The Federal Communications Commission last week voted to significantly ease regulatory requirements in the $45 billion business data services (BDS) market, and now Chairman Ajit Pai has announced a plan to roll back net neutrality rules.

During a speech Wednesday at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., Pai outlined a plan to reduce the government’s oversight of high-speed internet providers. Two years ago, the Commission adopted regulations that treat broadband as a telecommunications service, prohibit blocking and slowing down of Web content, and ban Internet providers from prioritizing certain traffic.

“The FCC, on a party-line vote, decided to impose a set of heavy-handed regulations upon the internet,” Pai said. “It decided to slap an old regulatory framework called ‘Title II’ – originally designed in the 1930s for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly – upon thousands of Internet service providers, big and small. It decided to put the federal government at the center of the internet. Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”

Pai said his plan will bring high-speed internet access to more Americans, create jobs, boost competition and better protect online privacy.

“Do we want the government to control the Internet?” he said. “Or do we want to embrace the light-touch approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1996, and repeatedly reaffirmed by Democratic and Republican FCCs alike?”{ad}

At its May 18 meeting, the FCC will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking, and if adopted, the Commission will seek public input on this proposal.

Kathy Grillo, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel, public policy and government affairs, said the telco supports both net neutrality and Pai’s proposal to roll back Title II utility regulation on broadband.

“Title II (or public utility regulation) is the wrong way to ensure net neutrality; it undermines investment, reduces jobs and stifles innovative new services,” she said. “And by locking in current practices and players, it actually discourages the increased competition consumers are demanding.”

CenturyLink said Pai’s plan offers a “long-sought-after solution to the problem of over-regulating the Internet and helping the internet ecosystem continue to evolve to meet growing consumer demand.”

The Internet Association, a group that represents more than 40 top Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, and Netflix, said the current rules are working and “these consumer protections should not be changed.”

“The existing 2015 open Internet order protects consumers from ISPs looking to play gatekeeper or prioritize their own …

{vpipagebreak}

… content at the expense of competition online,” said Michael Beckerman, the association’s president and CEO. “Rolling back these rules or reducing the legal sustainability of the order will result in a worse internet for consumers and less innovation online.”

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat and member of the Senate Commerce Committee, issued a statement saying “gutting these rules robs Americans of protections that preserve their access to the open and free Internet.”

“Depriving the FCC of its ongoing, forward-looking oversight of the broadband industry amounts to a dereliction of duty at a time when guaranteeing an open internet is more critical than ever,” he said.

Regarding BDS regulation, the order adopted by the Commission states that because of “substantial and growing” competition in the BDS market, legacy regulation “inhibits the investment required for the transition of BDS from legacy TDM networks to high-speed Ethernet connectivity.”

“There’s an allure, I’ll concede, to micromanaging prices, terms and conditions,” Pai said in a statement. “But hopes and good intentions can’t override economic analysis and hard data. Micromanagement can thwart competition. It can stifle investment. It can prevent us from ever achieving long-term results that benefit consumers.”

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who voted against the order, called it “one of the worst I have seen in my years at the commission.”

“As I see it, this order deepens the digital divide,” she said. “Communities where competition is unlikely to ever develop will see substantial deregulation, so rural and poor areas will see prices go up without the hope of any relief. Today is a sad day for the proud small business owners across this great nation, for rural hospitals, schools, libraries and police departments, indeed, for all consumers.”

CenturyLink commended the Commission for “recognizing the widespread competition in the business-data services market and aligning the Commission’s regulations to reflect competitive market realities.”{ad}

“Right-sizing these regulations based on a fact-based, data-driven analysis will promote investment in next-generation broadband facilities and help spur economic growth across America,” said John F. Jones, CenturyLink’s senior vice president of public policy and government relations. 

