state bill is four pages, whereas “industry was looking at nearly 400 pages of overregulation at the federal level,” she said.

State ISP privacy rules wouldn’t be needed if industry were clearer about personal data use, Smith said. “In that little 2-by-2 box to determine whether I agree -- behind that 2-by-2 box are 98 pages of legalese. … If you want to opt out, you have to click a link and there’s another 27 pages,” she said. “Never before in commerce, other than some horrific examples, has there been such one-sided commerce that’s taking place. … We need from industry a reasonable alternative or you’re going to keep seeing bills like this come from states.”

“It seems illogical to me that you would oppose something if you don’t do it,” Rep. Richard DeBolt (R) said about the net neutrality bills. Rep. Mike Steele (R) said he wants to assuage industry concerns about the ISP privacy bill, but his constituents “want something that goes even further than this bill.”

One Republican member asked what’s wrong with network management. Taxing highways “never stops the common guy from getting to work,” said Rep. Jesse Young (R), voicing worries about federal pre-emption and costly litigation.

Morris asked if funding would be sufficient to cover the AG’s legal costs of enforcing net neutrality rules. The bill sponsors said they will talk about it, but Hansen said he doesn’t expect high legal costs because ISPs operated under the federal net neutrality rules for two years.

"FTC jurisdiction is not a panacea” because the agency is political, said Alex Alben, chief privacy officer for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D). “Resting every hope of privacy enforcement on the FTC in a Trump administration is a bad idea.” Alben supported putting into law a “floor” based on industry’s promises.

Other State Developments

The Massachusetts Senate established a special committee on net neutrality to review the FCC’s Dec. 14 order by a 39-0 vote Thursday. By April 13, the committee must make recommendations including possible legislation “with the goal of protecting Massachusetts consumers,” said SB-2263 by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Cynthia Creem (D). She will lead the committee of five Democrats and two Republicans. One member, Sen. Barbara L’Italien (D), previously filed a net neutrality bill (see 1712220031). The first hearing is Feb. 6, with invited witnesses including state Attorney General Maura Healey (D), consumer groups and industry, a Creem spokeswoman said.

Oklahoma Sen. Anastasia Pittman (D) proposed requiring net neutrality in state contracts. SB-1543, pre-filed Thursday ahead of the legislative session starting Feb. 5, bans state agencies from contracting with ISPs that violate net neutrality principles. The bill also would create a $250 million revolving loan fund for municipal broadband that would be administered by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Oklahoma state Sen. Greg Treat (R) floated a small-cells bill (SB-1388), joining the similar SB-1146 introduced last week by another senator (see 1801180013).

Small cells surfaced in a New York state budget bill by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) introduced Thursday in both legislative chambers (A-09508 and S-07508). They would amend the general municipal law to speed deployment and require cost-based fees.