The Future of Broadband

The FCC Has Ruled on Net Neutrality; Do States Get a Say?

How much states can get involved has a lot to do with whether the FCC decides broadband inherently crosses state lines.

National Journal
Kaveh Waddell
Add to Briefcase
Kaveh Waddell
March 3, 2015, 3 p.m.

Among the many de­tails of the FCC’s net-neut­ral­ity plan that re­main vague is the role of states in im­ple­ment­ing the reg­u­la­tions, set­ting in a mod­ern con­text one of the old­est de­bates in Amer­ic­an polit­ics: the over­lap­ping and some­times con­flict­ing roles of state and fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.

The Con­sti­tu­tion af­fords the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment jur­is­dic­tion over com­merce that bleeds over state lines. State gov­ern­ments have the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late what’s left over: activ­it­ies that take place with­in the bor­ders of the state. That dis­tinc­tion is en­shrined, with a few ex­cep­tions, in the Tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions Act of 1996, which gives the FCC the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late in­ter­state trade and un­der cer­tain cir­cum­stances pree­mpt state reg­u­la­tions.

Broad­band has been re­garded as an “in­her­ently in­ter­state ser­vice,” says Rus­sell Hanser, an at­tor­ney at Wilkin­son Bark­er Knauer who rep­res­ents sev­er­al large cable and tele­com com­pan­ies. That means the In­ter­net has gen­er­ally been sub­ject to “ex­clus­ive fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion,” Hanser says.

“What the states have been more con­cerned about is con­sumer pro­tec­tion and pri­vacy,” says Jon Adame, dir­ect­or of com­mu­nic­a­tions, fin­an­cial ser­vices, and in­ter­state com­merce at the Na­tion­al Con­fer­ence of State Le­gis­latures. State reg­u­la­tion has been “more based on the con­tent that’s on the In­ter­net in a speech ca­pa­city as op­posed to what kind of pack­ets are mov­ing across the net­work,” Adame says.

But the FCC on Thursday re­clas­si­fied broad­band so that it could reg­u­late it as a com­mon car­ri­er, un­der the rules of Title II of the Com­mu­nic­a­tions Act — the same rules it uses to over­see phone ser­vices such as AT&T. Be­cause states have some reg­u­lat­ory au­thor­ity over tele­com ser­vices, there could be space for them to step in un­der the new reg­u­lat­ory frame­work.

The FCC has two op­tions: It can cre­ate a single, uni­fied set of rules that it says all 50 states have to fol­low, says Hanser, or it can “let a thou­sand flowers bloom — or at least 50 flowers bloom,” and al­low states to build on the net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions it voted on.

Hanser says he’s wor­ried a lais­sez-faire ap­proach to state reg­u­la­tions could lead to a “patch­work quilt” of stand­ards. In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders would have to either raise their prices to make up the cost of com­ply­ing with the var­ied reg­u­la­tions, he says, or drop out of cer­tain mar­kets en­tirely.

Of course, a pro­vider could just com­ply with the state that im­poses the most rig­or­ous reg­u­la­tions. Hanser says that’s un­fair — it means that one state gets to set na­tion­al policy — but op­pon­ents point out that the same is true for con­sumer pro­tec­tion stand­ards, which tend to be most re­strict­ive in lib­er­al states such as Cali­for­nia and Mas­sachu­setts.

The au­thor­ity of states to im­pose taxes and fees is an­oth­er un­re­solved ques­tion. If the FCC de­cides to al­low states to get in­volved, re­spons­ib­il­ity for en­for­cing net-neut­ral­ity rules could fall in part on state util­ity com­mis­sions. These com­mis­sions have the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late pub­lic util­it­ies such as wa­ter, en­ergy, and tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions, and many op­pon­ents of Title II reg­u­la­tions are afraid that the taxes and fees these com­mis­sions levy on pub­lic util­it­ies will soon come to broad­band as well.

