[G]ov. Phil Scott’s executive order on net neutrality has drawn both support and resistance from internet companies in Vermont that could face new regulations in April, if the rules take effect.
Scott signed an executive order Feb. 12 that would direct the Agency of Administration to ensure that internet providers who contract with the state comply with net neutrality standards.
The governor’s order was a response to the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial December vote to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules — a sweeping move that, in effect, deregulates the internet. Scott’s action came after governors in New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Montana adopted similar rules.
Internet service providers in Vermont don’t have a unified reaction to the governor’s decision. While some say it’s a step in the right direction to preserve critical consumer protections, others say it’s unnecessary or inappropriate for the state to impose net neutrality regulations.
Burlington Telecom, an internet service provider that has been an outspoken advocate for net neutrality regulations, is “unequivocal” in its support for Scott’s order, according to its general manager, Stephen Barraclaugh.
“Some people say it doesn’t go far enough,” he said. “ I say well, let’s not complain too quickly, he’s one of the first five governors in the country to try and do something.”
The executive order would prevent internet companies that contract with the state from blocking content, engaging in paid prioritization of internet services or acting to “throttle, impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service.”
The loss of federal net neutrality protections has left many users concerned that internet companies will no longer treat all web traffic equally. Under deregulation, internet companies could start charging for access to certain content; they could block websites, or promote them; they could take action to slow down, or speed up, internet service to particular companies, news organizations or citizens groups.
The New England Cable & Telecommunications Association Inc., a trade organization that represents Comcast and Charter Communications in Vermont, said it supports net neutrality, but opposes Scott’s order.
Tim Wilkerson, the group’s vice president, said the companies he represents adhere to net neutrality standards, but he believes the state shouldn’t be in charge of setting the rules for internet providers.
“The best path forward to lasting consumer protections and growing both innovation and investment is not through a disruptive patchwork of inconsistent state actions, but rather through bipartisan federal legislation that establishes a clear and predictable national standard for net neutrality,” he said in a statement to VTDigger.
Some supporters of bills in the Legislature that would also push back against the FCC’s December decision say the governor’s rules don’t crack down hard enough on internet companies.
Their criticism of the order centers on a section that would allow state agencies to request a waiver if they believe bypassing the rules is in the state’s interest.
Critics say the provision is a loophole that could allow companies to avoid the rules.
“It opens a Pandora’s Box so then there’s an assumption that that’s the fallback position when in reality, net neutrality should always be the fallback position.” Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, said in an interview a day after Scott signed the order.
Lyons sponsored S.289, legislation that effectively implements the executive order but contains no provision for state agencies to waive net neutrality requirements.
The bill passed the Senate on Feb. 2 and is currently before the House Energy and Technology Committee, along with a House net neutrality bill, H.680, that would take an even broader approach to regulation.
John Quinn, the state’s chief information officer and secretary of the Agency of Digital Services, defended the waiver provision in the executive order and said it’s in place to ensure that state agencies in rural areas with few internet providers won’t lose service.
Waivers would be granted in the event that a critical internet provider couldn’t certify as net neutrality compliant “for some unknown reason.”
“We felt that the Senate bill tied our hands and didn’t give us a waiver process to be able to make sure that we can continue to provide Vermonters with online services and district office services that they need,” Quinn said.
Michel Guite, the CEO at Vermont Telephone Co., called the concerns over net neutrality in the governor’s office and the Statehouse “political theatrics.”
“It’s not that net neutrality isn’t a good thing, it’s that there are so many real issues to wrestle with in telecom,” he said.
Guite said politicians should be focusing on enacting other broadband policies, such as efforts to improve access to online courses in schools and bring tele-medicine to the state’s hospitals.
If the net neutrality rollback took effect, Guite said it wouldn’t change the way VTel delivers internet service to consumers. He added that the executive order has little practical impact.
“My concern is simply that it takes attention away from the real issues by causing people to pat themselves on the back for a document and an effort that is basically a false issue,” he said.
Barraclaugh disagrees and said Scott’s executive order is an important first step in bringing important regulations to Vermont.
“I’m hopeful that this is the start of something that will evolve over time,” he said.
“It may not be the perfect step, but in early days of anything you don’t often get the perfect steps.”
