The California Public Utilities Commission has it “backwards” in presuming that the carrier of last resort (COLR) remains necessary, Free State Foundation President Randolph May blogged Monday. The CPUC decided last week (see 2406200065) to open a proposed rulemaking that would update COLR regulations with “a rebuttable presumption that the COLR construct remains necessary, at least for certain individuals or communities in California.” May responded, “Given the undeniable change in the competitive landscape, driven by ongoing technological advancements … there should be a rebuttable presumption that the COLR construct remains unnecessary.”
Forcing tech platforms to pay for news content isn’t the right approach to protect local journalism, a Public Knowledge policy expert, an independent lawyer and a local news publisher executive said Monday. They spoke against proposals like the California Journalism Preservation Act, which will be considered at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday (see 2406120049). During a Computer & Communications Industry Association event, internet attorney Cathy Gellis said public discourse depends on access to information, and pay-for-news proposals reduce platforms’ incentives to share links. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has championed a federal bill requiring platforms to pay to carry news (see 2309010048); similar proposals are seen in Canada and Australia. In the U.S., these proposals create First Amendment issues and conflicts with copyright law, whose purpose is ensuring the public benefits from copyrighted material, Gellis said. Public Knowledge Policy Director Lisa Macpherson noted the Copyright Office previously argued against copyright solutions for news publishers facing financial hardship (see 2206300023). Lion Publishers Executive Director Chris Krewson, who represents more than 500 independent news publishers, said saving small news outlets isn’t a journalism issue but rather a small-business problem. He said his members benefit from exposure and link-sharing on social media. The better solution is legislation that helps media startups with costs related to healthcare, media liability insurance and technology, said Krewson. "The death of your local newspaper is not the death of local news," he said, defending his members' ability to produce content independently.
AT&T and other major carriers continue clashing over giving FirstNet access to the 4.9 GHz band. The Coalition for Emergency Response and Critical Infrastructure on Friday said AT&T is attempting "a massive and illegal spectrum grab" in trying to give FirstNet what is essentially exclusive control of the band. The move would take "valuable mid-band spectrum away from local public safety users," CERCI said. It said AT&T hasn't mentioned that FirstNet customers already have access to all the carrier's 5G spectrum. Assigning the spectrum to FirstNet is "a poorly crafted nesting doll of bad licensing and legal theories designed solely to benefit AT&T" and cut off public safety users, CERCI said. The organization was responding to a docket 07-100 filing Friday in which AT&T boasted Public Safety Spectrum Alliance (PSSA) support for assigning the 4.9 GHz band spectrum to FirstNet (see 2401190067). AT&T said there's broad public safety consensus that mid-band spectrum is needed to build out 5G and integrating the spectrum into the nationwide public safety broadband network will let FirstNet improve network speed and capacity for public safety. A freeze on new entrants into the band would protect incumbents and allow robust use of otherwise underutilized spectrum, it said. AT&T said claims that FirstNet access to the band would be a windfall to the carrier are a mischaracterization. Criticizing the PSSA proposal, the California Department of Transportation last week said that a nationwide license to FirstNet "will create extensive and irreparable problems for the public-safety community." CDOT said network providers that integrate commercial spectrum and commercial network components into public safety broadband networks could deny the band's use for public safety users under the PSSA proposal.
The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday denied AT&T relief from carrier of last resort obligations, while opening a rulemaking to take a fresh look at COLR rules. Also at its meeting, the CPUC approved broadband grants, acted on enforcement items and set annual budgets for the California Advanced Service Fund (CASF) and state video franchise law.
Vermont legislators failed to override a veto of the state's comprehensive privacy bill. Last week Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed H-121, which controversially included a private right of action and a kids code section similar to a California law that was temporarily enjoined. The tech industry lauded Scott's veto, while consumer advocates and the bill’s sponsor urged a legislative override (see 2406140017). Overrides require a two-thirds majority from each chamber. On Monday, the House met that threshold with a 128-17 vote, but the effort died in the Senate, where members voted 14-15. “Industry feared this legislation and worked so hard to kill it because it had real teeth to prevent their harmful data practices,” Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Matt Schwartz said. But the fight for strong Vermont privacy protections will continue, he added. The failure also disappointed Design It For Us, said co-Chair Zamaan Qureshi: The bill “would have been a much-needed step toward protecting youth from the sustained exploitation and undue harms that we experience from social media.”
A California bill requiring more public information on resiliency efforts by telecom companies cleared the Senate Communications Committee on Tuesday. The bill (AB-2765) would require the California Public Utilities Commission to report on inspections that ensure companies comply with resiliency plans. The Assembly previously passed the measure in a unanimous vote last month (see 2405220055). Communication during an emergency can be a matter of “life and death,” sponsor Gail Pellerin (D) said during the committee’s livestreamed hearing. The Utility Reform Network lobbyist Ignacio Hernandez said the bill would give Californians more confidence that communications networks will have backup power during disasters. While the state requires telecom companies to have backup power plans, the public currently can’t tell the degree to which companies are complying and whether remedial actions are needed, he said. The bill goes next to the Appropriations Committee.
Vermont’s comprehensive data privacy bill “creates an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk,” said Gov. Phil Scott (R) Thursday as he vetoed H-121. It was a win for tech industry opponents (see 2405300038) and a setback for consumer group supporters of the bill that would have made Vermont the first state with a broad private right of action (PRA). It's possible, however, for lawmakers to override Scott’s veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. Also Thursday, the Rhode Island legislature approved a privacy bill that consumer groups say is too weak.
The FTC’s merger guidelines will become “useless” if they are rescinded each time an opposing party takes power, FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson said Thursday.
A California bill that would force tech platforms to pay for news content would undermine the independence of journalists by making them “dependent on government handouts,” NetChoice said Wednesday. Tech associations oppose the California Journalism Preservation Act (AB-886), a bill the Assembly approved, but the Senate failed to pass in 2023. The bill was re-referred to the state's Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday and is scheduled for a June 25 hearing. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D) introduced the legislation. Nothing in the bill ensures news organizations will use the proceeds to better fund journalism efforts, Vice President Carl Szabo said. In addition, it would let the government decide who’s a journalist, while forcing companies like Reddit and Pinterest to pay millions to major news companies, he said.
The California Public Utilities Commission could collect feedback this fall on whether to revise its carrier of last resort (COLR) rules, according to a proposed decision released Monday. The CPUC plans a June 20 vote on opening a rulemaking to weigh possible changes to COLR rules, along with a related item that would deny COLR relief to AT&T (see 2406050016 and 2405310029), a meeting agenda also posted Monday said. “In general, the purpose of this proceeding is to consider whether the Commission should revise its COLR rules and, if yes, what those revisions should be,” the CPUC draft said. The proposed rulemaking would adopt “a rebuttable presumption that the COLR construct remains necessary, at least for certain individuals or communities in California,” it said. Among other questions, the CPUC would ask if there are areas that may no longer require a COLR, if it should require VoIP or wireless providers to be COLRs, and if it should revise rules on how current COLRs may shed those obligations. If approved by the California commissioners, comments would be due Sept. 30, replies Oct. 30.