California Net Neutrality Bill Clears Committee Amid GOP, Industry Rancor
A California Senate committee supported net neutrality legislation in a 7-2 vote that split on partisan lines at the first major state hearing for such a bill. The net neutrality bill (SB-460) by California Senate President Kevin De León (D) would require providers to follow net neutrality rules like those rescinded last month by the FCC. Industry said providers aren't doing anything wrong and warned that SB-460 would take years to implement and likely will be challenged.
Many states will act on net neutrality to fill the federal void, predicted De León: “This is just the beginning.” The Senate president accepted technical amendments to make the bill more consistent with 2015 FCC rules. "Millions of Americans of every income level and political persuasion depend on a free and open internet for their livelihoods,” said De León, who is running for U.S. Senate this year in a primary against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D). "Without strong net neutrality rules, there's nothing to stop companies that already monopolize internet from blocking websites or information altogether.”
Two Republican state senators voted against the bill, one abstained and a fourth was absent. “I don’t see where there’s a problem,” said Sen. Mike Morrell (R), one of the no votes. Sen. Andy Vidak (R) said he’s against the bill because he supports “free and open markets.”
De León said he would develop the bill with Sen. Scott Wiener, another Democrat, who introduced a separate net neutrality bill (SB-822) that would regulate business practices to require net neutrality and condition state contracts on adhering to net neutrality, as well as require the policy as part of cable franchise agreements and as a condition for using a right of way (see 1801030023). "Until federal government gets it together,” said Wiener, “we have to do it at a state level.” The state senator said he’s committed to reaching bill language that can withstand legal challenge.
Wiener voiced “serious reservations” about giving the California Public Utilities Commission authority over net neutrality rules, as proposed by De León's bill. The state commission lacks expertise, moves slowly and has too much work already, said Wiener and some other committee members. De León said he won’t be an “apologist” for the CPUC, but the new powers are lighter than traditional utility ratemaking. The bill “simply” directs the PUC to “establish a series of new consumer protections,” he said.
The bill will bring “costly litigation” and “market uncertainty” to California, warned California Cable & Telecommunications Association President Carolyn McIntyre. CCTA supports an open internet, but giving the CPUC "authority to develop rules governing internet services is contrary to federal law, is pre-empted by federal law and is simply bad policy,” McIntyre said. The FCC "clearly prohibited states from regulating the internet," an interstate service, she said. The internet “got to where it was because of policies” like the FCC’s December order, said CTIA California Government Affairs Counsel Steve Carlson.
The bill would cause a procedural “quagmire, which will hurt the California economy,” warned AT&T California Vice President-Legislative Affairs Bill Devine. It would take CPUC years to implement the bill, he said. “Once that is done, those regulations will be challenged both by federal pre-emption as well as litigation.” Other opponents at the hearing included Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, Frontier Communications and the National Diversity Coalition.
Companies’ union workers in Communications Workers of America supported the bill, as did The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and several other consumer groups. The repealed 2015 FCC decision was "grounded in an extensive record" and upheld by a federal appeals court, said TURN Telecommunications Director Regina Costa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports state net neutrality actions but shares concerns about putting the CPUC in charge, said EFF lobbyist Samantha Corbin.
State lawmakers have introduced or promised bills and resolutions in more than 10 states (see 1712210034). While Democrats are behind many of the bills, Republican state Rep. Norma Smith introduced HB-2284 in Washington state with five Republican and 29 Democratic co-sponsors. A Washington House committee Thursday set a Jan. 18 hearing on that bill and a separate net neutrality proposal by Rep. Drew Hansen (D). Missouri and Rhode Island lawmakers introduced bills earlier this week (see 1801100021) and a District of Columbia Council committee plans Jan. 24 to hold a hearing on a resolution opposing the FCC repeal.
Illinois senators urged national net neutrality protections in two resolutions introduced Wednesday, SR-1117 and SR-1196. The latter urges Congress and President Donald Trump “to advocate for the permanent adoption of net neutrality rules that keep the Internet free and open, allowing all of us to share and access information of our choosing without interference from big utility companies.” A South Carolina House member Thursday introduced a bill (HB-4614) requiring net neutrality.