Wiener Asks to Kill His Net Neutrality Bill After Committee ‘Mutilated’ California Proposal

“I don’t accept the committee amendment,” said Wiener at the start of the livestreamed hearing. Santiago said it’s fine to vote on committee changes before hearing testimony, prompting Wiener to reply, “How is that appropriate?” Wiener complained that the committee posted the amendments in a bill analysis released at 10 p.m. PDT Tuesday.

Wiener wanted the committee to adopt a different amendment to harmonize SB-822 and a related bill, SB-460 (see 1806180013). The committee amendment gutted his bill, cherry picking the 2015 rules and turning SB-822 into a “fake net neutrality bill,” he said. The amended bill provides a loophole allowing ISPs to violate net neutrality rules at point of interconnection, he said. The committee didn’t consider SB-460 because sponsor Sen. Kevin de Leon (D) didn’t appear.

The vote was “not an end to the conversation,” Santiago replied, saying he wants California to pass a net neutrality bill, too. Later, Wiener asked to withdraw the bill. Santiago didn’t respond to the first request, but when Wiener repeated his desire to withdraw, the chairman said he believes Wiener never wanted to have any debate or take the committee’s input. “I’m disappointed that you’re doing this,” said Santiago, saying he and Wiener stayed up late Tuesday and resumed talks early Wednesday morning. “It’s a bit unfair to assume that this committee should not have input.” Santiago advised Wiener not to make the bill a “martyr,” to which Wiener replied, “This is about actually protecting net neutrality.”

The committee sought to move the bill forward anyway after Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D) volunteered to carry the bill if Wiener wouldn’t. Assemblymember Evan Low (D) supported keeping the bill alive: “If you withdraw your bill, there is nothing.” The panel voted 7-2 on that motion.

The Greenlining Institute, California CLECs and other 2015 rules supporters condemned the committee edits at the hearing. Many California residents waiting in line to support the bill opposed the edits and said the committee process disgusted them. Provider officials continued to oppose the bill even after the amendment, including Frontier, Verizon, Comcast, Charter and T-Mobile. A TechNet official said the group may be neutral after the change.

The Wiener bill that passed the state Senate is “too extreme,” went beyond the 2015 rules and would act as a deployment barrier, testified AT&T lobbyist Bill Devine. The Obama-era rules didn’t prohibit interconnection agreements or zero rating like Wiener’s original bill, Devine said. AT&T doesn’t violate net neutrality principles, he said. Requiring state agencies to add net neutrality conditions in ISP contracts will add “complexity and litigation” delaying procurement processes, he said. The California Cable & Telecommunications Association supports federal not state-by-state rules that will be pre-empted, said CCTA President Carolyn McIntyre.

"Forty million Californians just saw eight of their legislators eviscerate a crucial bill to protect a free and open internet," said Demand Progress Campaign Director Robert Cruickshank. Santiago, "California’s version of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai," and other members "prioritized AT&T and Comcast’s greed and campaign cash above the urgent need for net neutrality rules." Consumer Union finds it “deeply disheartening that -- once again -- the voices of millions of consumers calling for net neutrality protections were drowned out by industry influence," said senior policy counsel Jonathan Schwantes. "It’s difficult to succinctly name the numerous, diverse stakeholders that supported this legislation, compared to the short list of internet providers and telecom giants who worked tirelessly to defeat this legislation with poisonous amendments like those passed today."

CALinnovates is "studying the effects of the amendments on consumers, but the bottom line hasn’t changed; state-specific legislation continues to be the wrong approach," said Executive Director Mike Montgomery. CALinnovates is an advocacy group with partners including AT&T and Uber. "The back-and-forth legal and legislative posturing continues unabated, which won’t stop until Congress awakens from its two-decade slumber and affirmatively passes bipartisan legislation."

SB-822 supporters voiced fears Tuesday that Santiago might weaken net neutrality protections at the behest of big ISPs. The Electronic Frontier Foundation blogged that it “expressed concerns that lawmakers in Sacramento would be fooled into removing some of the strongest provisions designed to protect low-income Internet users after an intense lobbying campaign by AT&T.” The committee didn’t comment on the charges.

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) urged Santiago to accept the California Senate bills, in a Monday letter: “Maintain all of the comprehensive protections in SB 822 to ensure that California citizens, not the companies we pay to get online, are able to decide which apps, services and websites they use.”

In New York, Assembly members voted 109-36 Tuesday to pass a net neutrality bill (A-8882) that restricts state procurement and 128-13 to pass an ISP privacy measure (A-7191) that would prohibit disclosure of personally identifiable information by an ISP without express written consent from the consumer. Democrats control the Assembly 150-104. With the Senate deadlocked between parties, Assembly and Senate members sponsoring net neutrality bills say clearing the Senate could be tough (see 1805240043 and 1805310050).