SmartTranscript of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-02-14 1:00pm

[Jeremy Crandall]: Okay. We are live. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Great. Welcome, everybody. It is Friday, February fourteenth. Happy Valentine's Day. House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. And we are here this afternoon to continue our discussion of h eleven. And if our witnesses could will you be testifying on Zoom first? You're going first. Right? [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Yes. I thought so. [Chair Kathleen James]: Great. So we're gonna go around the room and introduce ourselves, and then we'll turn it over to you, and you can identify yourself for the record. Okay? Great. Thank you. I'm representative Kathleen James from the Bennington four District. [Member Michael Southworth]: Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. [Member Christopher Howland]: Christopher Howland, Rutland four. [Member Tara Torrey]: Tara Torrey, Washington two. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: Graham Kluttner, Chittenden thirteen, Burlington. Jack Locker, committee assistant. [Speaker 7 ]: Someone's looking at laying on the book there's. [Jeremy Crandall]: Jeremy Crandall with CTIA. [Chair Kathleen James]: Great. Alright. For the record oh, sorry. Who's that? Oh, Scott. Hi. [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: Campbell, home. Take God's grace. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Anissa, if you could please identify yourself for the record and then take it away. We're here to get your perspective on h eleven. [Anissa Reed]: Sounds great. Good afternoon, chair James, vice chair Campbell. I'm Anissa Reed, and I'm here on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry to respectfully oppose house bill eleven. We share the goal of Vermont consumers having reliable and high quality wireless service. However, h eleven introduces unnecessary state specific net neutrality certification requirements, duplicative data reporting mandates, and vague restrictions on business practices. These regulations could slow broadband expansion and deployment, increase costs, and ultimately harm Vermont consumers and businesses. The US wireless industry is highly competitive, driving down costs while expanding access to faster and more advanced networks. Since twenty seventeen, wireless service prices have fallen by eleven percent, while consumer prices for goods and services have risen by up to twenty eight percent. These benefits have been achieved without heavy handed state regulations like those proposed in h eleven. Wireless broadband is an interstate service. Wireless networks do not stop at Vermont's borders and state specific regulations create a patchwork of conflicting rules that increase costs and regulatory uncertainty. H eleven also imposes unnecessary data reporting requirements. Wireless providers already submit detailed broadband deployment data to the FCC. Adding state level mandates creates administrative burdens, diverting resources away from expanding broadband in unserved and underserved areas, which is a shared goal. Additionally, we're concerned about the bill's restrictions on data management practices. Wireless networks operate on a limited spectrum and must be managed efficiently to ensure fast, reliable service for all users. Data management practices, including offering a range of plans, help keep networks running smoothly. In twenty twenty three, US wireless consumers used over one hundred trillion megabytes of data, an eighty nine percent increase since twenty twenty one. To meet this demand, providers invest tens of billions of dollars annually, including in Vermont, where the wireless industry supports more than six thousand seven hundred jobs and contributes five hundred million to the state's economy. Consumers deserve to understand their service options clearly. That's why CTIA and our members created the consumer code for wireless service, a set of principles to clear pricing, transparent billing, and fair service terms. This code has been followed in all fifty states for nearly twenty years and continues to evolve to meet consumer needs. Wireless carriers want to ensure consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions when choosing a wireless plan. Importantly, more than half of the principles contained in the code speak to this important issue with disclosure of rates and terms of service being the first commitment. Notably, principle five establishes a commitment to clearly disclosing material charges. The twelve commitments made by carriers are listed publicly on our website. And in addition to billing and fees, it addresses trial periods, auto renewals, and cancellation terms, among other items. Furthermore, h eleven includes unclear compliance standards that create uncertainty for providers. Terms like burdensome conditions and reasonable fees are not clearly defined, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges. This uncertainty makes it harder for providers to invest confidently in Vermont's digital infrastructure. As you all know, in twenty eighteen, Vermont enacted a state net neutrality law rather than adding additional regulations that could slow innovation and broadband investment. We encourage policy makers to focus on policies that support faster deployment, competition, and affordability for consumers. For these reasons, we respectively urge the committee not to move forward with h eleven. Thank you. [Chair Kathleen James]: I I just had a question. I might have missed this. The, twelve commitments, are they a guiding document, or are they binding? [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. They they are a guiding doc it's public commitment from our members. Okay. So the information's available on our website. So to ensure transparency and and all those principles outlined. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. But they're they're guiding principles. They're not binding or enforceable. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: They they are. They are. I mean, it's [Anissa Reed]: a public commitment from, our members. So it it is quite, you important for them to follow through when it's something consistently updated for the past twenty years and the information is made public. [Chair Kathleen James]: And if they don't follow through? [Anissa Reed]: So the as far as not following through, I mean, it's it's not a great look to consumers. It's a commitment that's made by our members. So it's and I I'll follow-up on some of the more formal consequences of it, but it's it's important once they make those commitments to follow through and to make sure that information is readily available to the public. [Chair Kathleen James]: Representative Sebelius? Yeah. Thank you. