Maryland House Passes Net Neutrality, ISP Privacy as Alaska Grapples With Issue

The Maryland bill heads next to the Senate Rules Committee, then the Finance Committee, and must be passed by Monday when the legislature adjourns, emailed Elaine Hovell, chief of staff to sponsor Del. Bill Frick (D). Frick, the House majority leader, expects enough support in the similarly Democratic-majority Senate to pass the bill, but support from Republican Gov. Larry Hogan isn’t a sure thing, especially given the strongly partisan divide on the House floor, the aide said. Based on Wednesday’s vote, lawmakers might have votes to override possible veto in a special session, she said.

Hogan “is a free thinker on many things and not a pure [President Donald] Trump guy,” said National Regulatory Research Institute Telecommunications Principal Sherry Lichtenberg, predicting the governor would sign the bill if it passes. Hogan hasn’t stated a position on net neutrality or ISP privacy, but he’s running for re-election in November and that might affect his decision, said Randolph May, president of the Maryland-based Free State Foundation: “I’d like to see him veto the bill.” Hogan didn't comment.

“Disappointed that virtually every Republican in the Maryland House of Delegates just voted against internet privacy and #NetNeutrality,” co-sponsor Del. Kirill Reznik (D) tweeted from the House floor. “Still passed with a supermajority thanks to #Maryland #Democrats.”

Alaska

Alaska’s net neutrality bill is getting flak from industry. It claims the state has special geographic circumstances.

The bill pending in the House would require broadband providers to disclose network management practices and ban them from blocking or impairing internet access, doing paid prioritization or unreasonably disadvantaging a user’s ability to choose internet content or an edge provider’s ability to provide content. HB-277 would allow the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) to waive the ban “if a utility demonstrates that the preferential traffic management would benefit the public interest and would not negatively affect the open nature of Internet in the state.”

“Alaska's unique geography makes it even more important to ensure providers have the flexibility to provide appropriate network management ability because we are often providing bandwidth for state of the art ‎applications over limited capacity networks,” Alaska Telephone Association Executive Director Christine O’Connor emailed. ATA members “do not block, throttle or discriminate against traffic based on content,” and support federal but not state legislation, she said.

“Broadband is indisputably an interstate service, and nothing about Alaska’s geography changes that,” a GCI spokeswoman emailed. “We are very concerned that state legislation -- however well-intentioned -- will actually impede our ability to advance ongoing efforts to meet Alaska’s broadband needs and possibly even disrupt reasonable measures that ensure schools, hospitals and public safety entities have adequate broadband access to meet the needs of the remote communities they serve.” The carrier is committed to an open internet, she said.

It’s unclear what about the geography would require special flexibility for managing networks beyond what’s in HB-277 and the original net neutrality rules, Lichtenberg emailed. “The bill allows ‘reasonable network management’ so long as it is disclosed and doesn’t ‘advantage’ or ‘disadvantage’ any specific group or application.” Its allowance of commission waivers adds flexibility, she said.

Overseeing net neutrality could be challenging for the RCA, O’Connor said at the commission’s March 28 meeting (transcript). Network management is a “living tool” with providers “constantly assessing what your end users are requiring from the network, what services they need so that their experience on the end, the deliverable, works,” the ATA official said. “I can’t actually picture what it would look like to have the commission involved in that because it is quickly changing. … You would need a lot of experts.”

The bill is likely to create costs for the commission and ISPs, if enacted, RCA Commissioner Rebecca Pauli said at last week’s meeting. “Falling back to the [soundbites] of here’s why it won’t work won’t help us deal with the reality that this is going to be crammed down our throat. ... I’m just afraid that a lot of the underlying duties may get pushed into this office.” The agency wouldn’t likely “actively engage in network management practices” under the bill, said RCA Administrative Law Judge Richard Gazaway, disagreeing with O’Connor. “We would basically be an enforcement arm and would draw up regulations to guide the process.”

The commission was to further discuss the bill Wednesday, but postponed the item and others until April 11 because it didn’t have a quorum, a spokeswoman said. The House Finance Committee was set to have heard HB-277 later Wednesday.

Washington was the first state to enact a net neutrality law. An Oregon bill awaits signature of Gov. Kate Brown (D). California and Hawaii bills appear close to final legislative votes, and many other states also have bills. State laws are expected to bring litigation from industry, with USTelecom saying it would “aggressively challenge” state efforts (see 1803260024 and 1803230041).