Adam Bender

Texas House members showed wide support for creating a state fund for broadband infrastructure this week, voting 137-7 for a proposed constitutional amendment Wednesday on its second reading. On Thursday, the Senate received HJR-125 and the House voted 140-8 for companion bill HB-9 on third and final reading. Rural carriers applauded the House for passing the measures, which they said would help fill gaps from the state not fully funding Texas USF. “We will now shift our focus to the Senate where we hope to find similar support,” said Texas Telephone Association (TTA) President Mark Seale.

California’s state broadband map remains a “work in progress,” said California Public Utilities Commissioner Darcie Houck at a California Broadband Council virtual meeting Wednesday. The CPUC Communications Division told stakeholders in a Tuesday email that it updated the state broadband map’s CASF infrastructure account eligibility layer “to display locations that were inadvertently excluded” in the map released earlier this month. “We received significant feedback on the initial map that was released and have been working diligently to update the map with a new version,” Houck told the council. In response to feedback, the CPUC “removed predefined priority funding areas” and “the underlying data now better reflects the number of unserved locations that have been identified,” the commissioner said.

A New York Senate panel approved a sweeping privacy bill Tuesday with a private right of action. After the hearing, Consumer Reports praised the bill, but tech industry groups raised concerns. Parts of the proposed New York Privacy Act are stricter than other state laws, said Fox Rothschild attorney Odia Kagan.

A bipartisan California bill that would effectively ban TikTok on state government devices cleared the Senate Governmental Organization Committee Tuesday. SB-74 by Sens. Bill Dodd (D) and Brian Jones (R) would prohibit high-risk social media apps at least partly owned by an entity or "country of concern." The proposal is similar to actions taken in most states and at the federal level, Dodd said at the livestreamed hearing. Consumer Federation of California Executive Director Robert Herrell praised the bill for not naming specific apps. California’s approach is more reasonable than what some other states have done, he added. Eleven of 15 committee members voted yes in the committee’s initial vote, enough to approve the measure. The other four members weren’t present.

Businesses lined up against tech regulation bills at hearings Monday in Florida and Minnesota. Opposition failed to deter the Florida Senate Rules Committee from advancing comprehensive privacy bill to the Senate floor. But at a Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier that day, multiple members suggested taking more time to study a kids’ privacy bill rather than pass it this year.

Montana and Tennessee passed comprehensive privacy bills Friday, becoming the third and fourth states this year to do so. The Montana Senate voted 50-0 to pass the House-amended SB-384 at a livestreamed floor session. The House passed the bill unanimously earlier this week (see 2304180031). SB-384 next needs a signature from Gov. Greg Gianforte (R). Montana’s bill is based on Connecticut’s law. Tennessee's privacy bill also passed the legislature Friday. The Senate voted 29-0 for the House version (HB-1181), which passed the other chamber unanimously earlier this month (see 2304110031). "Without this legislation, your data is an unregulated space," said Senate sponsor Bo Watson (R). The bill needs approval from Gov. Bill Lee (R). Iowa earlier signed a bill into law. An Indiana measure awaits gubernatorial approval (see 2304140050).

Telecom companies defended line-item fees on bills against consumer group criticism in reply comments last week at the California Public Utilities Commission (docket R.21-03-002). The Utility Reform Network in opening comments earlier this month questioned various provider fees, claiming they were discretionary (see 2304060038). AT&T replied Thursday that its charges are cost-based and clearly disclosed. There is no evidence that consumers mistake “provider charges and fees labeled as ‘regulatory’ or ‘administrative’ … as government fees or government impositions,” said Charter Communications. Comcast said “the fees and surcharges TURN identifies are appropriate and transparent to customers.” The California Broadband & Video Association urged the CPUC not to consider “TURN’s inaccurate statements describing providers’ non-telephone service charges and fees as deceptive or misleading.” Frontier Communications said consumer groups’ recommendations to “broadly prohibit provider-imposed charges other than those required by governmental entities … rely significantly on anecdotal evidence and hearsay from complaint allegations.” However, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office urged the agency to reject companies’ arguments that they present consumers with enough information to understand bills. “Communications-related fees should be clearly disclosed to the customer with specific fee amounts, the purpose of the fee, and whether the fee is government mandated or provider-imposed disclosed to the customer in advertisements and bills at all stages of the initial purchase and over the life of the service contract,” PAO said: Other fees “should have clear disclosure and opt in/out procedures."

