AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7 and Title 65, relative to broadband enabled services.
This bill revises Tennessee law governing broadband internet access service and interconnected VoIP service. It defines broadband internet access service by reference to federal rules, excludes certain legacy tariffed intrastate services from that definition, and clarifies that broadband internet access service is not a telecommunications service under state law. It also defines interconnected VoIP service by reference to federal law.
The bill broadly limits state and local regulation of broadband internet access service and interconnected VoIP service. It prohibits state agencies, including the Public Utility Commission, and other government entities from adopting or enforcing laws or rules that regulate the entry, rates, terms, or conditions of those services or that treat their providers as carriers. At the same time, it preserves general consumer protection and fair competition laws, federal Telecommunications Act obligations, and certain nondiscriminatory fees related to 911, relay, and universal service assessments.
The bill also amends related utility statutes to exclude broadband providers from the definition of “public utility” and from the definition of “telecommunications service provider.” It further updates a separate provision to clarify that broadband internet access service is not included in a specified telephone-service-related exemption. These changes reduce the likelihood that broadband providers will be regulated under Tennessee’s traditional utility and telecommunications frameworks.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history appears favorable. The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee recommended the bill for passage unanimously, 7-0, suggesting broad support and little opposition at the committee stage. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed debate or amendments beyond the committee action.
The main point of contention, based on the bill’s structure, is the balance between deregulating broadband providers and preserving state oversight. Supporters likely view the bill as a way to prevent broadband from being treated like a regulated utility and to avoid state barriers to broadband deployment, while critics may be concerned that the bill limits future state and local authority over broadband pricing, service terms, or consumer protections. The bill attempts to address some of those concerns by expressly preserving generally applicable consumer protection laws and certain federal and fee-related obligations.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 7 and 65 to remove broadband internet access service and interconnected VoIP service from the state’s traditional telecommunications/public utility regulatory structure. It prevents state and local government entities from regulating those services as carriers or from imposing entry, rate, term, or condition controls, while preserving specified consumer protection, fair competition, and federal-law-based authorities. It also affects statutory definitions used in utility and telecommunications regulation, narrowing the scope of entities subject to those laws.
The available voting history indicates strong support for the bill, with the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee recommending passage by a 7-0 vote. No opposing testimony or recorded committee debate is included in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment appears favorable and relatively noncontroversial at the committee stage. The bill’s final enactment also suggests it advanced with sufficient bipartisan or cross-chamber support.
The central policy tension is between deregulation and regulatory oversight. Supporters are likely focused on classifying broadband as outside the traditional utility framework to encourage investment and deployment, while potential opponents may worry that the bill restricts Tennessee’s ability to regulate broadband rates, service quality, or provider conduct in the future. The bill preserves general consumer protection laws and certain federal obligations, which may have been intended to reduce concerns, but the scope of the preemption of state and local regulation remains the key issue.