ISPs and consumer advocates recommended tweaks as the California Public Utilities Commission began finalizing state rules for NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. The CPUC plans voting Sept. 26 on a proposed decision approving rules implementing volume two of the CPUC’s proposed rules, which it submitted to NTIA in December. Determining the extremely high cost per location threshold (EHCPLT) on a project area unit (PAU) basis as proposed "will lead to inconsistent results,” said AT&T in comments Thursday, recommending a statewide approach instead. “Such piecemeal and fluctuating EHCPLT determinations make project predictability difficult as applicants formulate their submissions and will likely increase the number of PAUs that would be too costly for fiber deployments.” Also, several proposals would "result in rate regulation in violation of the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act," including a proposed middle-class affordable option with a $74 monthly rate cap, AT&T said. The California Broadband & Video Association advised that CPUC maximize BEAD funding’s reach “by prioritizing private matching funds over speculative awards from other grant programs and by ensuring that applicants have the financial capability and sustainability for their proposed projects.” Avoid discouraging participation with "restrictive price caps" or "skewed scoring criteria related to affordability, labor, and network resilience,” the cable association said. But Tarana Wireless asked the CPUC to reconsider scoring criteria that favor big companies. For example, one category "will only award a full 20 points to providers capable of providing at least a 65% private sector match or more of requested funding amount," a requirement that's "unusually high and favors larger and wealthier service providers.” The CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office urged setting "a hire bar" for allowing a subgrantee to increase the price of a required $30 low-cost option. Center for Accessible Technology, another consumer group, asked why companies may request increasing low-cost plan prices to account for inflation or increased costs, but there’s no way to reduce prices “when a provider’s financial viability can be sustained at the lower level.” The Utility Reform Network said the CPUC should plan for the possibility that the low-cost option and affordability issues may need to be revisited, including due to the end of the affordable connectivity program.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals misread the 1996 Telecom Act when it ruled that the federal statute doesn't preempt the New York Affordable Broadband Act, TechFreedom said in an amicus brief Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court, which supported ISP associations seeking SCOTUS review. The 2021 state law required $15 monthly plans with 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households. The 2nd Circuit upheld the law based on Title I regulation of broadband a day after the FCC reclassified it as Title II, a decision that the 6th Circuit later stayed. "New York was not free to ignore the deregulatory aims Congress codified in Title I,” the think tank argued in its brief. "Congress wants Title I information services to flourish under a light-touch regulatory regime. New York’s law imposing rate regulations on broadband is conflict-preempted, and a divided panel of the Second Circuit erred in holding otherwise." The 2nd Circuit incorrectly assumed that "because there is express preemptive authority in Title II, there can be no implied preemptive authority in Title I,” said TechFreedom. “There is no rule by which preemption may be implied when Congress elects to regulate, but must be express when Congress elects not to regulate.” It added that allowing New York to treat broadband like common carriage would permit the state to treat any Title I information service, including email and text messaging, the same way.

Fewer than 1% of Californians exercised opt-out rights with the largest data brokers last year, a Consumer Watchdog report released Thursday found. The consumer group said it analyzed opt-out numbers for Experian, Acxiom and LiveRamp. People probably aren’t exercising their rights under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in higher numbers “because these rights aren’t user friendly, as opting out has to be done website by website, and that takes forever,” said Justin Kloczko, Consumer Watchdog tech and privacy advocate. That could soon change, he said. Under the 2023 Delete Act, Californians will be able to delete all data that a data broker collects in one step starting in 2026, said Kloczko. In addition, if Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signs AB-3048, which passed the legislature last month (see 2408290005), consumers will be able to opt out from the sale of and sharing data on all websites through a required option in web browsers, he said.

NTIA cleared three more initial plans for the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. Idaho may now access its $483 million BEAD allocation, while North Dakota can tap $130 million and American Samoa $37 million, NTIA said Thursday. The federal agency has approved initial BEAD plans for 43 of 56 U.S. jurisdictions. It approved New Jersey’s plan Sept. 6 (see 2409090009). Also Thursday, Colorado started accepting applications for its $826.5 million BEAD allocation. “Being one of the first to open this funding positions us ahead of other states and territories, and will lead to Colorado completing projects faster,” said Gov. Jared Polis (D) in a news release.

Vermont wants to make it cheaper for residents living more than 400 feet from roadways with fiber lines to connect to high-speed internet, the Vermont Community Broadband Board (VCCB) said Thursday. The board unanimously approved a resolution directing staff to develop a program that would provide funds to qualified providers to cover the extra cost to reach farther-away, low-income Vermonters, the VCCB said. The board estimated it can cost several thousands of dollars for aerial drops -- and more for underground drops. The planned Long Drop Program fund will use $1.5 million from Vermont’s Connectivity Initiative and up to $2.5 million in federal funding from the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Projects Fund that returned to the VCCB after some previously awarded broadband projects came in under budget, the board said. Inviting comments on the program while it’s developed, the VCCB said it plans to issue a request for proposals “toward the end of the year.”

