Localities are gearing up to sue Ohio unless lawmakers remove a proposed ban on municipal broadband that the Senate added to the state budget without hearings. A conference committee is expected to say in coming days if the amendment added this month will make the final budget that both chambers must pass and Gov. Mike DeWine (R) must sign by month’s end. The proposed ban could force existing muni providers to sell their businesses, said local officials in interviews last week.
Adam Bender
Adam Bender, Senior Editor, is the state and local telecommunications reporter for Communications Daily, where he also has covered Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. He has won awards for his Warren Communications News reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists, Specialized Information Publishers Association and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. Bender studied print journalism at American University and is the author of dystopian science-fiction novels. You can follow Bender at WatchAdam.blog and @WatchAdam on Twitter.
The Maine legislature passed a video franchise bill Thursday after the House amended it to remove language that would have defined video service providers as public utilities. The bill (LD-920) passed 21-13 in the Senate and 83-60 in the House and goes next to Gov. Janet Mills (D). The original reason for the utility definition was to enable the Public Utilities Commission to assess the necessary fee to cover franchise oversight, sponsor Rep. Christopher Kessler (D) told us. “The PUC says that the changes in the amendment will still enable them to assess that fee solely for the franchise oversight, which is in conformity with the federal Cable Act.” The amendment also clarifies “that we are only requiring that video service providers pay for the cost of equipment used to manage or deliver signal to that provider,” emailed Kessler. “There is no ‘gold plated’ equipment being allowed for purposes beyond sending and receiving their video.” Small towns “have been outgunned when it comes to the terms and enforcement of the provisions of their franchise agreements,” added Kessler. “This bill gives those towns the legal support they need, which is well within the legal authority granted to us under the Cable Act.” The office of Mills, who had intervened to seek changes (see 2106110067), didn’t comment Friday.
A small-cells bill is advancing in the New Jersey Legislature. The Senate Economic Growth Committee voted 5-0 for an amended S-2674 at a livestreamed Tuesday hearing, while the Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. to take another look at its chamber’s version (A-1116). The New Jersey State League of Municipalities remains neutral and the New Jersey Urban Mayors Association (NJUMA) slammed the bills.
The California Privacy Protection Agency is “eager to get started,” Chair Jennifer Urban said at the first meeting of the agency created by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). “The CPPA will be an independent agency." Meeting virtually Monday, the board discussed hiring an executive director and other positions, and heard presentations on the Open Meeting and Administrative Procedure acts (see meeting materials). The state law requires the CPPA to complete a rulemaking to develop final regulations for enforcement by July 1, 2022. The other four board members are listed in the personals section of the March 19 issue. More than half of California voters supported CPRA in November's election (see 2011040033).
There's no need to update Michigan pole attachment rules as ExteNet seeks, commented electric utilities Thursday in Public Service Commission docket U-20980. The PSC's “light-touch regulation of the rates, terms and conditions of pole attachments through tariffs and complaint proceedings has worked remarkably well,” with no disputes between pole owners and attachers in 14 years, commented Indiana Michigan Power: Don’t adopt “rigid, inflexible, burdensome, one-size-fits-all pole attachment regulations.” The utility doesn’t oppose the PSC clarifying jurisdictional issues including that it has authority over wireless attachments, and would support increasing the uniform statewide rate for attachments that was set in 1997. DTE said “ExteNet provides few relevant facts or commitments to serve the people of Michigan, and no demonstrations of actual access concerns or need for the dramatic pole attachment overhaul it seeks.” Consumers Energy agreed. Since Michigan recently adopted a small-cells law, the PSC “should resist the suggestion of” pursuing “policy end goals not provided by the Legislature,” warned the Michigan Electric Cooperative Association. Relying on “tariffs and agreements of individual pole owners is not in compliance with Federal Law,” commented ExteNet, urging the PSC to adopt FCC pole-attachment rules. CTIA said the FCC rules “have proven fair and effective in promoting deployment in both the states in which the FCC maintains jurisdiction over pole attachments (approximately half) and the number of other states that have adopted either the FCC’s rules or ones substantially similar.” While cable companies and pole owners “may be able to coordinate efficient and effective pole access without regulations and specific tariff requirements, the predictability of the approach followed by the FCC and other certified states ensures timely access in addition to equity and non-discrimination among attaching entities,” commented the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association. Harmonizing with FCC rules would clarify jurisdictional confusion, said Crown Castle. PSC staff said the commission might want to clarify timelines for resolving disputes (see 2106100030).
