Establishes the “2025 Rhode Island Broadband Transparency and Consumer Protection Act."
H5817 would substantially revise Rhode Island’s Broadband Deployment and Investment Act by replacing the current statutory limits on state regulation of VoIP and other IP-enabled services with a new broadband transparency and oversight framework. The bill updates the findings section to emphasize broadband as essential infrastructure and declares a state interest in reliable, secure, affordable, and accessible broadband service. It also removes existing provisions that broadly bar state and local regulation of VoIP/IP-enabled services, while preserving certain fee, carrier, and tax-related protections.
The bill directs the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation to collect detailed broadband deployment and adoption data from internet service providers, state agencies, and other sources to maintain a statewide broadband map. That map must show service availability, speeds, transmission technology, and adoption rates, and be updated and published annually. ISPs would also have to report major outages within 48 hours and maintain five years of outage records. In addition, the corporation must develop a plan within one year for creating a broadband regulatory authority, including its mission, structure, funding, and timeline.
The bill would also authorize the Commerce Corporation to assess fees on ISPs to cover the costs of data collection and related activities, with fees tied to each provider’s Rhode Island broadband revenue. It creates enforcement tools for inaccurate or late reporting, including fines, suspension from state grant programs, and limits on future state-funded projects. The bill also requires rules and regulations to implement the new requirements and includes confidentiality protections for proprietary and trade secret information.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is pro-consumer and pro-accountability, with an emphasis on improving broadband visibility, planning, and service quality statewide. The bill’s framing suggests support for stronger state involvement in broadband oversight and consumer protection, rather than the prior deregulatory approach. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action.
The main point of contention likely concerns the shift from a largely preemptive, light-regulation model to a more active state oversight regime. Internet service providers may object to mandatory data reporting, outage disclosure, fee assessments, and potential penalties, while supporters are likely to argue that the requirements are necessary to identify underserved areas, improve transparency, and prepare for a future broadband regulatory authority.
The bill would amend Rhode Island General Laws chapter 39-28 by narrowing or repealing existing limits on regulation of VoIP and IP-enabled services and by adding a new section in chapter 42-64 governing broadband data collection, mapping, outage reporting, funding, and planning. It would require the Commerce Corporation to gather provider data, publish a statewide broadband map, and submit a plan for a possible broadband regulatory authority. It would also create new obligations for ISPs, including reporting, recordkeeping, fee payments, and compliance with enforcement measures, while preserving certain existing fee and tax authorities and confidentiality protections.
The bill appears to be driven by a generally supportive, reform-oriented sentiment focused on broadband transparency, consumer protection, and state capacity to address service gaps. Its findings emphasize broadband as essential infrastructure and call for more active public oversight. Because no committee discussion or votes were provided, there is no documented opposition or bipartisan debate in the available record, but the structure of the bill suggests it would likely be viewed favorably by advocates of broadband expansion and accountability and less favorably by providers concerned about regulation and costs.
The most notable contention is between proponents of stronger broadband oversight and internet service providers that may resist new reporting, fee, and enforcement requirements. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s repeal of existing statutory protections that limit state regulation of VoIP and IP-enabled services, which could be seen as a significant policy shift away from deregulation. Supporters are likely to focus on the need for accurate broadband mapping, outage transparency, and planning for underserved areas, while opponents may argue that the bill imposes administrative burdens, raises costs, and could discourage investment.