The U.S. District Court of Utah granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction against the state’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act, which was set to go into effect in October. The injunction bars Utah from enforcing the law until NetChoice’s legal challenge is resolved (see 2407230034). The court “recognizes the State’s earnest desire to protect young people from the novel challenges associated with social media use,” said the ruling Tuesday from Judge Robert Shelby. “But owing to the First Amendment’s paramount place in our democratic system, even well-intentioned legislation that regulates speech based on content must satisfy a tremendously high level of constitutional scrutiny.” Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) hasn’t, Shelby wrote. “Utah’s law not only violates the First Amendment, but if enforced would backfire and endanger the very people it’s meant to help,” NetChoice Litigation Center Director Chris Marchese said in a news release. This ruling is NetChoice’s sixth successful request for an injunction against a state social media law. “We look forward to seeing this law, and others like it, permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected across the country,” Marchese said. Shelby said that the law was underinclusive in what companies and websites it applied to and that its provisions against autoplay didn’t appear to prevent the behavior it targeted. “Defendants do not offer any evidence that requiring social media companies to compel minors to push ‘play,’ hit ‘next,’ and log in for updates will meaningfully reduce the amount of time they spend on social media platforms,” Shelby wrote. “We’re disappointed in the district court’s decision preliminarily enjoining Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act," a spokesperson for Reyes said. "The AG’s office is analyzing the ruling to determine next steps. We remain committed to protecting Utah’s youth from social media’s harmful effects.”

Following a letter last month to the state's school district superintendents and trustees urging them to adopt cellphone-free school policies, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) is on a 56-county tour to discuss the matter, the state said Tuesday. In the letter, Gianforte said it was "critical for all Montana schools to adopt such a policy" for student health and educational issues. He said Montana will start working with education and health officials to develop resources districts can use in crafting and implementing cellphone-free policies.

A disappointed Lumen is reviewing its options after the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission rejected a proposed settlement between the company and UTC staff related to the state’s method of regulation, a Lumen spokesperson said Tuesday. The pact would have reduced regulation of the telco by classifying Lumen’s CenturyLink ILECs as competitive. In a 3-0 order Friday, the commission took issue with a proposed process for discontinuing service in challenging customer locations (CCLs), which the agreement defines as “an existing CenturyLink local service customer location in Washington that lacks both fixed internet availability from at least one provider at [25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload] speed or greater priced at $61.13 per month or less, and mobile wireless service at $61.13 per month or less.” Under the pact, CenturyLink would have to get UTC approval before discontinuing stand-alone residential or business exchange service to any area including a CCL. However, the commission agreed with concerns by the state attorney general’s public counsel office that “that the CCL definition is too narrow, and that the discontinuance process could leave some customers without adequate service.” The commission sought “broader protections and a more stringent approval process.” The UTC added that “CenturyLink, a profitable company that has previously accepted federal money to provide these services to customers needs to do more to meet the needs of its most vulnerable customers who would be affected by the inequities of this proposal.” The rejection means a “temporary extension” of the current alternative form of regulation (AFOR) scheme until parties can adjust the settlement and the commission can resolve Lumen’s Jan. 8 petition seeking competitive reclassification, said the order in docket UT-240029. CenturyLink has operated for nearly a decade under an AFOR in Washington state (see 2402060015). Lumen “worked closely with [Washington UTC] staff to reach a settlement creating a comprehensive new regulatory structure reflective of today’s competitive market,” said the company’s spokesperson. “The proposed settlement contained multiple levels of safeguards that ensured no CenturyLink customers would be left without service.”

The Nebraska Public Service Commission later this month will consider adjusting the Enhanced Wireless 911 Fund surcharge, state commissioners agreed unanimously at a livestreamed Tuesday meeting. The Sept. 24 hearing in docket 911-002 starts at 11:30 a.m. CDT.

By not issuing a written reason, Elkhart, Indiana, improperly denied Verizon Wireless’ application to build a 135-foot monopole, the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana ruled Friday. The court granted summary judgment for Verizon but remanded the matter to Elkhart’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide the missing explanation by Oct. 21. Verizon argued that the BZA’s unanimous decision violated Section 332 of the 1996 Telecom Act, but the city claimed that substantial evidence supported its denial. In a Friday opinion, Judge Damon Leichty said the BZA violated the Telecom Act (TCA) because it gave “no written reasons for its denial that would facilitate a meaningful appeal or enable judicial review.” As a result, “Verizon cannot meaningfully articulate a challenge to any one reason, if in fact any reason existed,” Leichty wrote. However, the court decided it will give BZA a chance to explain. “There is no question the BZA violated the TCA in never providing a written explanation, but no one seriously contends that it otherwise acted with anything but reasonable promptness in its decision,” said the judge. “Accordingly, the court will remand this matter to the BZA for a prompt TCA-compliant decision. The court will be receptive to expedited briefing and review of this matter should the BZA decline to issue the variance without such a compliant decision or without substantial evidence, upon any necessary appeal and assignment here.”