Chip Pickering, CEO of Incompas, the trade association for competitive networks, said that outside of the FCC and a “handful of AT&T lobbyists, there is not a single person on the planet who believes we currently have enough broadband competition.” Last August, Incompas and Verizon submitted a proposal that included price reductions and a competitive market test for the FCC to consider as it analyzed the market.

“Prices are going up, and customer service is going down,” he said. “That doesn’t happen in free markets with competitive choice. By saying one provider is sufficient, the FCC is favoring old incumbents over new innovators. It is punishing small business customers, and holds back entrepreneurs. Our networks drive our economy, and blocking competition from one of our economy’s most important sectors is dangerous.”

A group of small, rural broadband providers has signed a letter in support of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to reduce the government’s oversight of high-speed internet providers.

Members of the trade group USTelecom sent their letter to Pai this week. Two years ago, the FCC adopted regulations that treat broadband as a telecommunications service, prohibit blocking and slowing down of Web content, and ban Internet providers from prioritizing certain traffic.

Pai’s plan seeks to eliminate Title II net neutrality rules. In their letter, USTelecom members praised his plan for ensuring “broadband companies can continue to invest vigorously in stronger, faster networks for consumers, free from the bureaucratic straightjacket of outdated regulations known as Title II.”

“Each of us believes profoundly in preserving internet freedom, and we would never consider acting contrary to the interests of our customers,” it said. “You can call anyone you want and say anything you like on the telephone. Our customers deserve – and have always enjoyed – these same freedoms online, so we take no issue with efforts to safeguard these freedoms. Rural America urgently needs a smarter and more practical approach than rules based on laws written when our grandparents were stringing the countryside with copper and even cattle wire to connect neighbors on old party-line telephones. A clean, modern framework would accomplish two things: clear, unequivocal net neutrality protections for consumers; and equally clear, unequivocal regulatory certainty for companies working to bring broadband’s benefits to everyone.”{ad}

At its May 18 meeting, the FCC will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking, and if adopted, the Commission will seek public input on Pai’s proposal.

There are plenty of critics. Last week, more than 800 startups, entrepreneurs, investors and organizations sent Pai a letter opposing his plan.

“Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market,” it said. “They could impede traffic from our services in order to favor their own services or established competitors. Or they could impose new tolls on us, inhibiting consumer choice. Those actions directly impede an entrepreneur’s ability to start a business, immediately reach a worldwide customer base, and disrupt an entire industry. Our companies should be able to compete with incumbents on the quality of our products and services, not our capacity to pay tolls to Internet access providers.”

Sprint and Windstream have filed a lawsuit in protest against a Federal Communications Commission deregulation plan.

Last month the FCC approved a Report and Order that extends the scope of “regulatory forbearance” for companies offering business data services (BDS). This means a loosening of regulations for special access – connections used by wireless providers to move data through wired networks – in geographical markets that the FCC dubs competitive.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wrote that the agency will test the markets to determine if “50 percent of the locations with BDS demand in that county are within a half-mile of a location served by a competitive provider or if 75 percent of the census blocks in that county have a cable provider present.” If so, the area will be called competitive.

“In counties where the test finds sufficient facilities-based competition to discipline prices, we allow for pricing flexibility and begin the process of de-tariffing special access service,” Pai wrote.

He said the FCC will prevent the upward movement of prices for business data services in noncompetitive areas.

Windstream and Sprint this week filed a lawsuit that called the Report and Order “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion,” requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., reverse the initiative.{ad}

The Kansas City Business Journal reports that the deregulation would remove price caps on the bandwidth that Sprint buys from carriers to patch holes in its network. The biggest cable companies are split on the FCC’s initiative, as AT&T fiercely opposed the policies of former chairman Tom Wheeler and welcomed Pai’s move toward deregulation.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn dissented from the 186-page Report and Order, saying that it will have a negative impact on local economies.