A Maine video franchise bill hit a roadblock Thursday due to gubernatorial intervention, sponsor Rep. Chris Kessler (D) told us. Industry opposes LD-920, which would call IPTV operators utilities and raise minimum franchise fees, but the attorney general office says it’s defensible (see 2105130022). “The bill was supposed to hit the floor” Thursday, “but has been tabled while the Governor's administration finds a ‘compromise,’” Kessler emailed. It will likely be brought back to the floor this week, he said. Gov. Janet Mills (D) didn’t comment Friday. One bill opponent said it’s not involved in any negotiations. “We have lots of concerns with regard to LD 920 but frankly once it came out of committee as an Ought To Pass we became less interested because our only realistic option ... is just to not offer IPTV in Maine,” emailed Telecommunications Association of Maine Executive Director Ben Sanborn.
New York may not start enforcing a state broadband law requiring $15 monthly low-income plans that was to go into effect Tuesday, a federal judge ruled (in Pacer) Friday. ISPs challenging the state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) are likely to succeed on conflict and field preemption arguments, ruled Judge Denis Hurley of U.S. District Court in Central Islip, New York. ISPs showed imminent, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest favor keeping the status quo, he said. The decision counters recent rulings in California net neutrality and Maine ISP privacy cases where courts said states aren’t preempted.
Florida should prepare to list “every decision by any court anywhere” saying that a private entity must comply “with the obligations the First Amendment places on a public actor,” said Judge Robert Hinkle at a teleconferenced scheduling hearing Thursday at U.S. District Court in Tallahassee (case 4:21-cv-00220). Florida is “on the side of free speech,” said Blaine Winship, representing Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R): Internet industry groups are “not.” Oral argument on the groups’ motion for preliminary injunction against Florida’s social media law (see 2106040045) will be videoconferenced June 28 at 1:30 p.m., ruled Hinkle despite defendants seeking more time. Hinkle plans to rule before the law takes effect July 1, he said. Florida must file a written response to plaintiffs’ motion by June 21, and industry groups may reply June 24, Hinkle said. While making their case for more time, Florida’s lawyers told the court the state promised not enforce the law before Aug. 1, or later go back and prosecute anything that happened in July. Hinkle asked why Florida needed more than a couple of weeks to put together a defense: “Didn't you put the facts together before you got to the statute?”
A Rhode Island net neutrality bill is headed to the full Senate. The Commerce Committee voted 6-1 for SB-342 with technical changes at a hybrid hearing Thursday. Similar measures passed the Senate in 2018 and 2019, stalling in the House (see 2104290077). The Senate could vote as soon as Tuesday, SB-342 sponsor Sen. Louis DiPalma (D) told us. DiPalma expects it to get “overwhelming support as it has in the past.” He's “cautiously optimistic” about passing the bill in the House, which has a different speaker from the previous years when the bill died; the session ends June 30. DiPalma would welcome a federal law that supersedes this: Even if the FCC reverses its past net neutrality decision, it’s important to write the policy into law.
Colorado could soon become the third state with a comprehensive privacy law. Senators voted 34-0 Tuesday to concur with House amendments to SB-190. The House passed the bill 57-7 Monday. The Senate kept House changes including language clarifying that nothing in the law provides for a private right of action. The bill goes next to Gov. Jared Polis (D), whose office didn’t comment now. Polis is widely expected to sign, particularly given the wide voting margins in the House and Senate, said Ballard Spahr privacy attorney Greg Szewczyk in an interview. SB-190 follows Virginia’s model with much of the same terminology and big-picture requirements, so having Colorado as the third state law probably won’t significantly complicate U.S. privacy rules, he said. Unlike Virginia, but as in California, Colorado’s attorney general would have to make rules implementing the bill, he said: “As to how difficult compliance is going to be, that may have a significant impact.” One big difference with Virginia is that Colorado would allow enforcement by district attorneys in addition to the AG, Szewczyk noted. Colorado’s law is “a mixed bag” that lawmakers should seek to strengthen in future years, Common Sense Media Director-State Advocacy Joseph Jerome told us: “I don’t think it’s anybody’s dream privacy law, but ... it’s certainly a marked improvement over what was able to pass out of Virginia earlier this year.” DAs joining enforcement could be useful, he said. SB-190 has good parts, including requiring companies to honor browser privacy signals as an opt-out, but “the bill needs to be stronger to fully protect consumers, including by tightening up potential loopholes for targeted advertising, and clarifying that consumers can’t be charged for exercising their privacy rights,” emailed Consumer Reports Senior Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney. Computer and Communications Industry Association Privacy Counsel Keir Lamont said “the prospect of an increasingly divergent set of state-level compliance obligations further underscores the need for federal action to establish baseline privacy rules.”