Adam Bender

Connecticut will be the fifth state with a comprehensive privacy law, but a Louisiana privacy bill, after clearing the House Commerce Committee earlier this week, met a possible hurdle after the House sent it down to another committee. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed SB-6 by Sen. James Maroney (D) Tuesday. The legislature passed the bill last month (see 2204290036) and the law will take effect July 1, 2023, the same day as Colorado’s privacy law. Maroney is "thrilled" Lamont signed his bill, he said Wednesday in a statement: "In our increasingly connected world, these rights are ever more important." Connecticut’s privacy law is “certainly one of the stronger bills” and “advances the conversation for privacy law in this country,” unlike the more business-friendly Utah law passed earlier this year, said Husch Blackwell attorney David Stauss, who participated in meetings to develop the Connecticut bill. It continues a trend of states, including Colorado and Virginia, passing bills based on the yet-to-be passed Washington Privacy Act, rather than on California’s law, he said in an interview. Consistency so far among state privacy bills may lessen chances of federal legislation “because you’re not getting a lot of interoperability concerns,” Stauss said. “You certainly have differences between these bills,” but “we have yet to come across a situation in which you can either comply with one state or another state.” Consumer Reports Director-Consumer Privacy Justin Brookman said Connecticut’s law isn’t “perfect, but it's definitely one of the stronger laws that have been passed.” CR was concerned after Utah’s law “that companies would be pushing for similarly weak laws, so it was important to see a stronger law pass soon after Utah,” he said. The Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee will vote on HB-987 Tuesday said Chairman John Stefanski (R) at a livestreamed hearing Wednesday. The bill at first was similar to Utah’s bill but Microsoft-backed amendments added consumer protections that raised issues for TechNet members (see 2205090037). “I know there is some concern,” said Stefanski, saying he wants to “see if we can’t ease those concerns between now and the next meeting.” Sponsor Rep. Daryl Deshotel (R) said he was surprised to hear Tuesday from groups that hadn’t previously weighed in.

The California Public Utilities Commission would break the law if it extended landline service-quality rules to VoIP, broadband or wireless, the telecom industry warned in comments filed Monday on a rulemaking sought by consumer advocates to update telecom service-quality standards and enforcement (see 2203170072). AT&T suggested the commission instead slash regulations for plain old telephone services (POTS). Consumer, small business and workers’ union advocates supported extending the rules.

Some bristled at a Louisiana legislator proposing changes to a sweeping privacy bill on the Friday before a Monday legislative hearing. The House Commerce Committee cleared HB-987 by voice with Microsoft-backed amendments. Committee members from both parties listed issues they want addressed as the bill moves to the floor.

Open internet supporters cheered ISPs dropping their challenge of California’s net neutrality law. National telecom associations indicated Wednesday they won’t appeal to the Supreme Court after the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear their case (see 2204200061). Whether states may regulate broadband might still not be settled. Some opponents of state net neutrality laws said to watch out for the 2nd Circuit to perhaps differ on federal preemption questions.

Industry urged California’s fledgling privacy agency to narrow the scope of automated decision-making (ADM) protections under the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). On the first of three days scheduled for virtual stakeholder sessions, multiple tech groups Wednesday urged the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to focus regulation on fully automated systems that could have “legal or similarly significant effects” for consumers. A consumer privacy advocate said that’s too narrow, and others urged CPPA to specifically tackle unfair bias and discrimination.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Federal judges pushed attorneys into overtime at an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals oral argument Thursday on tech companies’ challenge to Florida’s social media law. Asking the most questions by far, Judge Kevin Newsom dug into Florida’s arguments for why the state may regulate social networks. However, Judge Ed Carnes seemed to dismiss looking at Florida’s motivations through lawmaker and governor statements.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission could set broadband service standards, under a bill considered Wednesday by the state's House Commerce Committee. The panel heard testimony but didn’t vote on HF-4455 at a webcast hearing. Republicans said the market is competitive and disagreed with increasing regulation. Communications Workers of America, which is pushing a model bill in multiple states to give utility commissions more authority, supported the bill (see 2104120051).

