A top California communications lawmaker pushed back on industry opposition to a bill that would require $30 affordable internet plans as a condition of receiving California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) infrastructure grants. The Assembly Communications Committee voted 8-2, with two Republicans voting no, to advance SB-424 at a Wednesday hearing. In addition, the committee voted 10-0 for bills that set broadband labor standards (SB-1460) and expand eligibility for CASF public housing broadband grants (SB-1383). All three pieces of legislation, previously passed by the Senate, will go to the Appropriations Committee.

A California Senate panel scaled back what the California Public Utilities Commission could require from cable companies under a proposed update of the state’s 2006 video franchise law, known as the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA). At a hearing webcast Monday, the Senate Communications Committee voted 12-4 to approve the Assembly-passed AB-1826 with amendments. The Senate committee delayed receiving testimony on an Assembly-passed equity bill (AB-2239) that would ban digital discrimination as defined by the FCC (see 2405230012).

The ISP petitioners’ consolidated motion to stay the FCC’s net neutrality order (see 2406110073) “attempts to replay the same legal challenges they ran unsuccessfully in 2015,” said the commission's opposition Tuesday in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (dockets 24.7000, 24.3449, 24.3450, 24.3497, 24.3504, 24.3507, 24.3508, 24.3510, 24.3511, 24.3517, 24.3519, 24.3538).

Granting the FCC’s motion to transfer the consolidated challenges to the commission’s net neutrality order to the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit would “subvert” Congress’ preference for “dispersed regulatory challenges rather than specialized courts,” CTIA, USTelecom and eight other groups told the 6th Circuit in a joint opposition brief Monday (dockets 24-7000, 24-3449, 24-3450, 24-3497, 24-3507, 24-3508, 24-3510, 24-3511, 24-3517, 24-3519).

New York state’s affordable internet law won’t be enforced for now, ISP associations said Monday. The industry groups won’t file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc of a 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision upholding New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act, according to a Friday letter to the court from ACA Connects, CTIA, NTCA, USTelecom and the New York State Telecommunications Association. The 2nd Circuit ruled in April that federal law doesn’t preempt the 2021 New York law requiring $15 monthly plans with 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households (see 2404260051). The 2nd Circuit issued its mandate on that decision Monday. While Friday’s letter to the court didn’t say why ISPs wouldn’t seek rehearing, the industry groups previously told the court they were working toward an agreement with the state that would make a rehearing petition unnecessary (see 2406060038). In a joint statement Monday, the associations said they agreed not to seek rehearing because Attorney General Letitia James (D) agreed to “suspend enforcement of this law while the courts consider the litigation in this case.” The ISP groups said they “continue to support state and federal measures that foster broadband affordability without requiring rate regulation.” While the groups won’t seek rehearing by the 2nd Circuit, they could still seek U.S. Supreme Court review by the end of July. However, the industry groups expect a 6th Circuit ruling before that deadline -- possibly in the next three weeks -- on the FCC’s order reclassifying broadband as a Title II service, said an industry lawyer involved in the appeals process. The 6th Circuit ruling would affect how ISPs proceed on their challenge to the New York law because the 2nd Circuit decision was based on broadband as Title I, the lawyer said. If the 6th Circuit stays the FCC order, preserving a Title I world, industry would likely appeal the 2nd Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, the source said. However, if there isn’t a stay and the Title II order takes effect, industry could instead file a fresh lawsuit at the district court challenging the New York law under the Title II regime, the attorney said. AG James agreed not to enforce the state law until Aug. 21 or 14 days after a potential 6th Circuit stay of the FCC order, the attorney said. New York’s AG office referred us to the New York Public Service Commission for comment. However, a PSC spokesperson said the commission doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

State lawmakers may be more inclined to pursue broadband affordability policies in the wake of recent FCC and court rulings as well as last month's ending of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP), multiple telecom experts said last week. Connecticut Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D) told Communications Daily he hopes “these developments will lead to stronger support in 2025” for an affordable broadband proposal that failed this year. However, some anticipate ISPs will likely object, and fiscal constraints could limit states' efforts.

Industry commenters urged the FCC to avoid imposing additional outage reporting requirements. Reply comments to a January Further NPRM (see 2401250064) were filed this week in docket 21-346.

A coalition of industry groups asked the FCC to modify its process for assigning costs to broadband serviceable locations (BSL) as part of the adjustment process for the enhanced alternative connect America cost model (E-ACAM) program. In a letter Wednesday in docket 10-90, the ACAM Broadband Coalition, NTCA, USTelecom and WTA asked the commission to use the "model-provided cost of a nearby BSL in the E-ACAM company’s study area to assign a cost to an uncosted BSL." The groups said the proposed adjustment "provides an equitable, simple to administer means to address" BSLs in the latest version of the broadband serviceable location fabric compared with the version used in the first ACAM program.

CTIA, the Ohio Telecom Association, USTelecom, NCTA, the Wireless ISP Association and other ISP groups asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to stay the FCC’s net neutrality order (see 2406100044). The FCC wants to move the case to the D.C. Circuit and has declined to stay the order, which takes effect July 22. The agency “has asserted total authority over how Americans access the Internet,” according to a joint motion filed Monday (docket 24-3450). “That is not hyperbole,” the groups said. The order “is only the latest jolt in a decade of regulatory whiplash for ISPs,” the associations said. After nearly 20 years of a light-touch approach to regulating the internet, in 2015 the FCC asserted for the first time authority over high-speed internet access service under Title II of the Communications Act, the filing said: Before the U.S. Supreme Court “could weigh in, a new Administration reverted to the traditional light-touch approach. Now, after another change in Administration, the Commission is back to a heavy hand, promising to make even more aggressive use of its claimed powers.” The court should stay “the latest flip-flop pending judicial review” since “petitioners are overwhelmingly likely to succeed on the merits,” the ISPs said. They argue that the order should be rejected under the Supreme Court’s evolving major questions doctrine. “Because the Commission cannot point to clear congressional authorization for applying common-carrier regulation to the Internet, the Order is unlawful,” they said.

The FCC urged the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court Friday to move the challenge to the FCC’s net neutrality order to the D.C. Circuit (docket 24-3450). The FCC also issued an order declining to stay the rules, which take effect July 22, pending judicial review.