Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked Texas to respond by Wednesday at 5 p.m. EDT to tech associations’ Friday emergency appeal of a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order allowing the state’s social media law to be enforced (see 2205120053). Alito sought the state’s response Saturday on application 21A720. NetChoice, one of the plaintiffs, expects a court ruling could come as soon as Thursday or next week, Policy Counsel Chris Marchese told us. Alito may rule unilaterally or circulate the matter with the full court. The 5th Circuit court decided 2-1 Wednesday to grant the state’s request to stay a lower court’s preliminary injunction, meaning Texas could start enforcing its law prohibiting larger platforms from blocking, deplatforming or otherwise discriminating against users based on viewpoint or location within Texas. The plaintiffs argued Friday to the Supreme Court there's a reasonable probability that most justices would grant certiorari and a more-than-fair prospect that most justices would overrule the lower court’s decision. Denying stay would mean irreparable harm for social platforms covered by the Texas law, with no harm to Texas from keeping the status quo, they said. “The Fifth Circuit has yet to offer any explanation why the District Court’s thorough opinion was wrong,” plaintiffs wrote. The appeals “court short-circuited the normal review process, authorizing Texas to inflict a massive change to leading global websites and undoubtedly also interfering with the Eleventh Circuit’s consideration of Applicants’ challenge to the similar Florida law.” The Texas attorney general’s office didn’t comment Monday.
Pole policies and participants must respond to climate change, said current and former state utilities regulators during an FCBA virtual event Monday. Pole replacement backlogs and insufficient information about attachments are challenges, they said. Florida could finalize its process this summer to become the 23rd state, in addition to Washington, D.C., to reverse preempt FCC pole attachments authority, said Berger Singerman cable attorney Floyd Self on another panel.
Arguing that a California 7 cents-per-minute cap on incarcerated person calling service (IPCS) rates wasn't based on data, Securus sued the California Public Utilities Commission at the California 2nd District Court of Appeals. Securus filed Thursday after the CPUC denied its petition last month to rehear the agency's August interim IPCS decision (see 2204130007 and 2204120047). "Securus supports data-driven, reasoned regulation such as the IPCS rate caps adopted by the FCC in its May 24, 2021 Interim Rate Order following an exhaustive analysis of cost data submitted by IPCS providers,” said the suit. Securus supported a CPUC staff recommendation to use the FCC rate regulation as an interim measure in California, but commissioners rejected that “and adopted rate regulation divorced from reasoned decision-making and lacking any substantial evidentiary foundation. As a result, companies providing IPCS to the state’s over 200 jails are saddled with a rate cap that is well below their cost of providing service to many of those facilities.” It was “an abuse of discretion and authority by the” CPUC, said Securus: The decision was “substantively and procedurally defective and raises issues of both administrative and constitutional dimensions.” The CPUC decision was interim, but “it is likely to remain in effect for years, as these proceedings are already over a year behind schedule, necessitating this Court’s intervention now.” Securus has tried “to find common purpose with federal and state regulators … in formulating meaningful rate caps and other reforms,” said Securus parent Aventiv Technologies CEO Dave Abel: But California commissioners’ rejected staff’s recommendation and instead chose “arbitrary rate caps without considering the necessary data for a thoughtful decision that complied with California law.” Securus didn’t “come to this decision lightly,” Abel said. “We’ve undertaken a national effort to reduce costs and create better outcomes for consumers. Regulation based on the thoughtful evaluation of relevant data is vital.” The CPUC didn’t comment.
Preparing for and responding to disasters is “truly a partnership” among different levels of government and industry, said FCC Public Safety Bureau Chief Debra Jordan at an FCBA virtual event Wednesday. The FCC works hard “at building relationships at the state, the regional and the national level, so when there's a disaster we can ... partner and immediately begin jumping on the task [at] hand, and hopefully have a level of trust going into this." The commission plans to do outreach this summer on how states and others can access its disaster information reporting system (DIRS) and network outage reporting system (D) databases, said Jordan. The FCC adopted a framework last year to provide access to state, federal and tribal nations, with information sharing rules taking effect in September, she said. “We will have an application process that will grant agencies access to this information after certifying to requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of the data, as well as the security of the databases.” Jordan urged more collaboration on wireless emergency alert testing to address lingering issues with geofencing and delivery. The FCC used to respond mainly to hurricanes, but climate change is bringing more wildfires, tornadoes and severe winter storms, noted the bureau chief. Communications industry compliance is “high” but “not where we want it to be” with the California Public Utilities Commission’s 72-hour backup power requirements for wireline and wireless facilities, said CPUC Communications Division Director Robert Osborn. “It's not 100%.” The COVID-19 pandemic made it tougher for staff to visit sites to confirm backup power is present, but the agency is hoping to do more soon, he said. Distinguishing between traditional and IP-based networks on resiliency is a “thing of the past,” said Osborn. “We really just need to focus on the communication grid as a critical infrastructure.” Since the CPUC efforts, “we’ve seen a dramatic improvement in the resiliency of our networks,” said California Office of Emergency Services 911 Branch Manager Budge Currier. “They’re surviving a little bit better during disasters.”
