A California bill requiring more public information on resiliency efforts by telecom companies cleared the Senate Communications Committee on Tuesday. The bill (AB-2765) would require the California Public Utilities Commission to report on inspections that ensure companies comply with resiliency plans. The Assembly previously passed the measure in a unanimous vote last month (see 2405220055). Communication during an emergency can be a matter of “life and death,” sponsor Gail Pellerin (D) said during the committee’s livestreamed hearing. The Utility Reform Network lobbyist Ignacio Hernandez said the bill would give Californians more confidence that communications networks will have backup power during disasters. While the state requires telecom companies to have backup power plans, the public currently can’t tell the degree to which companies are complying and whether remedial actions are needed, he said. The bill goes next to the Appropriations Committee.
Adam Bender
Adam Bender, Senior Editor, is the state and local telecommunications reporter for Communications Daily, where he also has covered Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. He has won awards for his Warren Communications News reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists, Specialized Information Publishers Association and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. Bender studied print journalism at American University and is the author of dystopian science-fiction novels. You can follow Bender at WatchAdam.blog and @WatchAdam on Twitter.
The FCC and Massachusetts will probe a 911 outage reported around the state that lasted at least two hours Tuesday afternoon. Meanwhile, the Maine Department of Public Safety said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is checking why people in Maine and other states received wireless emergency alerts (WEA) about the Massachusetts incident. The FCC is "looking into what occurred" in Massachusetts and "the reports concerning WEA," a commission spokesperson said. A Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security spokesperson said in a statement just before 4 p.m. that the 911 system was restored. The office sent its first alert about the problem at 2:22 p.m. It said that the state 911 department is “aware of a disruption ... and is investigating the cause.” The state advised residents facing an emergency to call local police departments’ direct lines. “We will provide further information as it becomes available.” Multiple local public safety agencies alerted the public via social media about the problems calling 911. “The current 911 system is down statewide,” the Boston Fire Department posted on X at 1:55 p.m. The Brockton Fire Department posted “Major 911 outage in Massachusetts” at 1:41 p.m. on the same platform. People in other states said they received wireless emergency alerts about the Massachusetts outage, including a Comm Daily reporter with a Virginia area code. The same Virginia-based reporter later received another WEA that said Maine's 911 system was fully operational and to disregard the emergency alert from another state. The Massachusetts "alert was sent to other surrounding states in error and is being investigated by FEMA," the Maine Public Safety Department said in a statement. "Maine 911 is up and running." FEMA declined to comment.
New York state’s affordable internet law won’t be enforced for now, ISP associations said Monday. The industry groups won’t file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc of a 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision upholding New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act, according to a Friday letter to the court from ACA Connects, CTIA, NTCA, USTelecom and the New York State Telecommunications Association. The 2nd Circuit ruled in April that federal law doesn’t preempt the 2021 New York law requiring $15 monthly plans with 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households (see 2404260051). The 2nd Circuit issued its mandate on that decision Monday. While Friday’s letter to the court didn’t say why ISPs wouldn’t seek rehearing, the industry groups previously told the court they were working toward an agreement with the state that would make a rehearing petition unnecessary (see 2406060038). In a joint statement Monday, the associations said they agreed not to seek rehearing because Attorney General Letitia James (D) agreed to “suspend enforcement of this law while the courts consider the litigation in this case.” The ISP groups said they “continue to support state and federal measures that foster broadband affordability without requiring rate regulation.” While the groups won’t seek rehearing by the 2nd Circuit, they could still seek U.S. Supreme Court review by the end of July. However, the industry groups expect a 6th Circuit ruling before that deadline -- possibly in the next three weeks -- on the FCC’s order reclassifying broadband as a Title II service, said an industry lawyer involved in the appeals process. The 6th Circuit ruling would affect how ISPs proceed on their challenge to the New York law because the 2nd Circuit decision was based on broadband as Title I, the lawyer said. If the 6th Circuit stays the FCC order, preserving a Title I world, industry would likely appeal the 2nd Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, the source said. However, if there isn’t a stay and the Title II order takes effect, industry could instead file a fresh lawsuit at the district court challenging the New York law under the Title II regime, the attorney said. AG James agreed not to enforce the state law until Aug. 21 or 14 days after a potential 6th Circuit stay of the FCC order, the attorney said. New York’s AG office referred us to the New York Public Service Commission for comment. However, a PSC spokesperson said the commission doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
Vermont’s comprehensive data privacy bill “creates an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk,” said Gov. Phil Scott (R) Thursday as he vetoed H-121. It was a win for tech industry opponents (see 2405300038) and a setback for consumer group supporters of the bill that would have made Vermont the first state with a broad private right of action (PRA). It's possible, however, for lawmakers to override Scott’s veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. Also Thursday, the Rhode Island legislature approved a privacy bill that consumer groups say is too weak.