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: And I apologize, Nessa, for arriving late. No. No problem. Sebelius from window two. I wanted to I have a different question, but I just wanted to follow-up with with the chair chair's question. So I think you said that they are enforceable? [Anissa Reed]: So the it's an expectation that we have from for our members, and it's been consistently followed by by all of them for twenty years. Just [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: if we could get a clear answer, though, about whether or not these are enforceable. [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Let me, let me follow-up with you on that item. I mean, it's definitely an ex expectation. And, again, the information's publicly available, but, let me I can follow-up with you on that that item. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And just to make sure that I'm being clear by enforceable, I mean, you know, if you did not if if there was some violation of those, is there some public entity that would require you you know, are you required to, uphold those standards? That's really what [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. No. No. Absolutely. I understand. And then there's also, as as you know, I mean, there's federal transparency laws and additional oversight. But let let me I'll get back to you on that item. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: That would be great. And madam chair, I think you have asked for those things to be in writing. So if you wouldn't mind sending us what how these are enforceable in writing, that'd be great. And then my actual question Yeah. I think you said that the wireless industry supports sixty seven hundred jobs in Vermont. [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Correct. Could you [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: break that down for me, like, by what types of jobs? Big categories are fine. I don't even want to [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. So it really, varies within our industry. So some of it has to do with infrastructure, some has to do with expanding and and working with consumers. So wireless industry, it's very broad, and it provides a lot of different opportunity within the state. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: So can you tell me some of the types of employers that we're talking about here? [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. Absolutely. So looking at I mean, a lot of our our members, they're on the ground there throughout the state. Again, infrastructure providers that work closely and go out and and deploy. So I I'd I'd say a lot of it you see on the ground is various positions such as infrastructure. And then, again, our members have various employees on the ground supporting the economy and the state. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: And so when you say infrastructure, you mean, like, antenna installers? [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Correct. So deploying, cell towers, small cells. It's [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Okay. And you said there are sixty seven hundred of those in a safe employees? [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Well, in various wireless positions. So that's just kind of an example of one that a few that would be under that category. [Chair Kathleen James]: Do you have more detail that [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: you could share with us about that breakdown and and what those jobs are? [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Absolutely. I'd be happy to do that. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: That would be great. I think that's it for me, madam chair. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Representative Howard? [Member Christopher Howland]: Does it do your members offer some sort of remuneration [Jeremy Crandall]: when [Member Christopher Howland]: a customer doesn't receive the level of service that they were promised? [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. So we have, you know, members, we wanna make sure that there's accountability there. So, there's a when it comes to offering customer care and information, there's a way to do so through National Association, of State Public Service Commissioners. So members are very responsive, and we do customer complaints and believe in transparency. Those are so there's a process to, to manage those those complaints to make sure that we keep them as happy as possible. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Representative Kleptman. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: So one of the pieces in h eleven on the consumer transparency relative to rates was the requirement that a rate be clearly identified as introductory or long term. And I just flipped through your principles, but there it's kind of long in many subsections, and I didn't find it quickly. Do you know if there's a a similar expectation of your members? [Anissa Reed]: I'm so sorry. Can you repeat that? [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yes. I can. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: I apologize for being muffled and masked. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: No problem. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: So in h eleven, there is a requirement that wireless categories, when disclosing their rates to consumers, identify whether the rate is an introductory rate or a permanent rate. And I wonder in your principles if there is a similar expectation of your members. [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Yes. That piece of transparency is definitely an expectation that we have for members. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: Alright. [Chair Kathleen James]: Let's see here. One thing I'm just thinking is that it would be interesting I I don't know if we're ready to have that conversation right now. But if the bill moves forward, it it's not uncommon for legislation to start out with language that seems a bit vague or ill defined and then we define it to make it more clear. So I'm and I don't I don't I'm not asking you to to comment. I'm just noting that there, you know, the places in your testimony that you point out, language that seems vague, or that is vague, is something that we could certainly work on, like burdensome conditions and unfairly restrict. Do other folks have questions for [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: Madam chair. