HJR 31-CONGRESS REVERSE FCC ON NET NEUTRALITY   3:47:28 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Urging the United States Congress to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's order ending net neutrality. 3:47:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HJR 31, paraphrased in part from his sponsor statement, included in the committee packet, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: In December 2017, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) adopted an order to reverse regulations that had established a federal broadband policy of net neutrality and attempted to preempt states from imposing regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Net neutrality protects an individual's ability to access and transmit information on a free and open internet. Without net neutrality, ISPs can lawfully slow down and block access to sites and charge customers higher rates to access certain websites, download music or watch videos. The FCC's order to repeal net neutrality risks making the internet into an unfair pay-to-play system for small businesses and individual users. Alaska's isolation from the Lower 48 means our citizens rely heavily on the internet for communication, commerce and emergencies. Many Alaskan communities already struggle to obtain stable, affordable internet access. Alaskans First Amendment rights of free speech, free press and free association are also at risk without a net neutral environment enabling the free and open flow of thoughts, ideas and concerns over the internet. Upon approval, this resolution would urge the United States Congress to exercise its authority under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's regulatory decision to reverse net neutrality protections. 3:50:40 PM JACOB GERRISH, Staff, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kawasaki, prime sponsor of HJR 31, gave a brief history of net neutrality by paraphrasing from his written testimony, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: In the 1996 Telecom Act, Congress made a distinction between two types of services: "telecommunications services" (Title II) and "information services." (Title I) "Telecommunications services" transmit a user's information from one designated point to another without changing the form or content of that information. For example, a phone call transmits the user's voice from one point to another without changing the content of the voice message, similar to the way a pizza delivery service transports a pizza from the pizza parlor to someone's home. "Information services," on the other hand, offer a user the capability to create, store, or process information. An information service is like a website hosting service, an online content creator, or an online social media service. Based on the definitions in the 1996 Telecom Act, in 2002 the FCC classified cable broadband as an "information service," but attempted to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as a "telecommunications service" by imposing common carrier-style telecommunications regulations. In this way, the FCC attempted to enforce net neutrality without specifically classifying ISPs as utility-style service provider. The FCC was attempting to find a common middle ground for net neutrality supporters and ISPs. In 2007 Comcast was caught slowing down people's internet (also known as throttling) and the FCC issued an order to stop the throttling and tell subscribers exactly how it managed their traffic. Comcast took the order to court and in 2010, a judge found that the FCC lacked the authority to enforce the open internet principles exactly because Comcast was classified as an information service provider, and not a telecommunications provider. Earlier that year, the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, had attempted to bolster net neutrality rules by applying some Title II regulations to Title I services. When those regulations went into effect in 2011, this time they were immediately challenged by Verizon and MetroPCS. In 2014, DC Circuit Court Judge David Tatel again ruled in favor of the broadband companies and found that unless ISPs were reclassified as a Title II "telecommunications service", it would be illegal for the FCC to impose any common carrier regulations on them. In that ruling, he specifically stated, "Broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness." MR. GERRISH relayed that since 1996, the FCC has intended to regulate net neutrality; however, it found through the various court cases that to do so would require reclassifying ISPs as Title II telecommunication services. He stated that the 2017 FCC rule-making proposal reclassified the ISPs as Title I services, thereby eliminating the authority of the federal government to enforce net neutrality. 3:54:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that "I think we're kind of getting the cart ahead of horse here." He offered that the law is in the process of being changed; Alaska has an opportunity to weigh in on this issue through its congressional delegation; and he suggested that those who were around during the time of rotary phones remember the days of heavy-handed government regulation involved in the phone service, which kept that phone in place for many years. He opined that the proposed resolution would interject government regulation into a process that arguably has advanced the United States; from a technology and internet standpoint, the country has done very well. He maintained that he is concerned with having the regulatory engagement throttled back and managed in the way proposed. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he does not support HJR 31 and its objective and believes it is unnecessary because Alaska's congressional delegation will be taking a hard look at the issue. He added that he is not sure the Congressional Review Act is the appropriate vehicle in this situation. He offered that he understands the intent of the proposed resolution but is skeptical that inviting the government in to manage the effort is good for the end consumer. 3:56:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for confirmation of his understanding that the "failure" was due to ISPs not being classified as Title II services, proposed in the court case, but remaining classified as Title I services. MR. GERRISH answered that before 2015, ISPs were classified as Title I information service providers. When they were caught slowing down the internet, the FCC issued an order requiring them to stop. The ISPs took the issue to court and the ruling stated that under Title I, the FCC did not have enforcement powers. In 2015, the FCC reclassified ISPs as Title II telecommunication service providers; the FCC was taken to court again, resulting in the order for net neutrality regulations to be upheld. He relayed that under Title II, the federal government has enforcement powers, under Title I, it does not. The 2017 [FCC] resolution [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)] returned ISP classification back to Title I; therefore, the FCC has no powers to enforce net neutrality. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked why the FCC returned ISP classification back to Title I. MR. GERRISH replied that he believed the decision was subject to the opinion of the FCC chairman at the time. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed that he does not understand the potential outcome of the repeal of net neutrality. He offered his understanding that with the repeal, internet speed and services would be subjective, while with net neutrality, government mandates open and equal access to the internet. MR. GERRISH agreed. 3:59:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cited the sponsor statement, which read, "The FCC's decision is extremely unpopular with the American public. A survey conducted by the University of Maryland found that 83 percent of Americans opposed repealing net neutrality." She asked whether the survey was a "push poll"; she questioned whether 83 percent of Americans even know what net neutrality is, let alone have an opinion on it. MR. GERRISH answered that the survey is included in the committee packet for review. He expressed his belief that it was not a push poll; the breakdown of responses by party affiliation revealed that both Democrats and Republicans support net neutrality. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the goal of the proposed resolution is to have the issue addressed by the U.S. Congress under the Congressional Review Act. She suggested that since net neutrality was repealed in December 4, 2017, and submission to the U.S. Congress for reversal of the rule under the Act must be done within 60 days, in the time it would take the legislature to act on the resolution, that deadline would have passed. MR. GERRISH expressed his belief that the 60 days begins after the new regulation has been added to the Federal Register, and that has not occurred yet. 4:01:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that his 26-year-old son, who doesn't follow any legislation, has expressed strong support along with his friends for net neutrality; it is an issue important to people who spend a great deal of time on the internet. 4:02:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that he has followed the net neutrality issue throughout its history; he noted that many millions of people commented to the FCC about the issue; he agreed that it is a very important issue; and he expressed his concern that without net neutrality, consumers will be paying extra for access to certain internet websites in addition to their monthly data plans. He stated that he supports the intent of the proposed resolution. 4:03:27 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HJR 31 would be held over.