Net Neutrality Passes California Senate Amid Legal Fears
The California Senate voted 23-12 to pass a net neutrality bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D) that was endorsed by former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. On the Senate floor Wednesday, one Democratic senator doubted SB-822 would hold up to legal scrutiny, but said he would vote for it anyway on principle. Republicans opposed the bill as harmful and illegal. In the lead-up to the vote, industry clashed with supporters of the FCC’s 2015 open internet rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
SB-822 must still be passed by the Assembly by Aug. 31 and receive the blessing of Gov. Jerry Brown (D). Assembly committee hearings start in June, Wiener's office said after the bill passed.
"Can we narrowly craft it enough to make it constitutionally permissible?” asked state Sen. Robert Hertzberg (D), saying litigation from ISPs seems inevitable. "If we're going to put this bill forward … let's do it in harmony with a case that we can win." SB-822 goes “a little too far” for Hertzberg, but passing it is “the right thing to do,” he said. “I can't vote against this bill, because the principle is so important.” Wiener said the bill “will withstand legal challenge and protect an open internet in California.” They and other Democrats agreed federal rules are better, but states must take a stand in the absence of federal will.
Republican state Sen. Pat Bates slammed the bill, saying it has “significant problems” including that it goes beyond the 2015 rules and leaves the state open to litigation. SB-822 undermines consumers and infrastructure investment and innovation, and ISPs will be held accountable by the state attorney general and the federal government, she said. State Sen. Ted Gaines (R) quoted a USTelecom statement as he opposed the bill as pre-empted by federal regulations. “This is something that’s regulated by the federal government, not the state of California,” he said.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation applauded passage, calling SB-822 "a gold standard" in net neutrality bills, in a tweet. Fight for the Future tweeted it's the "strongest state level" bill in the U.S., and Consumers Union agreed it's the "most comprehensive."
The California Cable & Telecommunications Association urged “no” on SB-822, in a Tuesday position paper shared with us. “While the members of CCTA are committed to providing an open Internet, we must oppose this proposal, which is inconsistent with the federal regulatory framework governing ISPs and would provide no benefit to the average broadband consumer,” the cable group said. “The real winners with SB 822 would be any large business today that, left unconstrained by network costs and obligations, sends huge amounts of Internet traffic that could potentially congest broadband networks.” Federal rules pre-empt state regulation of the internet, “an inherently interstate service,” CCTA added. “It would most likely result in unnecessary and costly litigation.”
Urging Californians to call senators, Hollywood actress Alyssa Milano tweeted, “Every California Senator should know they can't vote against #NetNeutrality just weeks before [President Donald] Trump's repeal goes into effect.” Ex-CableLabs CEO Paul Liao tweeted Wednesday, “If #SB822 bans paid prioritization, will we next forbid prepaid postage reply envelopes, 800 telephone services, and other consumer friendly practices?” Anticipating a big fight with ISPs, advocates rallied for California net neutrality legislation Tuesday (see 1805290051).
The Assembly voted 56-16 Tuesday to pass a bill requiring electronics manufacturers to include “reasonable” security measures on IoT and other connected devices. Manufacturers opposed AB-1906 at a committee hearing earlier this month because they said it exposed them to litigation (see 1805020024). That bill goes next to the state Senate.