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Sorry. Representative Campbell. I didn't see it there on the screen. [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: I'm hiding. So I I I guess I was just curious about the the the overall principle or or or sort of goal of this bill would be to make to to try to to try to get more accountability from wireless providers in cases where service isn't as as expected or as promised, or other things go wrong. So, I mean, the the the the seems like one of the problems is we don't have very much competition because it's it's such a rural state, and there's so many places that don't have any any any wireless service, really, and places where there's really only one carrier, maybe two carriers that that that have any service. So there so people really don't have much in the way of options. So so in other words, the the the companies aren't really regulated by the market, so to speak, because there isn't much of a market. So I I guess I'm wondering about that and and [Speaker 7 ]: how [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: the association deals with that in other parts of the country, how the association would what what sort of regulation to protect consumers the association would support and, you know, just anyway, your comments about all that. [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. So starting with the the competition piece, so I think the numbers have really showed, again, the decline in wireless prices eleven percent since twenty seventeen. I see. While we've seen other consumer goods increase, it really it does have to do with, you know, going back to competition, and US is one of the most affordable countries for wireless broadband as far as supporting connectivity. As we all know, having Internet is not a luxury. It's essential. We completely agree with that. A lot of it does have to it goes back to the deployment piece and working with localities and making sure that, you know, there's regulatory certainty and we're able to expand service for for members. So some barriers do come from not being able to to deploy in some areas where some of the localities don't want us to, which impacts service. [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: Well and then there's there's the so we also have the problem of of so many places that that don't have service. And the the world state, there are aren't that many customers, you know, same same problem that that that wired service has. Few few customers per mile, We don't have that many customers per, I don't know, per mile of of major road. So there are a lot of places that that don't have service that alright. It's really a it's really big a public safety issue. For example, between Saint Johnsbury and Montpelier, most of of that road route US route two, which is the major east west highway in Northern Vermont, most of that road does not have service as an example. So how do we get how do we get more coverage and more more service from the wireless providers without starting to ask them to do that. [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. I mean, that's huge concern, obviously. You wanna make sure I mean, it's a safety issue not having strong connectivity. I think it it is going back and making sure that there's flexible policies to encourage deployments, so members can go in there and and build infrastructure and improve service, because a lot of the time don't love the you know, we hear that localities aren't happy with the look of macro towers. However, to get that service, it's necessary to build out there. So I think working with our industry to make sure we can deploy and improve service for those who need it the most. [Chair Kathleen James]: K. Thank you. One question I have about that. And maybe maybe you all are not the right source to get this information from, but I'll toss it out there anyway. The I guess following up on what rep Campbell said, I think in your testimony, you have some compelling national statistics about how market competition drives prices down. But I think what representative Campbell was pointing out is that we don't we often don't I I don't think our markets are as competitive. So so it'd be interesting to see to see whether that's true in Vermont or the extent to which that's true in Vermont. Representative Sebelian, did you have a question? [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: I did. And I apologize if you presented this information previously. Can you what are who are your members? Or or is it all of the major so [Anissa Reed]: Yes. So that's two are your Oh, [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: I'm sorry. [Chair Kathleen James]: Go ahead. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Sorry. I apologize. Who are your [Anissa Reed]: So members are such AT and T, Verizon, US Cellular, T Mobile. Our example, some of our members as well as American Tower, DISH. So work with various, but our our our our main members, as you mentioned, are those carriers. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Okay. And Vitell, are they members of yours? [Anissa Reed]: I'm sorry? [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: VITEL, are they members of yours? [Anissa Reed]: No. I don't believe they are. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: And do you know what the total amount of public subsidy that your members have received for coverage in Vermont? [Anissa Reed]: I don't have that number in in front of me. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: And were any of your members eligible for ACP payments? [Anissa Reed]: Yes. Yes. Somewhere. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: And ACP. Those are the those were the federal subsidies that we heard from. Gotcha. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: Affordability. Oh. [Speaker 7 ]: And that could be Yes. [Chair Kathleen James]: So Right. Okay. Sorry. I wasn't with the shorthand. Yes. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Sounds Yeah. Okay. And and I would go a step further than the chair and say that in Vermont, we have failed markets in a lot of rural places where the population density just we have heard or seen does not really make sense. Do you have you know, in those places, we would typically think about public subsidy. But with public subsidy, often we wanna see public regulation and accountability. Do you have any comments on on your member's disposition to covering extremely rural places, extremely rural and challenging topographical? So for instance, I live in Southern Vermont as do several members here where, you know, we have multiple mountain ranges going across, which, you know, we've heard testimony plucked signal. So do you have any sense of how your members feel about that? [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. I mean, when it comes to flexibility, when it comes to regulation, so such as setback setback requirements, height, sell, a lot of that when there are multiple requirements, it's more difficult to deploy and expand that service. