State Legislatures Open Sessions With Net Neutrality Bills
State Democrats offered net neutrality legislation on the first day of some sessions. Wednesday in California, Scott Wiener, along with other Democratic state senators, introduced the bill he promised last month that would counter the FCC rescinding Communications Act Title…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
II regulations (see 1712210034). New York lawmakers opened their session Wednesday with three net neutrality bills already introduced: AB-08882, SB-7183 and S-7175. Massachusetts also opened session with a net neutrality bill (SD-2428) in the hopper. “As states across the country explore how to maintain an open internet, California can and must lead the charge to protect net neutrality,” Wiener said in a Wednesday news release. His bill (SB-822) would regulate business practices to require net neutrality and condition state contracts on adhering to net neutrality. It would require the policy as part of cable franchise agreements and as a condition for using a right of way, including for small-cell wireless facilities. “Although the FCC included in its order a purported preemption of state net neutrality rules, the FCC likely does not have the power to preempt state action on this issue,” said the Wiener office, citing the agency’s loss in a 2016 municipal broadband decision by the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. With local governments eyeing municipal broadband as a response to the FCC order (see 1712260026), Free State Foundation board member Enrique Armijo wrote Wednesday that it’s hypocritical for local governments to decry removing mandates for private ISPs without seeking the same for their own networks. “Terms of service such as those used in Chattanooga, Wilson, [North Carolina,] and potentially scores of other cities … violate basic tenets of First Amendment law, let alone the principle that network providers should not block or throttle speech.”