Reject cable opposition to a digital equity bill that would require the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt rules on equal access to broadband, said former California Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco (D) Tuesday. The Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB-2753 to the Appropriations Committee later at the livestreamed hearing. “The cable industry has a place and is a stakeholder,” but “we are facing incredible disproportionate impacts in our local communities,” said Polanco, representing the California Emerging Technology Fund. “The data is very clear that there is a red line” in broadband deployment, he said. California Cable and Telecommunications Association Vice President-Governmental Affairs Bernie Orozco responded, “No one has done more for broadband deployment and adoption than the cable industry.” Polanco’s redlining claims are “upsetting,” he said. “I would love to see the studies that show that there is redlining.” CCTA says AB-2753 could lead to much litigation and duplicates existing FCC and CPUC proceedings (see 2204070028). Incumbent ISP opposition is typical, said committee Chair Mark Stone (D). "The providers cannot sit there and say we're doing everything when in fact they've been for years blocking a lot of these efforts to truly get broadband where it’s needed the most."

The Oklahoma USF (OUSF) administrator expects to seek a 34% increase to the connections-based surcharge, to about $1.53, said Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) Telecom Coordinator Mark Argenbright at a virtual workshop Tuesday. Increased support is needed to fulfill demand from transferring remaining support in the former high-cost fund to OUSF, increased demand for primary OUSF support, and an ongoing funding deficit for previously granted support, said a document displayed at the meeting. Oklahoma implemented connections-based contribution in November. Other states that adopted the method have had unstable surcharges, and the possible Oklahoma increase might show the same happening here, said Director-State Regulatory Benjamin Aron. If the OCC had kept a revenue-based method, the surcharge would have jumped to more than 17%, from about 6.3% before the commission shifted to connections, noted Argenbright. The OCC aims to propose statutory language to shift OUSF’s mission to broadband in time for the 2023 legislative session, he said. It’s an odd time to repurpose USF for broadband, considering so much federal money is flowing into the state, said Aron. It seems premature to talk about writing a OUSF bill to support broadband without a better understanding of what will happen with federal dollars, agreed Bill Bullard, attorney for Consolidated Communications and other rural LECs. The OUSF administrator is "sensitive" to other sources of broadband funding and gets that coordination will be needed with the newly formed state broadband council, said Argenbright: Talks to develop an OUSF revamp bill should continue.

Connecticut pole owners and users sought some changes to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s one-touch, make-ready proposal, in Monday exceptions filed before a hearing scheduled for Friday. PURA proposed FCC-like state rules earlier this month (see 2204120044). "While adopting OTMR is a positive development that will surely speed broadband deployment throughout Connecticut, another step is needed,” said CTIA in docket 19-01-52RE01. “The Authority should adopt self-help provisions for wireless attachments." Otherwise, PURA “runs the considerable risk of having to reopen this docket yet again if it finds that its solution to landline deployment delays has given rise to delayed wireless deployment,” CTIA said. The New England Cable and Telecommunications Association (NECTA) asked PURA to clarify “cost sharing to ensure that pole owners do not improperly delay correction of code violations or pole maintenance work required for the pole owners’ and single pole administrators’ (SPAs) own service requirements, resulting in unnecessary broadband deployment delays and unfair cost shifting to attachers.” Also, make clear that attachers have pre- and post-complaint discovery rights like under the FCC regime, “shorten the timeline for claims arising from denials or delays of access to facilities,” and “clarify that an existing attacher has a right to move its own facilities before OTMR work commences,” NECTA said. Several groups, including NECTA, Crown Castle and two Connecticut agencies, separately urged PURA to allow a field-side attachment process called “boxing.” The Office of Consumer Counsel and Department of Energy and Environmental Protection wrote, “Limiting this practice could result in inhibiting competition and higher construction costs, reducing the ability to serve the Connecticut consumers that currently have no access to broadband." Continuing to raise safety and collective bargaining issues, Communications Workers of America urged PURA to delay OTMR implementation “until after the conclusion of a thorough formal investigation of the safety issues and concerns." Eversource Energy urged PURA to give parties a reasonable amount of time to implement OTMR. Don't fine United Illuminating for a third party's failure to comply with the order, UI said.