New York could soon become the sixth state to make prison calls free, advocate Worth Rises said in a news release Thursday. Advocates are pressing for a proposed policy and a $9.9 million appropriation to remain in the final budget that’s expected in days, Worth Rises said. “Making prison phone calls free is not only critical for true rehabilitation but strengthening the support systems that make successful reentry possible,” said Sen. Jamaal Bailey (D), who sponsored a bill (SB-1942) that would make calls free. Worth Rises Executive Director Bianca Tylek urged action. “For too long New York has been dragging its feet on this policy, driving some of the most impoverished women and families further into financial instability,” she said. “Five other states have bypassed New York at this point and already passed legislation to make prison communication free.” California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Minnesota previously made prison calls free. Maryland was weighing the policy this year (see 2403070044), but the bill is now dead, said a Worth Rises spokesperson.
Consumers should have the right to repair electronics, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) decided Wednesday. Kotek signed SB-1596, which passed the legislature earlier this month. The state joins California, New York and Minnesota in passing right-to-repair laws during the past two years, said Consumer Reports Director-Tech Policy Justin Brookman. Oregon’s law “raises the bar … by preventing software from becoming a tool to enforce manufacturers’ monopolies on the repair process,” Brookman said. The law is the first in the nation that prevents parts pairing, a manufacturer practice of using software to identify component parts through a unique identifier, CR said.
House Communications Subcommittee member Rep. Annie Kuster, D-N.H., said Wednesday she’s not running for reelection in November. “I always said I was not going to stay in Congress forever,” said Kuster, who chairs the centrist New Democrat Coalition. “I will continue serving the people of New Hampshire until the end of my term in January 2025. In the months ahead, I will use my time to help Congress build on the progress we have made and finish the job for the American people.” The six-term legislator is one of four House Communications members not seeking reelection. The others are John Curtis, R-Utah, and California Democrats Tony Cardenas and Anna Eshoo. Other House Commerce Committee members retiring after this Congress include panel Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. (see 2402080063), and Vice Chairman Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D.
A Maine privacy bill with strict data minimization standards is moving to the final stages. The joint Judiciary Committee voted 7-1 Tuesday evening to say that the Democratic caucus’ LD-1977 “ought to pass,” while rejecting a Republican alternative (LD-1973). A nuanced exemption for broadband providers, currently in LD-1977, could mean that the proposed law would still apply to mobile services provided by a company that’s covered by the state’s 2019 ISP privacy law, two consumer privacy advocates said Wednesday.
Non-terrestrial networks (NTNs) will expand the reach of cellular networks, which is increasingly important when 95% of the U.S. population has abandoned landline phones, David Witkowski, co-chair of the Deployment Working Group at IEEE Future Networks, said during an RCR Wireless webinar Tuesday. Last month, FCC commissioners approved a supplemental coverage from space framework, facilitating carriers working with satellite operators on converged networks (see 2403150045).
Public interest groups and two academics spoke with FCC Wireline Bureau staff about their request that the agency update its approach to net neutrality rules to address issues concerning new services like network slicing (see 2403130057). “We asked the Commission to clarify: how technologies such as network slicing may be used to provide innovative offers as part of [broadband Internet access service] that are consistent with the open Internet rules, and under what conditions non-BIAS data services may be provided,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 23-320. The Open Technology Institute at New America made the filing, joined by Public Knowledge; Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for attended and Society; and Scott Jordan, computer science professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Vermont could be the first state to include a private right of action in a comprehensive privacy bill. The Vermont House voted 139-0 Friday to approve H-121, which would allow individuals to sue in privacy cases and give the state's attorney general an enforcement role. The bill will go next to the Senate. Initially, the House Commerce Committee decided not to advance H-121 in 2023 after members determined it needed work (see 2304060060). But on Thursday, lawmakers amended the bill, teeing up H-121 for a Friday vote. The Commerce Committee considered privacy testimony for four years to draft a “protective but largely technology-and industry-neutral proposal,” Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said. The amended bill would align with privacy laws in Connecticut and many other states, taking some features from each, Priestley added. Some would be “unique to Vermont,” including the private right of action and restrictions on “how businesses may use data to what is consistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers,” she said. For the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the “private right of action is our main point of concern with the bill's current language,” said CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender: “The bill otherwise is largely harmonized with existing privacy frameworks” like Connecticut’s. Private rights of action in state laws such as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act “have resulted in plaintiffs advancing frivolous claims with little evidence of actual injury,” Boender said. No other comprehensive privacy bill has a broad private right of action, though the California Consumer Privacy Act has a narrower one, said Husch Blackwell privacy attorney David Stauss. Whether it survives the Vermont Senate is an open question, he said. "I certainly expect that there will be significant pushback."
State enforcers of net neutrality report no legal actions against ISPs more than five years after the laws took effect. A Communications Daily public records request showed that Washington state’s attorney general's office received 21 complaints related to net neutrality since enacting its first law in March 2018, but most were resolved informally. Half the states with such laws told us they hadn’t received complaints.
The California Public Utilities Commission scolded Verizon Wireless in an order Thursday for its handling of a case of alleged customer fraud. The CPUC granted relief to a family of complainants through a 4-0 vote on a consent agenda during a Thursday meeting. Verizon could face further sanctions, the agency said. “During the course of this proceeding, Verizon failed to disclose material information concerning the porting and reassignment of at least one of Complainants’ mobile phone numbers,” said the draft decision in docket C.23-12-005. “This proceeding will remain open in order to explore an Order to Show Cause against Verizon for this material omission.” The complainants alleged that, without notice, Verizon terminated service to and locked their five iPhones and associated phone numbers for reasons of fraud. The customers said that, as a result, they had to buy five phones and suffered irreparable injury to their businesses because they couldn’t port their locked numbers to another carrier. Verizon asked to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because its agreement with customers requires arbitration. However, the CPUC said the arbitration clause doesn’t circumvent the commission’s authority. Also, the carrier argued that it may terminate customers’ phone services without notice under its agreement and in exigent circumstances. Verizon argued that it acted after determining that the customers committed fraud. The CPUC agreed that the carrier could terminate customers’ service, but was “not satisfied with the way Verizon's Fraud Department handled this case and the allegations against the Complainants.” Accordingly, the CPUC required that Verizon confidentially “submit a comprehensive report of the procedures and criteria used … to identify and accuse customers of fraud,” with “specific evidence that supported Verizon's claim that the Complainants in this case engaged in fraudulent activity.” Also, the CPUC said the customer agreement “does not authorize Verizon to lock a phone or lock a number associated with a mobile phone.” So, the agency required Verizon to unlock five iPhones and their associated numbers. In addition, the CPUC required the carrier to refund the customers the costs of three of the five locked phones, plus the five replacement phones they bought after their service was terminated. Verizon declined to comment.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to pay higher prices because companies break the law,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told a news conference Thursday announcing the bipartisan antitrust suit (docket 2:24-cv-04055) against Apple brought by DOJ and the AGs of 15 states and the District of Columbia. DOJ alleges in USA v. Apple that the tech giant has consolidated its monopoly power “not by making its own products better but by making other products worse.”