HOUSE BILL NO. 277 "An Act relating to the regulation of broadband Internet; and making certain actions by broadband Internet service providers unlawful acts or practices under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act." 2:47:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, SPONSOR, introduced the bill. He stressed that technology had changed rapidly in the past ten years. He explained that since 1996 the internet was governed under a system called "net neutrality". The bill required internet providers to engage in the practice of net neutrality. He read from a sponsor statement (copy on file): HB 277 would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who provide broadband Internet to Alaskan families engage in the practice of net neutrality. The bill would make sure all data on the Internet is treated equally. It would protect small businesses from uncompetitive practices and guarantee an open and free internet for all users. Without net neutrality, ISPs may legally speed up certain sites, slow down others, block sites all together, and require certain users to pay more for Internet fast lanes. The elimination of net neutrality gives ISPs the power to determine what websites consumers could visit and what content website creators could share. Allowing ISPs to discriminate based on content undermines a free and open Internet as well as a free and open society. Eliminating net neutrality risks Alaskans First Amendment rights of free speech, free press, and free association, the right to privacy, and distorts the free market. On multiple occasions, millions of Americans have publicly commented in favor of protecting net neutrality and have spoken out against the recent Federal Communications Commission order to eliminate net neutrality rules implemented in 2015. The internet is a modern necessity for individuals and businesses. Net neutrality is widely supported by consumer rights groups, privacy groups, and businesses organizations. This bill would ensure that the Internet remains a platform for unrestricted economic competition and free communication. I respectfully request your support for HB 277. Representative Kawasaki shared that net neutrality was supported by millions of people in the United States (US) and worldwide. He indicated that it was also a bipartisan issue; 88 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Independents, and 67 percent of Republicans supported net neutrality. He believed that net neutrality should be protected. He listed the support of various national groups from the political spectrum that supported net neutrality and maintaining an open and free internet. 2:52:11 PM Representative Wilson needed more detail on the bill. She wondered about the definition of net neutrality. Representative Kawasaki characterized the internet as an information highway and guaranteed the essential idea that everybody had the same access as everybody else - no matter what car one drove. Large corporations and small independent businesses had access to the same internet speed, accessibility, and rates as everyone else. Representative Wilson spoke about computer games requiring high speed internet and other users that only viewed documents; she wondered whether both types of accessibility would be charged the same amount of money. JACOB GERRISH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, answered in the affirmative and furthered that it was more complicated. He provided a scenario of a broadband company who owned a video game company and could prioritize the internet for their video games; it was about specific sites and not only different types of services. Mr. Gerrish reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file): Section 1: Adds a new Internet neutrality section to AS 42.05, The Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act that requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to: ? Disclose network management practices, performance, and commercial terms so that consumers can make informed decisions ? Not block, impair, prioritize, or interfere with Internet access, website content, or Internet traffic Provides for an exception to the restriction on prioritization if the Regulatory Commission of Alaska finds that such an action would benefit the public interest. Section 2: AS 45.50.471, adds violation of Internet neutrality to the list of unlawful acts and practices in the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act Section 1: Applicability section for contracts entered after the effective date of this bill. HB 277 does not apply to contracts entered between ISPs and consumers before that date. 2:55:35 PM Co-Chair Seaton understood that consumers had the right to buy a particular internet speed, which was not impacted by the bill. The bill would safeguard that an individual who purchased an internet speed of 10 GB (gigabyte) would be the same speed for every website the individual viewed. It would not be throttled down for a specific game site or advertiser. He surmised the bill prevented the provider of internet service from changing the speeds of the products that could be received. He asked whether he was generally correct. Mr. Gerrish replied that the remarks were very close to accurate. He used the example of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) where a large corporation or a small oil producer had the same access, which encouraged a smaller company to possibly become a larger company via the access. Co-Chair Seaton hypothesized that net neutrality was comparable to all the producer's oil travelling in the pipe at the same speed versus Alyeska choosing preferred providers oil that would travel to Valdez faster than other companies oil. He asked whether the example was correct. Mr. Gerrish replied in the affirmative. 2:58:50 PM Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. MIKE ROBINSON, ALASKA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of net neutrality. He elaborated that libraries supported net neutrality for equitable access and intellectual freedom reasons. The library was often the gateway to the internet for community members. Libraries offered access to subscription content services such as e-books, newspapers, and academic journals. The ability of internet providers to offer "fast lane" service for content providers who were willing to pay a premium price undermined the equitable access principle. He acknowledged that some believed that market competition would ensure equitable access and commented that market competition for broadband did not exist in many places in Alaska. He believed that net neutrality promoted intellectual freedom by providing equal access to all speech regardless of type or origin. He wanted to prohibit broadband companies from the ability to make decisions regarding what content was promoted or limited and remain gateways and not gatekeepers. 