The FTC should deny a petition for a right-to-repair rulemaking because the proposal would chill innovation and undermine market-based solutions, tech and telecom groups told the agency in comments due Friday (see 2401040020). U.S. Public Interest Research Group and iFixit filed a petition in November for an FTC rulemaking seeking rules making independent repair easier and more widely available.

Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman Chris Van Hollen, Md.; Sen. Ed Markey, Mass.; and Rep. Grace Meng, N.Y., led a Friday letter with 64 other congressional Democrats supporting the FCC’s proposal permitting schools and libraries to use E-rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hot spots and wireless internet services (see 2311090028). CTIA endorsed the NPRM in comments filed with the FCC last week, while other industry groups questioned whether the FCC has authority under the Communications Act to expand the E-rate program as proposed (see 2401300063). “This proposal properly recognizes that learning now extends beyond the physical premises of school buildings,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote in the letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “When a sixth grader is completing a homework assignment through an online educational platform or a ninth grader is attending class through a video conferencing application, they are clearly engaged in educational activities.” The Communications Act gives the FCC “flexibility to structure and strengthen the E-Rate program as educational conditions change,” the lawmakers said: “With millions of students at risk of losing internet access at home” should Congress not appropriate additional money for the FCC’s affordable connectivity program before its initial $14.2 billion allocation runs out in April (see 2402010075), “we are glad to see the FCC exercising this authority and modernizing the E-Rate program, and we encourage the Commission to provide schools and libraries with the flexibility to adapt their programs to local conditions while continuing to effectively guard against fraud and waste.” Other Democrats signing the letter included Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Doris Matsui of California. On the other hand, House Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, oppose the E-rate NPRM (see 2309270069). The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition praised the Democratic lawmakers for backing the proposal.

A state bill forcing privatization of a municipal broadband network in Frankfort, Kentucky, could debut shortly, Frankfort Plant Board (FPB) officials said in interviews. FPB is fighting the legislation, which is expected to be written by state Sen. Gex Williams (R). The bill, if and when it's introduced, would be part of a trend of industry attacks on muni broadband, said Gigi Sohn, American Association for Public Broadband (AAPB) executive director. Some argue private investment is superior to public broadband, while others believe certain conditions prevent making a true comparison between municipal and private networks. Still others think a municipal network is appropriate only in areas where private companies opt out.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D) sent more than a dozen violation notices under the state’s comprehensive consumer privacy law in the six months since it took effect July 1, 2023, the AG office reported Thursday. Businesses get 60 days to cure violations upon receiving a notice under the state law. “We have focused on key aspects of the law related to privacy policies, sensitive data and teens’ data,” said the report. “While many companies have taken prompt steps to address issues flagged in cure notices … all matters have resulted in additional follow-up.” The AG office issued 10 cure notices about privacy policy deficiencies, including missing, inadequate or confusing disclosures and missing, burdensome or broken opt-out mechanisms, it said. “Several companies updated privacy policies and/or consumer rights mechanisms quickly upon receiving cure notices.” But some didn’t fully alleviate the AG’s concerns, or their privacy disclosures raised new questions about compliance with other parts of the law, it said. “This process is an iterative one and only time will tell which companies fully satisfy our concerns and which matters will ultimately require more formal enforcement action.” The office received more than 30 consumer complaints, it said. “Many involved consumers’ attempts to exercise new data rights under the CTDPA, and primarily, the ‘right to delete.’” However, about one-third of the complaints involved data or entities exempted by the state privacy law, the AG office said. “A handful of others were exempt for other reasons, including under the CTDPA’s exemption for ‘publicly available information.’” The AG office recommended that legislators revise the law to scale back the number of entity-level exemptions, including one for nonprofits. Also, switch to a data-level rather than entity-level exemption for the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, it said. Among its other recommendations: Enact a “one-stop-shop” deletion mechanism like California’s 2023 Delete Act (see 2309150063); add a right to know specific third parties that receive data from covered businesses; expand biometric data to include data capable of being linked to a consumer like in Oregon’s law; and clarify whether the legislature intended to ban targeted advertising to teens regardless of consent, and review possibly erroneous language on publicly available information.