The California Assembly Communications Committee cleared amended bills including on video franchising, local broadband permits and low-income benefits at a webcast hearing Wednesday. Also, the committee unanimously passed a consent agenda including bills on 911 public education (AB-296) and grants for emergency communications on fairgrounds (AB-415). The committee voted 10-2 to send to the Appropriations Committee a bill (AB-41) aimed at tightening digital equity requirements in the state’s video franchise law. Sponsor Chris Holden (D), who chairs the Appropriations panel, said the 2006 Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act approach of self-regulation through competition failed to spread services to everyone within franchise areas. The California Broadband & Video Association thinks the proposed replacement, the Digital Equity in Video Franchising Act, would be “generally unfeasible,” said Legislative and Regulatory Advocacy Director Amanda Gualderama. The state cable association was joined by USTelecom in opposition. The Communications Committee voted 13-0 for AB-965, which would set a 60-day shot clock for local governments to decide broadband permit applications or have them deemed granted. It will go to the Local Government Committee next. Supporters included Crown Castle, CTIA, USTelecom and the Wireless Infrastructure Association. But the California Municipal Utilities Association raised concerns it duplicates previous rules including the FCC’s small-cells order. The Assembly panel voted 13-0 for AB-1231 to allow low-income consumers to stack benefits from California LifeLine, federal Lifeline and the affordable connectivity program. It goes next to Appropriations. "The bill is needed because the CPUC has prohibited Californian consumers from combining their California LifeLine and ACP benefits to maximize the amount of data they receive,” said TruConnect Chief Compliance Officer Danielle Perry, who is also a National Lifeline Association board member. The Utility Reform Network worries the bill doesn’t provide enough accountability on providers, said TURN lobbyist Ignacio Hernandez: Lawmakers should strengthen it or allow the CPUC to make rules. The commission already has an open proceeding on the issue, he noted. Supporting AB-1231, Communications Committee Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath (D) said she thinks the CPUC has overly restricted access for low-income people.

Colorado could soon excise its 18-year-old municipal broadband ban. With a 48-14 House vote Tuesday, SB-183 passed the legislature and will go to Gov. Jared Polis (D). State officials and Colorado’s U.S. senators rallied around an effort to connect 100% of the state’s population by 2027 at a partially virtual NTIA internet-for-all event Wednesday.

New Hampshire’s attorney general's office can’t effectively enforce a proposed privacy law without more resources, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau Chief Brandon Garod said Wednesday. The state AG office doesn’t oppose the intent of SB-255, but even good consumer protection bills are "toothless" without enough manpower for enforcement, Garod told the state’s House Judiciary Committee at a livestreamed hearing, he said. “This bill has the potential to create an enormous amount of additional work for the bureau,” which may need another attorney investigator and paralegal to properly handle, he said. That’s “especially because ... the drafters have made the decision to eliminate the private right of action that is present in all other unfair and deceptive acts or practices cases that can currently be brought in the state.” Citing Garod’s concerns, Consumer Reports policy analyst Matt Schwartz suggested adding a private right of action and including additional appropriations for AG enforcement. The bill’s House co-sponsor Rep. Dave Luneau (D) noted his 2019 privacy bill, which passed the House but stalled in the Senate, contained a private right of action. Though SB-255 limits enforcement to the AG, it’s much more specific than the 2019 bill and sets strong standards including for clearer privacy notices, he said. Senate sponsor Sharon Carson (R) said her bill is a “meaningful first step” in providing privacy rights to consumers that’s modeled after Virginia, Colorado and Connecticut laws. Similar bills in Texas, Montana and Indiana are advancing, she said. Rep. Shaun Filiault (D), another co-sponsor, said the bill’s similarity to other laws is an asset. “We're not creating something new. We fortunately have the advantage of following in other states’ footsteps.” Microsoft Senior Director-Public Policy Ryan Harkins urged legislators to pass the bill. The committee is scheduled to vote on SB-255 May 3 at 9 a.m.