Enacts the "NYS net neutrality protection act"; relates to state contracts being only with internet service providers compliant with net neutrality; prohibits the purchase of internet services from a non-net neutral source of internet services; requires certain disclosures by internet providers.
A07126, the “NYS Net Neutrality Protection Act,” would direct New York state and its governmental entities to favor internet service providers that comply with net neutrality principles when purchasing internet services. The bill defines “net neutral source of internet services” by reference to the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order and defines a “non-net neutral source” as an ISP that violates those principles. It would generally bar state and local contracting entities from awarding internet-service contracts to providers that refuse to agree to operate in a net-neutral manner when a comparable alternative is available, and it would require written findings when a noncompliant provider is selected because no comparable alternative exists or the service is necessary.
The bill also requires broadband providers operating in New York to report to the Public Service Commission and publicly disclose annually information about network management practices, performance, and commercial terms, so consumers and content/application providers can make informed choices. In addition, it amends the state finance law to create procurement rules for internet services, including remedies if a contractor later violates its net-neutrality stipulation, such as sanctions, compliance actions, damages, or default remedies. Certain contracts are excluded, including emergency procurements, some governmental and nonprofit contracts, and certain bond-related instruments, and the bill includes a federal-funds limitation where federal law would preempt or restrict selective purchasing conditions.
If enacted, the bill would change state procurement law by conditioning many state, municipal, public authority, and public benefit corporation internet-service purchases on compliance with net neutrality. It would also expand disclosure obligations for broadband providers and give the Public Service Commission a reporting and oversight role. The practical effect would be to steer public spending toward ISPs that adhere to open-internet rules and to create a state-level procurement incentive for net neutrality compliance.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented partisan split or formal vote history to gauge sentiment. Based on the bill’s sponsors and framing, the measure appears intended as a pro-consumer, pro-open-internet policy response to concerns about ISP blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. The main point of contention likely would be whether New York can and should use procurement rules to enforce net neutrality, especially where federal funding or federal telecommunications policy may limit state action.
The bill would amend the Public Service Law and State Finance Law to add net-neutrality-related definitions, reporting duties, and procurement restrictions. It would require broadband providers to disclose network management and commercial terms, and it would prohibit state and local entities from contracting for internet services with providers that do not agree to operate in compliance with net neutrality principles when comparable compliant services are available. It also creates enforcement mechanisms for violations and carves out exceptions for emergency, nonprofit, and certain finance-related contracts, as well as for contracts involving federally administered funds where federal law may preempt or restrict such conditions.
No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no formal record of support or opposition. The bill’s title, sponsors, and structure suggest a generally favorable sentiment toward preserving open internet access and using state purchasing power to encourage ISP compliance with net neutrality. The measure appears framed as consumer-protective and pro-transparency, with its supporters likely viewing it as a way to safeguard internet users and public institutions from anti-competitive network practices.
The likely contention centers on whether the state should tie procurement decisions to net neutrality compliance and whether that approach is legally and practically workable. Opponents may argue that the bill could limit contracting flexibility, complicate procurement, or conflict with federal telecommunications policy and funding conditions. Supporters would likely emphasize consumer protection, transparency, and the state’s ability to use its purchasing power to promote open-internet principles. The bill’s exceptions for federal funds and emergency or nonprofit contracts suggest awareness of these legal and operational concerns.