The California Public Utilities Commission must ensure a smooth transition from a pilot to a permanent California LifeLine foster youth program, commenters said Tuesday in docket R.20-02-008. The CPUC may consider a Jan. 10 proposed decision to make the program permanent at its Feb. 15 meeting. However, the proposal doesn't address how pilot program participants will receive service after the proposed permanent program replaces it July 31, said T-Mobile, the pilot’s service provider. The permanent program would use other service providers. "Due to confidentiality concerns with foster youth, T-Mobile has no direct contractual relationship with any of the youth nor does it know their identities,” the carrier said. "T-Mobile simply has no way -- or authority -- to continue to provide service after July 31, 2024.” The pilot’s administrator iFoster said the CPUC should allow foster youth to continue receiving pilot program services for a year after the pilot ends “to encourage continuation of service and reimbursement of the current service.” Otherwise, the transition could result in inadvertently cutting off service to the pilot's 11,700 participants, it warned. Also, iFoster raised concerns that the proposed decision wouldn’t require data-sharing agreements with counties before transferring pilot program data to the new administrator. Without them, iFoster can’t transfer pilot data, it said. Also, the CPUC should allow foster youth to participate in the program until they are 26, iFoster said. The CPUC proposal would end benefits at 18, or 21 if the youth is in extended foster care. “Foster youth are extremely vulnerable once they leave the foster youth system” and will need a phone to apply for jobs, college or government benefits, iFoster said. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) urged the CPUC to clarify that it will own all data from the program. Also, establishing that the agency “will enter contracts and data sharing agreements for the permanent program will prevent the need to re-negotiate those agreements any time the [third-party administrator] changes, which would reduce transition time and enhance program continuity,” TURN said. The CPUC should require providers to replace mobile devices at no cost, it added. "Foster youth can change placement frequently, sometimes with little advance notice, so there is a risk of losing devices when they move.”

Challenges are rolling into some states charged with distributing billions from NTIA’s broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, officials said during a Broadband Breakfast webinar Wednesday. Several officials said their states will be ready to start processes to dispute unserved or underserved locations as soon as NTIA approves volume one of their BEAD proposals. "A successful challenge process underpins the credibility of any state's entire BEAD program,” Kansas Office of Broadband Development Director Jade Piros de Carvalho said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) backed bills on kids’ privacy and social media addiction, the AG office said Monday. SB-976 by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D) would provide social media controls for parents, including the ability to decide whether their children see a chronological news feed or one based on an algorithm, the current default. Also, the bill would let parents stop social media notifications and block access to platforms overnight and during the school day. AB-1949 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D) would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to stop businesses from collecting, using, sharing or selling personal data of anyone younger than 18, unless they get consent or if it’s absolutely needed for the business’ purpose. Parents would have to provide consent for users younger than 13. “Social media companies have shown us time and time again that for profits, they are willing to harness addictive content to target a vulnerable population: our children,” said Bonta. The bill was rebuked by NetChoice, which last year won a preliminary injunction against California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Act (see 2309190006). “These are the same harmful ideas recycled from California’s AADC,” said NetChoice General Counsel Carl Szabo. “Rather than violate the Constitution, annihilate privacy, and force the government control of families,” California policymakers should craft proposals educating “parents and kids and imprison[ing] predators.”

Public housing broadband grant recipients should provide free service without government subsidies, the California Public Utilities Commission could soon clarify. The CPUC may vote March 7 on a proposed decision that would adopt changes to the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband public housing account and tribal technical assistance program (docket R.20-08-021). Responding to some commenters’ questions about the public housing program’s no-cost broadband obligation (see 2312140034), the CPUC would clarify that "the Commission’s intent is for BPHA grant recipients to provide broadband service at no cost to residents of the low-income community, without public purpose subsidies or other funding, which is consistent with our determination in Resolution T-17775 that ‘no cost’ means unsubsidized service that is free to customers.” The CPUC rejected a cable industry challenge to that resolution in September, affirming that service the affordable connectivity program subsidizes doesn’t count as free (see 2309010006). In general, the CPUC’s possible changes to the broadband public housing account “expand eligibility for non-publicly supported housing developments and for project costs to facilitate deployment of broadband networks in low-income communities that lack access to free broadband service that meets state standards,” the proposed decision said Monday. Changes to the tribal technical assistance program would align it with the local agency technical assistance program, the CPUC added. In a separate proceeding on utility service affordability (docket 18-07-006), the California Broadband and Video Association warned the CPUC not to expand the proceeding's focus beyond gas, water and electric. ISPs aren’t public utilities, the state cable association said Thursday. “The broadband marketplace continues to be marked by extensive and rapidly increasing competition across a variety of technologies and platforms, which disciplines prices and improves affordability without regulatory price controls.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced an “investigative sweep” of streaming services and devices, alleging they don't comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (CCPA) opt-out requirements for businesses that sell or share personal information of consumers, said a Friday news release. The investigation covers services that don’t offer an easy way for consumers to stop the sale of their data, said the release. The CCPA “secures increased privacy rights for California consumers,” including the right to know how businesses collect, share and disclose their personal information, it said. Under the CCPA’s right to opt out, businesses that sell personal data or share personal information for targeted advertising must give consumers the right to opt out, it said. Exercising that right “should be easy and involve minimal steps,” it added. Consumers using a smart TV should be able to navigate to the settings menu in a streaming service’s mobile app and enable the “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” setting, it said. Consumers’ preference to opt out should be “honored across different devices if they are logged into their account when they send their opt-out request." In addition, consumers should “easily encounter” a streaming service’s privacy policy with their CCPA rights, it said.

California should allow low-income consumers to apply for the state's LifeLine program without providing the last four digits of their social security numbers, consumer advocates told the California Public Utilities Commission Friday. The CPUC last month sought comments about expanding the program for those without SSNs (see 2312200019). Lifeline providers said they would consider it if the state makes up for a possible gap in federal funding and waives liability for incorrect enrollments.