“Call it whatever you want – business data services (BDS) or “special access” – what this order does is open the door to immediate price hikes for small business broadband service in rural areas and hundreds of communities across the country,” she wrote. “Cash-strapped hospitals, schools, libraries and police departments will pay even more for vital connectivity, and soon we will see pressure on our rural health care and E-Rate fund budgets, resulting in less bandwidth for our schools, libraries and rural health-care institutions.”

She argues that while more cable companies have entered the business data services market, there has been “significant consolidation” among those companies, such as Verizon and XO, Windstream and EarthLink, and CenturyLink and Level 3.

“Yet, the order uses as its justification to deregulate the existence of competitors that no longer compete in the market, and the fact those former competitors have been purchased by the very incumbents they are supposedly competing against, magically gets lost in the analysis,” she said. “Mark my words, we will see more, not less, consolidation as a result of this order.”

Last year Sprint and Windstream joined with Frontier Communications in support of expanded price caps for business data services.

The Federal Communications Commission Thursday voted to propose ending utility-style oversight of internet service providers.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced the plan late last month. Two years ago, the commission adopted regulations that treat broadband as a telecommunications service, prohibit blocking and slowing down of web content and ban internet providers from prioritizing certain traffic.

For the next 90 days, the FCC will collect comments from stakeholders and the general public before drafting a specific order and voting on whether to set it into law.

“Today’s notice is the start of a new chapter in the public discussion about how we can best maintain a free and open internet while making sure that ISPs have strong incentives to bring next-generation networks and services to all Americans,” Pai said. “To reiterate, this is the beginning of the process, not the end. The FCC is simply seeking comment on these proposals. We also ask questions about the existing bright-line rules. Over the next 90 days, the American public will then have a chance to share its views on them. And in the time to come, the FCC will follow the facts and the law where they take us.”{ad}

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who voted against the notice, said that while the “majority engages in flowery rhetoric about light-touch regulation and so on, the endgame appears to be no-touch regulation and a wholescale destruction of the FCC’s public interest authority in the 21st century.”

Craig Silliman, Verizon’s executive vice president of public policy and general counsel, said the telco supports rolling back Title II utility regulation on broadband.

“The FCC under Chairman Pai’s leadership took an important step today towards returning to the regulatory framework that was so successful for so many years,” he said.

The Internet Association, a group that represents more than 40 top internet companies, including Google, Facebook and Netflix, said the current rules are working.

“ISPs should not be able to use their position as gatekeepers to prioritize their own content over others,” said Michael Beckerman, the association’s president and CEO. “Internet companies stand with consumers, startups and other beneficiaries of the ecosystem in our fight to maintain a free and open internet.”

Democrats in Congress Tuesday introduced a resolution aimed at overturning the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to end net neutrality.

At a press conference, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California announced the House and Senate resolutions to fully restore net neutrality.

In December, the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of repealing 2015 rules that prevented internet service providers from charging extra for, or slowing access to, particular content. It was a big win for companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast that control much of the residential internet landscape.

“President Trump and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai might want to end the internet as we know it, but we won’t agonize, we will organize,” Markey said in a statement. “The grassroots movement to reinstate net neutrality is growing by the day, and we will get that one more vote needed to pass my … resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to join the overwhelming majority of Americans who support a free and open internet. The internet is for all – the students, teachers, innovators, hard-working families, small businesses, and activists – not just Verizon, Charter, AT&T and Comcast and corporate interests.”

Pai led the commission’s initiative to end the regulations, saying that they stifled innovation and competition.

Last week, the FCC’s rule repealing net neutrality was published in the Federal Register, leaving 60 legislative days to seek a vote on the Senate floor on the resolutions. In order to force a vote on the Senate resolution, Markey said he will submit a discharge petition, which requires a minimum of 30 senators’ signatures. Once the discharge petition is filed, Markey and Senate Democrats will demand a vote on the resolution.

The USTelecom trade association is opposing the resolutions. Its president and CEO Jonathan Spalter called the resolutions “neither pro-consumer nor pro-innovation.”

