Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/13/2018 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| SB108 | |
| SB160 | |
| HB18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 160-BROADBAND INTERNET: NEUTRALITY/REGULATION
2:19:53 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 160.
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 160, introduced the legislation speaking to the
following sponsor statement.
SB 160 would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
who provide broadband Internet to Alaskans to 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 unrestricted Internet access
for all Internet 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.
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 economic competition and free
communication.
SENATOR BEGICH thanked the committee for passing SJR 12. The
resolution relates to net neutrality and SB 160 moves the issue
to the local level. He explained that net neutrality means that
an internet service provider (ISP) is not able to decide what an
individual does on the internet and cannot block content or slow
the service.
2:22:23 PM
SENATOR BEGICH read the following excerpts from Fast Facts for
Conservatives on Net Neutrality by the Christian Coalition to
illustrate that net neutrality affects everyone regardless of
their beliefs:
"Net neutrality" policies helped create the most free
and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to
choose the winners and losers in a competitive
marketplace. This resulted in the best ideas, products
and services rising to top.
The new regulations will leave consumers with less
choice and our economy with less innovation and
competition. Without equality of access, such
innovation would be diminished at best, or perhaps
even begin to move to competing countries in the world
economy.
The new FCC regulations set the cable and phone
companies up to become the equivalent of the mafia to
the Internet. Today, consumers dictate the evolution
of the Internet. Under the new regulations, cable and
phone companies will be making the decisions. And
their decisions will not be made based on quality, but
rather on who pays the most "protection money" to be
protected from the competition of a truly free
marketplace.
To the question of whether the bill preempts federal law,
Senator Begich said the state has repeatedly questioned the
federal government's authority to dictate to the state. Some of
the issues on which the state pushed back were navigable rivers,
coastlines, and hunting and fishing rights. In each instance the
legislature sought to protect the rights of Alaskans first and
then let the courts decide when it was ambiguous. On the issue
of net neutrality, it is unclear whether it is or is not
ambiguous. Over 30 states are considering or have introduced
similar legislation. This sends a message to Washington, D.C.
SENATOR BEGICH said this issue should be decided at the federal
level and an Alaska ISP agrees. His office also agrees that the
Alaska Legislature should send a message to the Alaska
delegation, just as it did with the resolution [SJR 12] that it
is willing to act and protect Alaskans. The internet has always
been and should always be a platform for free speech and free
enterprise. It should not be up to ISPs to pick the winners and
losers. Labor and Commerce is the Senate's committee on the
economy and innovation and this committee should speak with the
strongest voice on all the issues that could threaten the
economy or innovation.
2:26:45 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked who could be opposed to this legislation.
SENATOR BEGICH said he can't imagine reasonable people would be
opposed to it, but the record shows that very large ISPs would
oppose it.
CHAIR COSTELLO read the language on page 1, lines 7-9, and asked
if this is already being publicly disclosed and the meaning of
"accurate information."
2:29:31 PM
SYNDEY LIENEMANN, PhD., Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska Juneau, Alaska, said the FCC
requires internet providers to make public the things listed in
subsection (a). The state Consumer Protection Board does not
currently require public disclosure.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked for a list of the states that have passed
or are contemplating legislation similar to SB 160, and who
drafted the bill.
SENATOR BEGICH agreed to provide the list. He advised that
Legislative Legal drafted the bill based on Washington State
law.
CHAIR COSTELLO referred to the language on page 3, lines 8-9,
and asked what the ramification would be if a company did not
publicly disclose accurate information.
SENATOR BEGICH said they'd be taken to court by the Consumer
Protection Bureau.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked him to talk about the difference between
the legislature communicating through a resolution versus
statutory changes.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that the resolution instructs the
Congressional delegation to act within the prescribed window and
reject the new federal regulation. If that were to happen the
bill would be moot. SB 160 is a backup plan that sets a model
and a template for legislation at the federal level. That's
where the decision ultimately should be made.
DR. LIENEMANN advised that the Congressional Review Act allows
Congress to reject new regulations within 60 days of publication
in the federal registry. To date the FCC has not published that
regulation.
2:34:48 PM
SENATOR MEYER opined that this should be done at the federal
level. He posited that Alaska could be disadvantaged if
individual states pass laws and large ISPs decide to go only to
those states that have the largest populations.
SENATOR BEGICH said he believes that passing SB 160 could
improve the ability of providers like ACS and GCI to compete
because they would be required to offer Alaskans broader content
than an outside competitor that isn't bound by net neutrality.
Second, the bill sets an example and a template for the federal
government to follow. Marijuana, marriage, and federal land
issues have been driven by action at the state level. "We have a
chance to be a leader in this process and I think we should."
2:36:36 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to talk about the FCC decision and
what that commission thought it was accomplishing.
