The Washington State Broadband Office wants applications by Jan. 31 for $1.2 billion in funding the state received through NTIA's broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, the agency said Tuesday (see 2405090062). Broadband Office Director Aaron Wheeler said the agency will "offer $300 million in state matching funds to local governments and tribes that apply."

Some industry groups raised concerns about proposed amendments to Colorado privacy rules concerning children and biometric data. The Colorado attorney general’s office held a rulemaking hearing Thursday to gather public comments on proposed draft amendments to the Colorado Privacy Act Rules (see 2409160036). The draft amendments, published Sept. 13, provide updated language to align with children’s and biometric privacy bills the Colorado legislature approved this year and create a process for issuing opinion letters and interpretive guidance. The proposed rules include definitions of “child” versus “minor,” as well as requirements for notifying consumers before collecting or processing biometric identifiers. Employers must also gain consent from employees before collecting and processing biometric identifiers. State Privacy and Security Coalition lobbyist Andrew Kingman said separate obligations for biometric data and biometric identifiers could be confusing. “Our comments really focus on how to simplify this so that consumers have a single notice or are directed to a single notice where all of that information can be easily comprehended,” he said during the hearing. Additionally, Kingman suggested deleting the reference to “minors” as a part of the children’s privacy policy, saying it is “impractical” to distinguish between a 22-year-old and a 17-year-old. Kingman also asked for modifications to the consent requirement in the employment context, noting that the interaction between an employer and employee differs from the interaction between consumers and controllers. Phoebe Blessing, manager of public policy with the Colorado Hospital Association, also recommended an exception to the new biometric collection amendments on employees, such as when employers use employees' biometric information for authentication purposes. “For example, many of our hospitals require the use of fingerprints to access medication cabinets and dispense drugs,” Blessing said. She also recommended an exception for when healthcare providers use a patient’s biometric information in relation to the treatment process. Several other citizens spoke at the hearing about concerns for privacy but lacked specific input regarding the proposed amendments. The AG office also posted written comments that were due later Thursday night.

The Vermont Public Utility Commission should close a probe into Consolidated Communications billing, the company said Tuesday. Responding to a customer complaint, the Vermont PUC on Sept. 30 opened an investigation into whether Consolidated billing systems and practices violated PUC rules (docket 24-0322-CC). The customer had a bundled phone and internet package so it can’t have violated Commission Rule 7.620(F), which “expressly excludes ‘a bundled package of services,’” said Consolidated. Additionally, the complaint didn’t say what payments weren’t appropriated applied, the telco argued. Concerning charges for international calls, Consolidated said it “billed the customer … consistent with the terms of the customer’s service.” And, Consolidated noted, it properly charged two early termination fees.

The Nebraska Public Service Commission sought additional feedback on Nebraska Universal Service Fund (NUSF) distribution (docket NUSF-139). Commissioners voted 5-0 at their livestreamed session Tuesday to approve an order seeking comments by Nov. 25 and schedule a hearing for Dec. 4 at 10 a.m. CST. The commission hopes to “further refine” a proposed mechanism for distributing high-cost support next year, the order said. The PSC considers the 2025 support mechanism “transitional” as it moves through remaining issues in the docket. “The Commission emphasizes that more work will need to be done to transition the high-cost distribution support mechanism to account for federal and state infrastructure programs, the sustainability of broadband networks, and to ensure that the affordability goals of the NUSF Act will be met.” Under the PSC proposal, released for comment, the commission would keep providing high-cost support to wireline ILECs offering 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload speeds in areas without wireline competitors providing service at that speed. It would also continue supporting ILECs offering 25/3 Mbps speeds, provided it’s in a location that’s “subject to a federally enforceable commitment to provide service at speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps” and that lacks wireline competitors with 25/3 Mbps speeds.

NTIA awarded digital equity capacity grants to four more states Friday. The money comes from the $1.44 billion state digital equity capacity grant program. NTIA approved Alabama’s application to access $13 million and Utah’s request for $7 million to implement their digital equity plans, the federal agency said in a news release. West Virginia may access its $9 million allocation, a second NTIA release said. And NTIA awarded Wisconsin’s application for $13 million, according to a third release. NTIA approved New York state’s application Thursday, amid a flurry of such announcements (see 2410310029).