“While the (resolution) might offer the political equivalent of a temporary sugar high, if Congress truly wants to ensure our internet’s future will be as open, dynamic and free as it has been since its inception, the only way forward is bipartisan legislation that codifies the net neutrality principles our nation’s broadband providers have committed to uphold once and for all,” he said. “America’s consumers expect and deserve nothing less.”

In the meantime, California and New York are among several states challenging the FCC’s net neutrality decision.

The Trump administration wasted no time challenging California’s newly signed law that restores net neutrality in that state, calling it “extreme” and “illegal.”

Last December, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in favor of repealing the rules, a big win for companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast that control much of the residential internet landscape. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led the commission’s initiative to end the regulations, saying that they stifled innovation and competition.

FCC’s Ajit Pai

On Sunday, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 822 to impose new regulations on internet service providers operating in the state. The Department of Justice (DOJ) then immediately announced its lawsuit, saying the law unlawfully imposes burdens on the federal government’s deregulatory approach to the internet.

“I’m pleased the (DOJ) has filed this suit,” Pai said. “The internet is inherently an interstate information service. As such, only the federal government can set policy in this area. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently reaffirmed that state regulation of information services is preempted by federal law.”

Jason Blackwell, IDC’s research director of consumer multiplay and SMB telecom, tells Channel Partners that California will “definitely face a challenge from the DOJ in terms of implementing legislation for a service that crosses state lines and impacts national and multinational entities.”

“Since the DOJ is suing California over the net-neutrality legislation, it is likely that other states may take a wait-and-see approach to implementing their own similar regulations,” he said.

Jessica Ortega, SiteLock product marketing associate and member of its research team, said California’s new law is likely to face a “very heated court battle, potentially going all the way to the Supreme Court because the current federal administration and FCC leadership have been vocally opposed to this type of regulation.”

SiteLock’s Jessica Ortega

“At this time, only Washington [state] has enacted a law restoring net neutrality guidelines, but this law is not as comprehensive as California’s version,” she said. “It is likely that other states will enact similar laws and later join the court battle over the regulations, potentially as additional defendants. The stakes for these lawsuits are very high because if California wins, it would essentially force the federal government to restore these rules at a national level. As the largest state, California consumer laws often set the tone for the rest of the country because companies manufacture products to meet these laws and ship them nationwide.”

The potential outcomes from reversing net-neutrality regulations aren’t entirely clear, but it likely will result in negative impacts on broadband consumers, Blackwell said. U.S. broadband customers already face a market where “there is little competition as many areas are served by only one internet service provider,” he said. In other cases where both cable and telco internet service is available, cable operators typically offer much higher speeds, making the telco offer less enticing, he said.

“Those who support the removal of net-neutrality regulations often argue that ISPs are not incentivized to invest in network improvements under the current rules,” he said. “However, during the last two years, the number of gigabit internet services being offered across the country has increased significantly. Both telcos and cable operators have been investing in fiber, and large and small cable operators have upgraded their networks to data over cable service interface specification (DOCSIS 3.1), increasing the available speeds in many areas. At the same time, broadband average revenue per user (ARPU) has continued to increase.”

Customers are paying more and, in some cases, getting more, Blackwell said.

“But what will happen with the end of net neutrality?” he said. “Will ISPs really be willing to invest more or will they just …

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai on Monday announced his support for the proposed T-Mobile-Sprint merger after the companies said they would take a “series of significant steps” if their merger application is approved.

This comes after U.S. Department of Justice staffers last month told T-Mobile US and Sprint that their planned $26 billion mega-merger is unlikely to be approved as currently structured. The department’s antitrust division is considering whether the merger would pose an unacceptable threat to competition.

The FCC began its review of the merger last June.

FCC’s Ajit Pai

“Two of the FCC’s top priorities are closing the digital divide in rural America and advancing United States leadership in 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity,” Pai said. “The commitments made today by T-Mobile and Sprint would substantially advance each of these critical objectives.”