SENATOR BEGICH explained that when the internet was in its
infancy it was regulated like a telephone call under Title I of
the FCC Act. This is fairly light-touch on the regulatory
spectrum. Regulation under Title II was used for information
sources and information services that one might want to store or
keep and download. While the internet was developing, a series
of actions took place that led the FCC to realize it needed to
attempt to more fully regulate the internet under Title I. One
example was when Comcast forced Netflix to compromise to ensure
smooth content delivery. In 2010 the FCC attempted further
regulation under Title I and in 2014 a federal district court
judge in Washington, D.C. rejected the attempt. The FCC moved
the regulation of the internet to Title II in 2015. This time
the judge agreed with the FCC that Title II was a more
appropriate place to regulate the industry to ensure content
neutrality.
In November 2017 there was indication that the FCC was about to
make a change. Millions of pro and con statements were sent to
the FCC, many of which were falsified on both sides. The FCC was
urged to hold the decision. Governor Walker wrote to urge the
FCC to examine the issue further. However, the chair of the FCC
chose to move forward in late December 2017 and returned the
internet to the light-touch regulatory framework. Experience
shows that is not a way to protect net neutrality, he said.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how members voted.
SENATOR BEGICH said it passed by one vote.
CHAIR COSTELLO added that the vote was 4:3.
2:40:16 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO opened public testimony on SB 160.
2:40:32 PM
JEANIE PIERCE, representing self, Kasilof, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 160. Responding to Senator Steven's query, she
said Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't like net neutrality. She said
this issue is about whether consumers can trust the FCC to act
in the best interest to maintain the free, open, and neutral
internet that consumers have enjoyed for decades. To roll back
net neutrality protections would allow ISPs to give preferential
treatment to certain users to the detriment of others. She
emphasized that everyone should be treated equally. She urged
members to, "Do what's right for the Alaska citizens, not what's
best for your political party's interest."
2:44:51 PM
DON MCNAMARA, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 160. He said he is in favor of a free and open
internet and agrees with the previous speaker.
2:45:27 PM
DONNA RAE FAULKNER, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 160. She said she supports a free and open
internet and everything the sponsor said to the committee. She
appreciates SB 160 and hopes it passes.
2:45:47 PM
TARA RICH, Legal and Policy Director, American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, said it would be
shocking and abhorrent if a telephone company could detect who
you were talking to or the subjects you were talking about.
Similarly, everyone would be up in arms if a telephone company
were to intentionally drop or block calls based on subject
matter. Because it is possible for internet companies to track
what people look at and what they do on the internet, net
neutrality is important to prevent an ISP from slowing or
blocking content. This has happened in the past on more than one
occasion. In 2007 Comcast saw its business model threatened and
throttled a peer-to-peer sharing network called BitTorrent.
Young people primarily used it to download free movies, but it
is also used for open content such as trade manuals and videos.
Video sharing has since proliferated throughout the internet and
net neutrality prevents an identical throttling situation. It's
a matter of letting the market forces work. She said net
neutrality is also a free speech issue. Today the internet is
used extensively for work and entertainment, but freedom of
expression isn't worth much when the fora where people are
having those conversations are not themselves free.
MS. RICH said there isn't agreement about whether federal law
would preempt legislation such as SB 160. Given that lack of
consensus, the ACLU believes the courts should decide the issue
rather than trying to preempt it legislatively.
She recommended looking at Portugal's internet plan to see what
a world without net neutrality looks like. It's a stark image,
she said.
2:50:56 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if a court case was underway.
MS. RICH said 22 state attorneys general have filed suit related
primarily to the FCC process during public comment. It also
challenges whether the FCC would need to create an entirely new
regulatory scheme rather than just eliminating the prior one.
Mozilla, the Free Press and others have lawsuits pending waiting
for the law to take effect and be published on the federal
register.
SENATOR STEVENS commented it's likely to take years and years.
MS. RICH agreed that was a possibility.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports net neutrality and the
resolution but this legislation seems premature. He asked if she
would agree that Congress probably supports net neutrality.
MS. RICH said she believes that SB 160 would encourage Congress
to overturn the FCC's open internet order of December 2017. It
would certainly show the Alaska delegation that Alaska is united
on the issue.
SENATOR MICCICHE opined that the bill would be completely
unenforceable outside of state lines and the issue is larger
than that.
MS. RICH agreed that the Alaska Legislature can't regulate
companies that have no business in Alaska. Alaskans would also
be affected if GCI or ACS uses Comcast's cables through peering
agreements to transmit Netflix and other video to Alaska. She
said states should present a united front; 30 states have
introduced or are contemplating similar legislation.
SENATOR MICCICHE shared a personal example to illustrate that
internet use is tracked. He asked if the ACLU considers and is
concerned that it's unconstitutional under Alaska's privacy
clause. "How much right do we have to push back as a state on
those larger privacy issues?"
MS. RICH said the ACLU of Alaska is about to launch the Alaska
Privacy Project that looks directly at those issues. She said
there are privacy implications with the way net neutrality would
be enforced that are relevant to the privacy clause of the
constitution. The ISP would need to know what people are
accessing to be able to block or throttle it.
2:58:14 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO closed public testimony on SB 160 and held the
bill in committee.