State lawmakers may be more inclined to pursue broadband affordability policies in the wake of recent FCC and court rulings as well as last month's ending of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP), multiple telecom experts said last week. Connecticut Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D) told Communications Daily he hopes “these developments will lead to stronger support in 2025” for an affordable broadband proposal that failed this year. However, some anticipate ISPs will likely object, and fiscal constraints could limit states' efforts.
Multiple consumer privacy advocates urged Rhode Island legislators to halt passage of weak privacy protections. The Senate voted 36-1 to pass the comprehensive bill (S-2500) on Wednesday. The “critical bill” is a “marriage” of Connecticut’s privacy law and the work of a Rhode Island commission, said sponsor Sen. Louis DiPalma (D) at the livestreamed floor session. The commission included five legislators, Attorney General Peter Neronha (D) and Verizon, TechNet and the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association. Sen. Samuel Bell (D) voted no. He said the bill was too weak during a committee meeting earlier this week. The House passed the similar H-7787 earlier. Consumer Reports, which signaled its opposition previously (see 2406110033), joined with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Restore the Fourth in a Tuesday letter. The proposed comprehensive privacy law “would do little to protect Rhode Island consumers’ personal information, or to rein in major tech companies like Google and Facebook,” they wrote. “The bill needs to be substantially improved before it is enacted; otherwise, it would risk locking in industry-friendly provisions that avoid actual reform.” The groups suggested several changes, including adding data minimization rules and requiring that companies honor browser-based privacy signals as global opt-outs. Also, they said the bill's privacy notice rules should cover all data controllers, not just commercial websites and ISPs. Cut the proposed exemption for pseudonymous data and narrow another carveout for loyalty programs, they said. In addition, adding a private right of action will strengthen enforcement, the groups said.
Another comprehensive state privacy bill is moving quickly toward the finish line. The Rhode Island House voted 70-1 on Monday, approving H-7787 with some floor amendments. Meanwhile, the state's Senate Commerce Committee voted 7-1 to advance the similar S-2500. Tech industry groups supported the measure; however, a state senator and a consumer group said the Rhode Island legislation is too weak.
State Rep. Evan Shanley (D) predicted Friday the Rhode Island House will vote on his comprehensive privacy bill this week. A House committee advanced an amended version of H-7787 on Thursday (see 2406060071). Shanley expects the Senate version (SB-2500) by Sen. Louis DiPalma (D) “will advance as well,” he told us. Meanwhile, the Vermont legislature delivered a privacy bill (H-121) to Gov. Phil Scott (R) Friday. He has five days to veto the bill, or it will become law. The tech industry seeks a veto due to differences with other state laws, including that Vermont’s bill has a broad private right of action (see 2405300038).
Rhode Island state legislators revised a comprehensive privacy bill at a hearing Thursday. The House Innovation Internet and Technology Committee voted 9-0 to recommend passage of a substitute to H-7787. The “biggest change” in the update accepted by the committee “is that we’re creating two classifications” of regulated entities, sponsor Rep. Evan Shanley (D) said during the livestreamed hearing. Any entity subject to Rhode Island jurisdiction that collects, stores and sells personally identifiable information would have to disclose on its website the categories of information collected and the entities to whom they have sold or may sell the data. Meanwhile, for larger companies that control or process data of at least 35,000 customers or do so for at least 10,000 while deriving more than 20% of profits from the sale of personally identifiable information, customers would have a right to know what data has been collected about them and opt out of such collection. Other changes are meant to harmonize the bill with other states’ privacy laws, Shanley said.
The California Public Utilities Commission should fine AT&T for “continuing misrepresentations” about its petition for carrier of last resort (COLR) relief, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office said in reply comments Tuesday. AT&T last week raised legal and constitutional concerns as it protested a CPUC proposed decision that would dismiss the carrier’s application (see 2405310029). AT&T’s opening comments repeated already rejected arguments, said PAO: The commission should “conclude as a matter of law that AT&T violated” a CPUC ethics rule “and impose sanctions of $1,000 on AT&T’s signatory attorneys." Other consumer groups piled on in separate replies in docket R.23-03-003. The Center for Accessible Technology said, “AT&T’s comments are based on incorrect interpretations of Commission rules and the mistaken belief that AT&T is entitled to relinquish its COLR status.” The Utility Reform Network said the carrier’s argument for rejecting the CPUC’s draft incorrectly “rests on the proposition that the Commission misunderstands its own COLR rules.” But AT&T replied that the CPUC must accept “all of the factual allegations” in its application as true. “The opposing commenters turn that standard upside down when they attack the factual basis for this Application and propose the Commission include additional incorrect and inflammatory allegations about AT&T California and the reliability of its services,” it said.