The companies have committed to deploying a 5G network that would cover 97% of the U.S. population within three years of the closing of the merger, and 99% of Americans within six years, he said. This network also would reach deeply into rural areas, with 85% of rural Americans covered within three years and 90% covered within six years, he said.

Additionally, T-Mobile and Sprint have guaranteed that 90% of Americans would have access to mobile broadband service at speeds of at least 100 Mbps and 99% would have access to speeds of at least 50 Mbps, Pai said.

“The construction of this network and the delivery of such high-speed wireless services to the vast majority of Americans would substantially benefit consumers and our country as a whole,” he said. “I’m also pleased that the companies have committed to a robust build-out of their midband spectrum holdings. Demonstrating that 5G will indeed benefit rural Americans, T-Mobile and Sprint have promised that their network would cover at least two-thirds of our nation’s rural population with high-speed, midband 5G, which could improve the economy and quality of life in many small towns across the country.”

Sprint will divest its low-cost Boost Mobile wireless company, and that new company will promise to offer better prices than those currently offered by T-Mobile or Sprint for three years following the deal’s closing. In addition, the companies agreed to pay the FCC up to $2.4 billion in fines if they violate the agreement.

“In light of the significant commitments made by T-Mobile and Sprint as well as the facts in the record to date, I believe that this transaction is in the public interest and intend to recommend to my colleagues that the FCC approve it,” Pai said. “This is a unique opportunity to speed up the deployment of 5G throughout the United States and bring much faster mobile broadband to rural Americans. We should seize this opportunity.”

The commitments made to the FCC didn’t appease opponents of the merger. Fight for the Future said the merger would reduce the number of national wireless carriers from four to three, leading to “higher prices and …

A federal subsidy for telephones and internet access for low-income Americans has come under fire for alleged fraud and waste.

According to a Reuters report, Sen. Ron Johnson, who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said at a hearing Thursday that Congress should consider ending the Universal Service Fund (USF) program, known as “Lifeline,” which spends about $1.5 billion annually to help 12.3 million U.S. households afford landline and mobile phones. The program is managed by the Federal Communications Commission.

“The Lifeline program has been plagued by waste, fraud and abuse,” Johnson said in the report. “This is a real head-shaker.”

During the hearing, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said because the program “lacks adequate safeguards; it has paid for subscribers who are not eligible to participate, potentially to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.”

FCC’s Ajit Pai

“This is doubly destructive: Every dollar wasted comes from the pockets of ratepayers and does nothing to help low-income families actually in need of communications services,” he said. “The FCC owes it to everyone who contributes to or receives benefits from the Universal Service Fund to make sure the Lifeline program is efficient, effective, and free of waste, fraud and abuse.”

In its investigation, the U.S. Government Accountability Office was unable to confirm whether more than 1.2 million individuals, or 36 percent of the sample reviewed, were eligible for participation, Pai said. The GAO said this likely understates the magnitude of ineligible subscribers receiving benefits, he added.

“The GAO report also raised concerns regarding universal service funds being held in a private bank outside of the U.S. Treasury,” he said.

Because of this, the FCC is working to implement a plan to move Lifeline funds to the U.S. Treasury Department “as soon as possible in recognition of the fact that these are federal funds,” Pai said.

Wisconsin Congresswoman Gwen Moore, New Mexico congress members Michelle Lujan Grisham and Steve Pearce, and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, sent a letter to Pai asking him to reconsider this “misguided action.”

“The USF is important to communities across the country and plays a key role in helping rural communities bridge the digital divide,” the letter said. “It provides access to telemedicine in rural areas through increased connectivity (Rural Health Care Program), phone and broadband services for low-income Americans (Lifeline Program), discounts to schools and libraries (E-Rate Program), and funding to companies working to maintain and expand broadband infrastructure in underserved or unserved areas (Connect America Fund).”

