Regulatory Commission of Alaska members voted 4-0, with one member absent, to seek comments on Alaska USF (AUSF) proposals by RCA staff and the Alaska Remote Carrier Coalition (ARCC). Comments will be due in 30 days, replies 20 days later, commissioners decided at a Wednesday virtual meeting. Chairman Bob Pickett said he will bring commissioners back April 27 to discuss staff questions, including on AUSF’s role and future funding amounts and methods. While not opposing taking extra comment, Pickett said he hopes the proceeding won’t stretch until fall. “This thing needs to be resolved ASAP.” Progress was “limited” at last month’s technical conference on the staff proposal (see 2203180066), RCA Common Carrier Specialist David Parrish told commissioners. It’s time for the "commission to make some tough policy calls,” he said. It appears support is needed, but it’s difficult for RCA members to tell how much support is required in the state that deregulated telecom, said Commissioner Antony Scott. Commissioners agreed the RCA’s limited authority to compel specific relevant data is a challenge. The ARCC filed an alternative proposal Tuesday, the second it filed in docket R-21-001. It proposes a voice connections-based contribution method and distributing most statewide support to remote areas disconnected from roads. It would defer for five years addressing middle-mile transport cost support so the state can assess the impact of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Securus is “conducting an internal review before any further action” in its challenge of California’s interim 7-cents-per-minute intrastate rate cap for inmate calling services, a spokesperson said Tuesday. The California Public Utilities Commission denied rehearing petitions by Securus and NCIC Inmate Communications (see 2204120047). “Throughout our national effort to reduce costs and transform correctional communications, we've relied on responsible, data-driven approaches with regulators, municipalities, and advocates because it's essential to achieving meaningful change,” emailed the Securus spokesperson: The CPUC’s August order setting the interim rate cap “did not meet those standards.”

The California Privacy Protection Agency scheduled stakeholder sessions starting May 4 on its upcoming California Privacy Rights Act rulemaking, the CPPA said Wednesday. Meetings will be videoconferenced and more dates might be added depending on the number of signups, it said. The CPPA had informational sessions last month (see 2203300064). A Michigan privacy bill surfaced Tuesday. Rep. Sarah Anthony introduced HB-5989 with 14 other Democrats. It was referred to the House Communications and Technology Committee. The bill would give consumers the right to know what data is collected and whether and to whom it was sold, and a right to “say no” to personal data sale, targeted advertising and “profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the consumer.” Also, consumers could access collected personal data and request that businesses delete or correct it. It would prohibit discrimination of customers that exercise privacy rights. It would apply to businesses that control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers yearly or that get more than 50% of gross revenue from selling personal data of at least 25,000 consumers yearly. The Michigan attorney general would be sole enforcer of the proposed law, which wouldn’t provide a private right of action.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) signed broadband legislation (HB-1265/SB-716) Monday to craft an affordability plan (see 2203020053). Also, Youngkin signed two changes to the 2021 Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). One (HB-714/SB-534) repeals VCDPA’s consumer privacy fund and expands a nonprofits exemption. The other (HB-381) allows companies to honor consumers’ delete requests by opting them out of future targeted advertising, data sales or profiling, even if the companies retain older data (see 2202280040). Youngkin vetoed the similar SB-393, which he said was because he signed the House companion. In other states, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) mostly approved HB-315 to set up a state broadband office with $300 million from the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (see 2203310010). Beshear vetoed part of the bill declaring lack of internet access an emergency because he said it could put at risk current broadband deployment applications pending at the Kentucky Public Service Commission. “Vetoing the emergency clause allows sufficient time for the [PSC] to rule, and the law to still go into effect at the start of the next fiscal year.” The Maine Senate concurred with the House to pass LD-1107 to set up a satellite broadband grant program (see 2203030012). In Maryland, the House voted 97-34 Monday for the Senate-passed SB-643 to update the state’s data breach law (see 2204070035).

