Virginia Lawmakers Advance Bills Against Muni Broadband, SLAPP
The Virginia House passed local broadband restrictions and free-speech protections in floor votes Tuesday. The House voted 72-24 to pass HB-2108, a bill supported by telecom providers but condemned by local governments, big tech companies and community broadband advocates. Also, the House voted 74-23 to pass HB-1941, a bill to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Both bills now move to the state Senate. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who threatened to veto an earlier version of the muni-broadband bill, didn’t comment on the pared-back version passed by the House.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association applauded House member​s for sharing concerns “about the need for transparency in these municipal operations to ensure that residents know how their tax dollars are being spent,” VCTA President Ray LaMura emailed us. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance slammed state legislators for passing the muni-broadband bill by Del. Kathy Byron (R). “Once again, we see a state legislature prioritizing the anti-competitive instincts of a few telephone companies over the need for more investment and the desire for more choices in rural communities across their state,” emailed ILSR Community Broadband Networks Director Christopher Mitchell.
Byron was disappointed by the negative reaction from community broadband supporters, she said in floor remarks Monday. She promised that the Broadband Advisory Council, which is chaired by Byron and includes industry and government officials, will hold public hearings throughout the year to discuss other proposals cut from the bill. “What remains is the core purpose of the legislation -- and that’s requiring transparency with taxpayer resources,” Byron said. The bill doesn’t stop local government from continuing what they’re already operating or intend to build, nor does it stop them from providing broadband to schools, government, businesses or residents, she said. And it doesn’t reveal trade secrets or proprietary information, she said.
Virginia taxpayers lost $80 million when the Bristol Virginia Utility Authority mismanaged funds, resulting in criminal convictions, Byron said, citing a state auditor report earlier this year. “We have since learned of other projects across the country that had failed because of some of the hidden problems with government-operated networks: Penetration rates are overestimated. Revenues earned are lower than expected. And operating costs ... are almost always underestimated.” The Taxpayers Protection Alliance highlighted the Bristol authority and other projects the group claimed to be failures in a map released Tuesday. “We are a bit concerned about the removal of language of unserved areas but we believe that the bill would be an important step forward in transparency and oversight of muni broadband systems,” President David Williams emailed.
It’s incorrect to assume all municipal networks use taxpayer dollars, Mitchell said. Some do, but many do not, he emailed: “They borrow money from private investors and repay the money using revenues from the network.” For example, a municipal fiber network in Danville, Virginia, doesn’t use any taxpayer funds, he said. Mitchell condemned the Taxpayers Protection Alliance map as containing “utter lies,” including a false statement that Tennessee's Chattanooga muni broadband network failed to create thousands of jobs.
Mitchell voiced optimism that the Byron bill can be stopped: “I'm hoping that the Senate will be more focused on rural Virginia's needs than the House, which I think [is] possible because a fair amount of the House support came from deference to Delegate Byron.”
Under the anti-SLAPP legislation passed Tuesday, a person would be immune from a claim of defamation based only on statements made by that person “regarding matters of public concern that are communicated to a third party.” The bill defines such subjects as “matters of interest to the community, which are written or spoken statements relating to (i) an issue properly before a governing body; (ii) an issue reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review by a governing body; or (iii) a good, product, or service in the marketplace.”
The bill “protects constituents’ free speech from frivolous lawsuits intended to censor or intimidate or silence critics,” Del. Terry Kilgore (R) said Monday on the House floor. For example, it would stop lawsuits against people leaving bad reviews for restaurants on Yelp, he said. While the anti-SLAPP bill could be worded more strongly, the Center for Democracy and Technology sees it as a "good step," a CDT spokesman said.