The funds are generated by telecommunications providers that pay a quarterly fee, and are overseen by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), according to the letter.

“We do not condone waste or abuse in any program,” the letter said. “However, there are other options to pursue the goal of reform without resorting to transferring the USF to Treasury. The FCC has already begun implementation of its 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, which outlines modernizing reforms to reduce fraud. One of the initiatives in the order directs USAC to develop a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to determine subscriber eligibility. Under the 2016 Order, service providers would also be responsible for recertifying subscribers within a 12-month time period.”

The Federal Communications Commission will vote next month on a proposal by chairman Ajit Pai to roll back net neutrality rules.

In April, Pai outlined a plan to reduce the government’s oversight of high-speed internet providers. Two years ago, the commission adopted regulations that treat broadband as a telecommunications service, prohibit blocking and slowing down of web content, and ban internet providers from prioritizing certain traffic.

Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” has been circulated to commissioners and will be voted on during the commission’s Dec. 14 meeting.

“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades,” he said. “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them, and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.”

The Federal Trade Commission would be charged with policing ISPs, protecting consumers and promoting competition, according to the proposal.

Former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler called the proposal a “shameful sham and sellout.”

“A fair and open internet is the backbone of the digital economy,” he said. “The FCC has sold out to the wishes of the companies it is supposed to regulate over the consumers it is supposed to protect. For more than a decade, previous Republican and Democratic FCCs have tried to bring fairness and balance to the delivery of the internet to consumers. Every one of those efforts has been opposed by the corporations that consumers rely on to deliver the internet. Now the Trump FCC has simply cut to the chase, there is no need for the big companies to sue — they’ll just be given everything they want.”

Verizon released a statement in support of Pai’s proposal.

“At Verizon, we continue to strongly support net neutrality and the open internet,” said Kathy Grillo, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel, public policy and government affairs. “Our company operates in virtually every segment of the internet. We continue to believe that users should be able to access the internet when, where and how they choose, and our customers will continue to do so. We are also confident that the FCC will reinstate a framework that protects consumers’ access to the open internet, without forcing them to bear the heavy costs from unnecessary regulation that chases away investment and chills innovation. We look forward to reviewing the draft order after it is released.”

Credo, an activist organization, said it has collected signatures from more than 194,000 people…

California and New York are among several states gearing up to challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to end net neutrality.

Last month, the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of repealing 2015 rules that prevented internet service providers from charging extra for, or slowing access to particular content. It’s a big win for companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast that control much of the residential internet landscape.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led the commission’s initiative to end the regulations, saying that they stifled innovation and competition.

California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León has introduced SB 460, the Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, aimed at prohibiting internet service providers from blocking, limiting or interfering with customers’ access to services, and giving the California Attorney General the power to enforce the rules.

“Without strong net neutrality rules, there’s nothing to stop the companies that already monopolize the internet from blocking websites or information altogether,” de León said during a press conference on Tuesday. “We cannot allow the profits and political interests of internet service providers to outweigh the public good.”

The Writers Guild of America West issued a statement regarding the California Senate’s hearing and vote to advance SB 460 on Thursday.

“State action is needed because an open internet is vital to the entertainment and tech industries that fuel our economy,” it said. “Net neutrality rules are necessary to protect Californians’ access to the online content and services of their choice, especially when almost 70 percent of the population has only one option for high-speed wired broadband. If Washington continues to turn its back on consumers and content creators, it’s up to California to take the lead.”

In New York, State Assemblymember Patricia Fahy has introduced a bill that would authorize the state’s Public Service Commission to monitor internet service providers and certify their compliance with “net neutrality principals.”

In a Twitter post, Fahy said a “free and open internet is critical for entrepreneurs, schools, nonprofits and consumers, and I’m proud to lead the charge in NYS!”

According to a New York Times report, bills aimed at preserving net neutrality have been introduced in Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Washington.