Net Neutrality Supporters Prepare to Run Gauntlet in California
California state legislators revealed amended net neutrality bills reflecting a deal among Democratic lawmakers (see 1807310038). Sponsor state Sens. Scott Wiener and Kevin de Leon said amendments restored provisions controversially removed in an Assembly committee. Supporters and opposition Wednesday seemed to hold positions they had on the original Senate-passed measure, though ISPs complained about not seeing the revised language sooner. Washington state saw no problems or lawsuits since it became first to enact comprehensive net neutrality rules, said state Rep. Drew Hansen (D) in an interview this week.
California lawmakers have until Aug. 31 to pass the amended SB-822 and SB-460, which aim to restore net neutrality protection rescinded by the FCC, and ban state contracts with ISPs that don’t follow rules. After the Assembly votes, the Senate must concur with the other chamber’s amendments, then Gov. Jerry Brown (D) would have 30 days to sign. SB-822 is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee while SB-460 is in the Communications and Conveyance Committee. SB-822 has support from ex-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (California) and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who's part of a state AG group suing the FCC over its December net neutrality revocation order.
“California can and should lead the way in restoring the net neutrality protections that were repealed by Donald Trump’s FCC,” Wiener said. California “will fight tirelessly to secure the strongest net neutrality protections in the nation, with or without Washington, D.C.,” said de Leon, running for U.S. Senate this November against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D).
The California bill is “99 percent the same” as the original supported by net neutrality advocates, said Ernesto Falcon, Electronic Frontier Foundation legislative counsel, in an interview. He noted that authors modified zero-rating requirements, allowing zero rating in application-agnostic ways if it’s not in exchange for monetary or other considerations by third parties, while banning zero rating of some but not other content, applications, services or devices in a given category.
“This bill remains a job killer and a threat to the pocketbook of California’s most at-risk consumers,” emailed Mike Montgomery, executive director of CALinnovates, an advocacy group with partners including AT&T and Uber. “Net neutrality is a federal issue and should revert back to Congress to create a meaningful, bipartisan law that protects every consumer across the nation for the long haul. SB 822’s one-state, piecemeal approach threatens to enrich California’s lobbyists and lawyers for years to come while leading to uncertainty, higher prices and far fewer jobs created.”
"One change that’s been made is to draw a distinction between fixed -- wireless or wireline -- and mobile Internet service," blogged Tellus Venture Associates President Steve Blum, a local government consultant. "At this point, the same rules would apply to both kinds of service. If it was done to limit the damage done by the inevitable court challenges, then it’s a good thing. It needs to be closely watched, though, to make sure that the change isn’t an invitation for the army of lobbyists fighting the bill to fiddle with it."
ISPs wanted to see the revised bills sooner and got no reply after asking to see new language in a July 24 letter to Wiener and Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D), California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA) President Carolyn McIntyre said Monday. “We question the decision to withhold the proposed legislative language from the very entities best equipped to assess whether the amendments will disrupt Internet innovation, make network management untenable, or harm consumers,” CCTA, AT&T, Verizon, CTIA and other industry groups wrote in the letter. Wiener’s office didn’t comment.
“It will be a fight right to the bitter end,” said Falcon, predicting ISP lobbyists will argue the bills will discourage network investment. The EFF official heard major ISPs are talking to the governor about a veto, and if Brown signs, industry probably will sue, he said. On the ISP complaint that revised language wasn’t released sooner, Falcon said it was because the legislature was on recess all of July. Also, there’s little in the revised legislation that’s new or wasn’t described by the authors at news conferences, he said.
Northwest Status Quo
Since Washington state enacted net neutrality rules, “we have seen nothing, which is exactly what we would hope to see because the whole point of the law is to maintain the net neutrality status quo,” said Hansen, who co-wrote the state law with a Republican legislator. “If we see consumers continuing to enjoy the free, open and neutral internet that they enjoy today, we will know we are doing our job.”
No one has sued the state yet, said Hansen. “It may indeed be the case that the overwhelming public support for net neutrality by Republicans and Democrats in multiple states has helped the industry recognize just how popular and useful these rules of the road are.” Washington’s experience showed bipartisan political support in both urban and rural areas, which could carry over to other states, he said.
Disclosure requirements under the Oregon net neutrality law take effect Jan. 1, said an Oregon Public Utilities Commission spokesperson. The PUC has two rulemakings to implement the law restricting state contracts to net neutral ISPs. AR-618 on the disclosure rules must be done by Dec. 31, AR-619 on other issues is expected to be done the same day but has no required deadline, the spokesperson said. Vermont enacted a similar net neutrality law, while six governors have issued executive orders restricting procurement.