But Brad Ram­say, gen­er­al coun­sel for the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Reg­u­lat­ory Util­ity Com­mis­sions, says the FCC’s de­cision changes little for states in the short term. “The no­tion that states are go­ing to sud­denly start as­sess­ing fees that they wer­en’t as­se­ing be­fore is a joke,” Ram­say said. “Most states are prob­ably go­ing to need le­gis­lat­ive changes be­fore they can even think about it.”

Taxes are largely off the table be­cause of the In­ter­net Tax Free­dom Act, a law Con­gress passed late last year that bans most new state and fed­er­al taxes on In­ter­net ac­cess.

But the FCC rul­ing still leaves the door open for states to col­lect fees, ac­cord­ing to Tracy Gor­don, a seni­or fel­low and tax policy ex­pert at the Urb­an In­sti­tute. “States have already shown some pro­cliv­ity to­ward tax­ing tele­com,” Gor­don says, but it re­mains un­clear to what ex­tent they’d pur­sue In­ter­net fees.

At least one fee is off the table for now: The FCC or­der will ini­tially dis­al­low states from col­lect­ing a fee that goes in­to the state Uni­ver­sal Ser­vice Fund, which is used for pro­jects such as sub­sid­iz­ing In­ter­net and phone ac­cess in rur­al areas, trade pub­lic­a­tion Com­mu­nic­a­tions Daily re­por­ted Tues­day. (Broad­band cus­tom­ers will not pay in­to the fed­er­al USF, either.)

At Thursday’s FCC vote, Com­mis­sion­er Mignon Cly­burn said the or­der’s treat­ment of USF fees was one of her dis­agree­ments with the fi­nal plan. “I think we should tread lightly when it comes to pre-empt­ing the states’ abil­ity to ad­opt and im­ple­ment their own uni­ver­sal ser­vice funds,” Cly­burn said at the meet­ing. “Not do­ing so could put a strain on the tre­mend­ous fed­er­al-state part­ner­ship that I have worked so hard to cre­ate, and state uni­ver­sal ser­vice funds are com­pletely dis­tinct from any fed­er­al pro­gram.”

For state reg­u­la­tions and fees, a lot rides on wheth­er the FCC de­clares broad­band an in­her­ently in­ter­state ser­vice in its reg­u­lat­ory plan. If it does, states couldn’t charge taxes and fees they levy on in­trastate util­it­ies, and would likely not have a lot of room to reg­u­late In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders past the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s plan.

Mean­while, both sides con­tin­ue play­ing polit­ics: FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er is on a net-neut­ral­ity charm of­fens­ive at a gath­er­ing of tech and tele­com ex­ec­ut­ives in Bar­celona, and Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers of Con­gress are cook­ing up a le­gis­lat­ive al­tern­at­ive to the FCC’s plan.

What We're Following See More »
Strzok Escorted from FBI Building
3 hours ago
Joe Hagin Resigning from White House
3 hours ago
North Carolina’s Governor Recalls National Guard Troops
4 hours ago
House Budget Would Balance the Books in Nine Years
8 hours ago

"House Budget Chairman Steve Womack’s fiscal 2019 budget resolution charts a path to balancing the budget in nine years through a combination of steep cuts in mandatory spending programs, freezing nondefense discretionary spending and banking on robust economic growth, according to a summary. Under the draft fiscal blueprint, which will be marked up in committee Wednesday and Thursday, the deficit would be reduced by $8.1 trillion over 10 years compared to current law or policy. The budget would produce a surplus of $26 billion in 2027 if all of the assumed policies were enacted, growing to $142 billion in 2028. The plan includes reconciliation instructions requiring $302 billion in savings over 10 years."

Border Patrol Chief Weighs In On Family Separation
8 hours ago

Manuel Padilla, the Border Patrol chief for the Rio Grande Valley, expressed his desire to CBS News for action to be taken to address family separation at the border. Separations have spiked under the Trump Administration's "zero-tolerance" policy. "We created this situation by not doing anything," Padilla said, arguing that previous immigration policy had created a "vacuum" for other families to attempt to cross the border.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.