DC AG Writing Net Neutrality Bill as New York Takes Executive Action
District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine will propose net neutrality legislation to the D.C. Council, an AG office official said Wednesday at a Council Government Operations Committee roundtable on a resolution condemning the FCC’s December decision to rescind Communications Act Title II protections. D.C. interim Chief Technology Officer Barney Krucoff and Public Service Commission Chairman Betty Ann Kane also supported the resolution, though Kane noted the PSC can’t regulate broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers or the internet.
Meanwhile, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed an executive order Wednesday directing state agencies not to contract with ISPs that don't agree to follow net neutrality principles. It directs the Department of Public Service to weigh possible actions to promote net neutrality. Another California Senate panel cleared a net neutrality bill and net neutrality legislation surfaced in Tennessee.
Racine supports legislation to require ISP transparency about network management practices and using D.C. procurement power to require net neutrality in state contracts, Assistant AG-Consumer Protection Ben Wiseman said. Racine is part of state AGs' lawsuit against the FCC. The federal decision was "a direct attack on the free exchange of ideas and equal access to the internet," Wiseman said.
Committee Chairman Brandon Todd (D) "would certainly love to see what their proposal is," he said in an interview. "Net neutrality is something that we're going to have to address. ... We'll have to look at a number of approaches to figure out what works best for D.C." During the hearing, Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (D) slammed the FCC action as a "true threat to our democracy."
The District’s government internet service DC-Net will ask for net neutrality in future contracts with upstream providers, said Krucoff. It's possible the CTO office would have to pay more to get such a condition, he said. State regulatory commissioners nationwide support an open internet, said Kane, longtime member of NARUC’s Telecom Committee. The proposed resolution is consistent with three NARUC resolutions, she said.
The Council should reconsider a 2008 law removing all remaining authority states had under federal law to regulate broadband and BIAS providers, Kane said. The District isn’t pre-empted from ensuring universal service, she said, but unless it revises D.C. Code, “the District will no longer be able to collaborate with the federal Lifeline service program to offer combined federal and state financial support for voice and BIAS Lifeline services in December 2021.” The FCC is shifting Lifeline to broadband support on that date, she said.
ISPs support an open internet but Title II isn't the correct legal framework, said USTelecom Senior Vice President Jonathan Banks. He touted AT&T’s Wednesday “internet bill of rights” (see 1801240047). Congress should be the one to act, said Internet Innovation Alliance co-Chair Kim Keenan. She's more concerned about FCC actions that might threaten Lifeline support for low-income households.
Witnesses for universities and consumer groups backed the D.C. resolution. "Everything [colleges] do will cost more," said Jon Fansmith, American Council on Education director-government relations. The FCC decision was "ludicrous to the point of dereliction of duty," said American University professor Aram Sinnreich. International Human Rights Clinic Director Arturo Carrillo urged the Council to invoke government procurement and consumer protection powers to require neutrality. Consumers should have a private right to action for neutrality complaints, he said.
State Action
With New York's executive order, "we reaffirm our commitment to freedom and democracy and help ensure that the internet remains free and open to all," Cuomo announced. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) took similar executive action earlier this week (see 1801220050). The FCC declined comment.
"These governors are doing what the FCC chose not to do -- listening to consumers who overwhelmingly support net neutrality rules -- and sending a strong message to internet service providers looking to do business in their states," said Consumers Union Senior Policy Counsel Jonathan Schwantes. Free State Foundation President Randolph May said the FCC could pre-empt the executive orders: "The practical effect of the governors’ actions is to frustrate … the federal policy that information services not be subject to public utility-like regulatory mandates."
The California Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-2, with nays from Republicans, on the California Senate leader's SB-460. It was earlier on the Senate floor but got referred to the committee, so Wednesday's vote brings the measure back to the floor. Senate President Kevin de León (D) stressed he removed all references to the California Public Utilities Commission from the bill, as promised (see 1801180056), and is committed to incorporating more feedback as the bill moves forward.
Net neutrality bills by Tennessee state Democrats Sen. Lee Harris and Rep. John Clemmons appeared Wednesday in the General Assembly (SB-1756 and HB-1755). The bills would direct the Public Utility Commission to create rules banning broadband ISPs from blocking content, degrading traffic, engaging in paid prioritization or interfering with customer access or edge provider provision of content applications, services or devices. They would require ISP transparency about network management practices. Virginia and Vermont recently joined the growing number of states with net neutrality bills (see 1801220013 and 1801190025).