Tech groups could soon go to the Supreme Court, after the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals lifted a lower court’s temporary ban on Texas’ social media law. Judges issued the 2-1 order, without written explanation, two days after oral argument (see 2205100002). The order signals that the 5th Circuit is likely to reverse the district court soon, said supporters and opponents of the state law, in interviews. They predicted litigation will quickly heat up.
Connecticut will be the fifth state with a comprehensive privacy law, but a Louisiana privacy bill, after clearing the House Commerce Committee earlier this week, met a possible hurdle after the House sent it down to another committee. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed SB-6 by Sen. James Maroney (D) Tuesday. The legislature passed the bill last month (see 2204290036) and the law will take effect July 1, 2023, the same day as Colorado’s privacy law. Maroney is "thrilled" Lamont signed his bill, he said Wednesday in a statement: "In our increasingly connected world, these rights are ever more important." Connecticut’s privacy law is “certainly one of the stronger bills” and “advances the conversation for privacy law in this country,” unlike the more business-friendly Utah law passed earlier this year, said Husch Blackwell attorney David Stauss, who participated in meetings to develop the Connecticut bill. It continues a trend of states, including Colorado and Virginia, passing bills based on the yet-to-be passed Washington Privacy Act, rather than on California’s law, he said in an interview. Consistency so far among state privacy bills may lessen chances of federal legislation “because you’re not getting a lot of interoperability concerns,” Stauss said. “You certainly have differences between these bills,” but “we have yet to come across a situation in which you can either comply with one state or another state.” Consumer Reports Director-Consumer Privacy Justin Brookman said Connecticut’s law isn’t “perfect, but it's definitely one of the stronger laws that have been passed.” CR was concerned after Utah’s law “that companies would be pushing for similarly weak laws, so it was important to see a stronger law pass soon after Utah,” he said. The Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee will vote on HB-987 Tuesday said Chairman John Stefanski (R) at a livestreamed hearing Wednesday. The bill at first was similar to Utah’s bill but Microsoft-backed amendments added consumer protections that raised issues for TechNet members (see 2205090037). “I know there is some concern,” said Stefanski, saying he wants to “see if we can’t ease those concerns between now and the next meeting.” Sponsor Rep. Daryl Deshotel (R) said he was surprised to hear Tuesday from groups that hadn’t previously weighed in.
FCC-like one-touch, make-ready rules are coming to Connecticut. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) commissioners voted 3-0 at a virtual Wednesday meeting to adopt proposed pole attachment rules (see 2204120044 and 2204260044). Responding to stakeholder exceptions, staff revised last month’s proposed decision to allow a field-size attachment process called “boxing” as long as there's no national electric safety code violation, said Stephen Capozzi, PURA Reliability, Security and Resilience Unit supervisor. PURA members said the decision was a long time coming. “This is literally years and years in the making and we want to do our best to get it as right as possible,” said Commissioner Michael Caron.
The California Public Utilities Commission would break the law if it extended landline service-quality rules to VoIP, broadband or wireless, the telecom industry warned in comments filed Monday on a rulemaking sought by consumer advocates to update telecom service-quality standards and enforcement (see 2203170072). AT&T suggested the commission instead slash regulations for plain old telephone services (POTS). Consumer, small business and workers’ union advocates supported extending the rules.
Some bristled at a Louisiana legislator proposing changes to a sweeping privacy bill on the Friday before a Monday legislative hearing. The House Commerce Committee cleared HB-987 by voice with Microsoft-backed amendments. Committee members from both parties listed issues they want addressed as the bill moves to the floor.
Open internet supporters cheered ISPs dropping their challenge of California’s net neutrality law. National telecom associations indicated Wednesday they won’t appeal to the Supreme Court after the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear their case (see 2204200061). Whether states may regulate broadband might still not be settled. Some opponents of state net neutrality laws said to watch out for the 2nd Circuit to perhaps differ on federal preemption questions.