Consumer groups cheered the California Public Utilities Commission for denying rehearing petitions by prison phone providers of the agency’s August decision to set an interim 7 cents-per-minute intrastate rate cap for incarcerated persons communications services (IPCS) and to eliminate some fees. Securus and NCIC Inmate Communications separately challenged the CPUC decision in September. Securus said the PUC decision in docket R.20-10-002 was legally and factually flawed and undermined the commission’s goal of providing affordable IPCS services (see 2109230035). NCIC the same month said its costs could exceed revenue under the order and argued the cap shouldn’t apply to any facility with fewer than 1,000 average daily population (see 2109210080). Even without using a contract between Global Tel*Link and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a benchmark, the interim rate cap “is based on substantial evidence,” said the CPUC’s final decision released Monday. “The evidence in the record shows that a $0.05 per minute rate is feasible to achieve in jails and, overall, there is a downward trend in rates across both California and the US.” Prison Policy Institute thinks “the CPUC made the right decision,” emailed General Counsel Stephen Raher. “The best thing for parties, consumers, and correctional facilities is to move forward with the next phase of this proceeding. There is plenty of work remaining to be done, and we will continue to press for rate justice for all types of correctional telecommunications services.” Securus and NCIC rehearing applications “were a transparent attempt to delay the Commission’s action so that IPCS providers could continue to gouge incarcerated people and their families and support networks,” emailed Paul Goodman, Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) legal counsel. “The Commission properly found that the providers could not refuse to turn over information about their actual costs of providing service, and then argue that the ample evidence provided by other parties about the costs of providing service were insufficiently reliable.” The Utility Reform Network Managing Director-Telecom Brenda Villanueva emailed that the CPUC’s decision was “supported in the record despite the claims asserted. Parties had repeated and ample opportunities to weigh in and provide data.” NCIC CEO Bill Pope is disappointed that the CPUC "disregarded a decade’s worth of the FCC’s work, including data collected, conducting actual cost analyses" and workshops with incarcerated people's communications providers and organizations managing correctional facilities, he emailed. Securus didn't comment.

Tennessee will increase locality fees allowed for 5G deployments under the 2018 small-cells state law (see 2203180019). Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed HB-170 Friday and it took effect immediately.

One comprehensive state privacy bill moved forward while two others died last week. Connecticut privacy bill SB-6 advanced Thursday to the joint Judiciary Committee. The General Law Committee weighed the bill last month (see 2203030059). Meanwhile, Maryland’s House Economic Matters Committee voted 20-0 Friday against SB-11 to set up a privacy study group. The Maryland bill was originally a comprehensive measure, but the Senate scaled it back (see 2203300064). Georgia privacy bill SB-394 died when legislators adjourned last week.

Alabama and Illinois lawmakers passed emergency-call bills last week. The Alabama legislature sent the governor HB-414 Thursday to authorize the statewide 911 board to certify public safety telecommunicators, require 911 operators to stay on the line until a person is connected with emergency services and to require communications districts to provide an alternative method for responding to emergency calls. Illinois House members unanimously concurred Thursday with the Senate on HB-5502 to require that multi-line telephone systems and other services route 911 calls to the correct jurisdiction.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed a broadband bill Thursday. SB-83 by Sen. Don Coram (R) directs the state transportation department to develop an electronic application, permitting, contract and fee structure for accessing public rights of way for broadband deployment.

A Texas law regulating social media for perceived political censorship “is an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression” that “violates social media platforms’ First Amendment rights by compelling speech and restricting platforms’ editorial discretion,” nonprofit IP Justice said Thursday. The group supported tech group challengers in a Thursday amicus brief at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in case 21-51178 (see 2204040039). The law’s disclosure requirement is unfairly burdensome and enforcement of the law “will bring disastrous effects on Texas and global Internet freedom,” it said. The Texas law “is doomed” under a usual First Amendment analysis, so Texas tried “to insulate its new law” by calling social media platforms common carriers,” said TechFreedom in a Friday amicus brief. “But slapping the label ‘common carrier’ on something doesn’t make it so.” Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil liberties groups wrote, “Inconsistent and opaque private content moderation is a problem for users. But it is one best addressed through self-regulation and regulation that doesn’t touch or retaliate against the editorial process.” Another amici group including TechNet and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said the state made its law “not out of unwavering attachment to principles of free speech, but because Texas officials wished to promote their own favored viewpoints through a few specific Providers." Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute said the law’s “must-carry provision is unconstitutional,” but the court “should uphold the disclosure provisions if it determines that they are not unjustified and do not impose an undue burden on speech.” Oral argument is scheduled May 9.