Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/04/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB398 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB277 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 398 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 277 Opposition letter .pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |
| HB 277 ATT Opposition 4.2.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |
| HB 398 Additional Documents - 2015 Indirect Expenditure Report-Public Utility Exemption.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Sponsor Statement 4.3.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Additional Documents - Legisative Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Sectional Analysis v.D 4.3.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 398 Additional Documents - Dept. of Revenue Letter of Explaination 4.3.18.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 398 |
| HB 277 Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |
| HB277 Letter of Opposition - House Finance.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 277 |