The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court decision supporting a state tax on digital ads, urged the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and two tech industry groups in a court brief Thursday. The Chamber, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are appealing a July decision of the U.S. District Court for Maryland dismissing the litigation (see 2407050012). The case (docket 22-2275) concerns a Maryland law that imposes a tax on digital ads and bars companies from directly passing along the additional cost to purchasers of digital advertising through separate fees or surcharges. The matter went back and forth between the two courts previously (see 2407050012). "If the power to tax truly is the power to destroy," wrote the industry challengers, "then it is most pernicious when the State is allowed to hide that it is exercising the power in the first place.” The state tax will force businesses to raise prices, but Maryland included a pass-through ban to prohibit companies from disclosing to customers that a state tax is the reason, they said. "Appellants’ members wish to convey to their customers that prices are rising in Maryland because their elected representatives have enacted this tax, and not because digital advertising companies are seeking additional profit.” However, "evidently wishing to avoid political responsibility for rising prices attributable to their ill-conceived tax policy," state lawmakers imposed a "presumptively unlawful content-based speech ban.” Maryland’s response brief is due Jan. 10.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, North Carolina extended deadlines for NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NCDIT) said Friday. NTIA granted the state permission to extend the previous Oct. 3 deadline for challenges regarding eligible locations until Jan. 8, said NCDIT. ISPs can submit rebuttals Jan. 21-Feb. 20 and NCDIT’s broadband division will make final determinations about eligible locations Feb. 21-March 22, the department said. Also, ISPs now have until Feb. 3 to prequalify to participate in BEAD. The deadline was Nov. 1 previously. The state has received more than 23,000 local challenges since opening the process on Sept. 3, said the department.

The tech industry renewed its fight against a Florida social media law in district court Friday following a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2407010053). The law’s challenged provisions are “facially unconstitutional,” NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in an amended complaint at the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida (case 4:21-cv-00220). The 2021 Florida law “seeks to punish select private parties for exercising editorial discretion in ways the state disfavors,” said the tech groups’ amended complaint. While Florida had defended the law “on the theory that websites like Facebook and YouTube do not engage in First Amendment activity when they make decisions about what content to disseminate and how to arrange and organize it,” the Supreme Court “laid that argument to rest,” they said. While the state may criticize websites’ moderation decisions, “the First Amendment prohibits the state from overriding those editorial judgments and substituting its own,” NetChoice and CCIA said. “Florida has identified no other interest that could justify [the social media law], and the provisions of the law at issue here are not remotely tailored to any interest it might come up with.”

Florida urged a federal court to quickly issue a permanent injunction against Smartbiz Telecom to stop scam calls. Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) filed the motion Wednesday at the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in case 1:22-cv-23945. Last month, the court partly granted Florida’s request for summary judgment, ruling that Smartbiz may be held liable for illegal robocalls transmitted over its network under the Truth in Caller ID Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (see 2409200034). However, the court said it would move to trial on the state’s additional counts alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations. “Defendant is actively transmitting high volumes of fraudulent and otherwise illegal robocalls into the United States,” said Moody. “Entry of a permanent injunction as soon as possible and prior to the final disposition of this action will prevent avoidable fraud losses caused by the scam calls Defendant continues to transmit to consumers.” Enjoining Smartbiz would be appropriate regardless of whether the AG succeeds in trial on the TCPA counts, added the Florida AG. Given the company’s “intentional, repeated illegal conduct and dishonesty,” the court should “cut Defendant off from the United States telephone network,” said Moody: That would be “the least restrictive measure that will still end Defendant’s dangerous and illegal conduct.”

Telecom companies balked at consumer advocates’ call to apply California carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations to broadband. The California Public Utilities Commission posted reply comments Thursday in a rulemaking about how to update the state’s 30-year-old COLR rules (docket R.24-06-012). In initial comments last month, carriers subject to COLR requirements asked that the CPUC shed those obligations in many parts of the state, while consumer advocates said COLR obligations remain necessary and should be updated to include high-speed internet service, not just voice (see 2410020037). Frontier Communications replied Wednesday that it opposes expanding the proceeding to do “a complex, controversial evaluation of legal and policy matters pertaining to the Commission’s potential regulation of broadband services.” Likewise, Consolidated Communications said the CPUC should "decline the invitation to undertake a substantial review of its regulatory jurisdiction over broadband services.” TDS protested that the consumer groups "seek to greatly expand this OIR beyond its intended purpose” without providing factual or legal reasons. Don’t let public advocates "transform this … into a generic telecommunications industry reexamination docket,” said a coalition of small rural local exchange carriers. Representing cable companies, the California Broadband and Video Association warned that adding broadband to the definition of a basic service or extending COLR obligations to broadband providers would be federally preempted. Meanwhile, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office pushed back on companies that said COLR obligations are outdated and should be eliminated. "In reality, the COLR concept remains essential to the guarantee of universal service, but must be updated to reflect the state’s transformed telecommunications landscape,” PAO said. AT&T disagreed. "Maintaining COLR obligations where they are superfluous would divert resources from vital broadband investments to outdated [time division multiplexed] networks, which are increasingly unwanted by consumers,” the carrier said. “It would not only stifle competition by arbitrarily constraining ILECs alone but also result in unnecessary operational costs and increased environmental harm due to prolonged use of copper networks.”