3:01:22 PM MARY JO TORGESON, ANCHORAGE PUBLIC LIBRARY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She informed committee members that libraries provided free and open access to information and net neutrality allowed that to happen. She cautioned that without the bill utility companies would choose to limit access even though providers would promise to abide by net neutrality. She appreciated the proactive approach to protecting internet access via the legislation. She voiced that the internet was one of the primary ways information was delivered and it was vital that providers were not able to control, limit, or manipulate the content. Libraries offered freedom of access and she supported the legislation. Representative Wilson asked if there had been a change in the internet at the library since the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) change. Ms. Torgeson replied that the ruling took place later in April. She provided an example related to a grocery store endcap shelf space offered at a greater price to describe the impact if net neutrality was lost. She related that she had not experienced any change in internet service and remembered that GCI promised to protect net neutrality. She commented that protecting net neutrality should be up to the government, not a provider. 3:04:36 PM EVELYN TREFON, SELF, NEWHALEN (via teleconference), testified in favor of the bill. She believed that maintaining net neutrality in Alaska was of the "utmost importance." She worried what would happen to her home internet if GCI decided to abandon net neutrality. She shared that she currently paid $220 per month for only 60gb. She believed internet should be available for all Alaskans at reasonable rates and speeds. 3:05:43 PM MARTIN STEPETIN, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the legislation. He believed that net neutrality was at the forefront of the first amendment and free speech. He noted that GCI was owned by a much larger non-Alaskan corporation; Liberty Interactive. He shared that he had written to Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan in opposition to the FCC ruling and congresses actions to repeal net neutrality laws. He voiced that the state was currently not protected by any federal laws governing net neutrality and believed the state must act to protect its broadband. He believed that history demonstrated service providers would "violate basic laws when left to their own devices". He relayed that AT&T blocked iPhone users from using SKYPE in 2007 and in 2005 a Canadian company blocked users trying to organize a labor strike. He could provide many other examples. He emphasized that the state must take measures to protect its citizens from losing net neutrality. 3:09:04 PM LEON JAIMES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He had worked in the information technology field for 20 years and worked as an information security consultant. He believed net neutrality protected businesses in the state from the "pay to play" practices. He believed that without net neutrality, regulation, free speech, and privacy were at risk. He elucidated that net neutrality played a vital role in ensuring that service providers did not engage in collecting large sets of data that lead to individual's personal data. He pointed to recent abuse of user privacy by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook and did not want internet providers to access the same information. He expressed concern about how an individual's data content would be catalogued and recorded in order to be billed under the ruling. He relayed that it was challenging for business to protect the information it collected, and the ruling would make it more difficult. He supported implementing net neutrality in Alaska. Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. 3:11:55 PM Co-Chair Foster noted there were two members of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) online. He asked if they had comments. DAVID PARRISH, COMMON CARRIER SPECIALIST IV, REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA (via teleconference), did not currently have remarks. The commission did not yet know what would be required of them to implement net neutrality. He stated that the RCA was uncertain whether they would have any jurisdiction in the matter considering the FCC's recent ruling. Representative Guttenberg stated that the FCC had taken some of the authority away from the states. He asked, "what authority the state had to control what the state does." Mr. Parrish answered that New York and Montana had taken executive action to ensure that any state contracts with broadband service providers would have to comply with net neutrality provisions. He thought that states could use right-of-way permissions in the same manner. He determined that there were other avenues the state could take that would not "implicate" federal preemption. 3:15:10 PM Representative Kawasaki stated the bill would specifically prohibit decreasing, blocking, or interfering in internet service. He reported that subsection (c) of the bill dealt specifically with the RCA regarding telehealth and telemedicine what would benefit the public interest. He asked for the RCA's interpretation. Mr. Parrish believed Representative Kawasaki was referencing to subsection (c) and the language " The commission may waive the prohibition in (b)(3). He guessed that it applied to the types of services that had a public service aspect if a carrier felt that they had to affect other users access to enable the public service; it would allow carriers to make appropriate network management decisions. The commission would have the ability to waive prohibitions in the act when it was found in the public's interest. Representative Kawasaki asked whether the commission viewed services relating to health, education, and public safety in the public interest versus kids playing games on the internet. Mr. Parrish answered in the affirmative. He elaborated that it would allow carriers to make the decisions without running foul of the prohibitions on the bill. 3:18:09 PM Representative Wilson asked what complaints the commission had that would fall under net neutrality. Mr. Parrish asked for clarification. Representative Wilson referenced the fiscal note analysis on page 2 that mentioned over 450 consumer complaints per year with the bill adding up to 85 more. She asked what type of complaints were received. JONATHAN CLEMENT, ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), replied that the department had not tried to decide on the type of complaints they may receive regarding net neutrality. There was anticipation that additional complaints may come in due to media coverage of the bill and noted that the number was a rough estimate. Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Friday. HB 277 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following day.