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: So are you familiar with the terrain in Southern Vermont? [Anissa Reed]: Yes. I've heard a lot of beautiful mountains there. And [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. Anne, are you familiar with the population density in Southern Vermont? [Anissa Reed]: Don't know the exact number, but [Chair Kathleen James]: Well, we wouldn't we wouldn't expect you to know the exact number. [Anissa Reed]: Should've came in with that number. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: The exact number is three. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. No. It's not three. But it's pretty it's [Chair Kathleen James]: pretty far. Sparse. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. Yeah. So, of course, that's you know, I'm interested in I'm not sure that it's since we don't regulate, I'm not sure that it's lack of regulation that's preventing service there. So [Chair Kathleen James]: representative Halland, did you have a question? Yeah. [Member Christopher Howland]: Yeah. Is your is your target here are we talking about the market for connection to to the home and not to the person who's traveling along the highway for a continued To home to. Service. [Anissa Reed]: I'm so sorry. Can you repeat [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: that one more time? My sound's [Speaker 7 ]: so right. [Member Christopher Howland]: We we're talking here I thought we were talking here about the recipient of the signal being stationary and not moving as in when I think of some of the companies you mentioned are looking for cellular coverage, if you will, as the client or customer moves along the highway. In other words, as rep Campbell said, the road between St. Johnsbury and Mount Hillier doesn't get a lot of service. But if you find a spot, you can get your cell service, and I don't connect to Internet while I'm sitting beside the road. But [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. [Member Christopher Howland]: I'm not sure what your target of your organization is or density of coverage with the towers they're putting in or desire to put in. [Anissa Reed]: Yeah. I I mean, it goes back to mobile service when it comes to deployment, the towers, making sure that there are enough to cover that ground, which goes back to making sure there's investment friendly, policies that our members can can work with cities and towns. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alright. Let's see. I think that we are out of time, and we have our next who's here, please? Thank you. Good. Thank you so much for joining us. [Anissa Reed]: Dink, I appreciate the opportunity to speak remotely as well. [Chair Kathleen James]: You bet. Thank you. Bye. Hey. Let's see. I don't think we need a break. Is everybody okay? Great. Super, we have our next witness. Would you like to [Speaker 7 ]: Bear with me a moment. I'm gonna put a chart up on the screen. [Chair Kathleen James]: No problem. I don't wanna put [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: a computer right on your you okay? You know what I mean? [Jeremy Crandall]: Let [Chair Kathleen James]: us know when you're when you're ready with the tech, and then you can introduce yourself for the record. [Jeremy Crandall]: Sounds good. Super. Give me a second. [Speaker 7 ]: Get to look at everybody's modern tech You know what? I can just Oh, no. Oh, I was joking. I couldn't check out the laptops. Thank you for your patience, everyone. [Chair Kathleen James]: Sure. [Speaker 7 ]: Let's try this one more second. You know what, Jack? I'm gonna I'm gonna hold off for now. Okay. Guys got it. [Chair Kathleen James]: That's fine. You you got a we have a it's posted on the well, one, we have a minute. Two, I think is it posted on the website? [Jeremy Crandall]: Well, I I had my colleague there bring some paper, but I don't wanna break protocol on handing that out. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: That's okay. Is that okay? [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. We've got some big people. Great. So I'll just for anybody who's watching our livestream, so this is still the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. And we are here now with Jeremy Crandall, assistant vice president of SCORE or of state legislative affairs or CTIA, here to talk about a different bill. We're moving now to h one twenty one, an act relating to affordable broadband service. So if you could ID yourself for the record, and thanks for joining us. [Jeremy Crandall]: Yes. Thank you, madam chair. My name is Jeremy Trandell. I represent CTIA along with my colleague who you just heard from. We are the Wireless Industry Trade Association. I am here to speak in opposition to House Bill one twenty one. You heard a little bit, previously, but as background, again, our members at CTIA include AT and T, Verizon, T Mobile, US Cellular, all of whom serve customers right here in [Speaker 7 ]: the state of Vermont. [Jeremy Crandall]: I do wanna begin my comments by saying that there's one thing that we can all agree on in this conversation is the importance and the fact that consumers rely on reliable and access to connectivity. But if I can emphasize one message that I leave you all with today, it is this, and this relates to the chart that I handed out. I think we'd all all agree that we live in a time where the cost of pretty much everything that Vermont residents and businesses are paying for, is going up. Wireless is one of the few areas where the cost is going down for consumers. And I wanna share a few data points with you. Looking at national numbers since twenty ten, the cost of we you know, looking at a certain basket of goods and services has gone up approximately ten percent. Again, that's a national number. My colleague also mentioned in her testimony that wireless number, that is also a national number. But I do wanna use Vermont specific data as well. Looking at electricity rates over the last ten years, goes back to twenty twelve, electricity rates have gone up nearly twenty percent here in the state of Vermont. That wireless number in that same time period is down forty four percent. And I if I can only emphasize, that is the data. That is the reality on the ground when you look at what the prices are the consumers here in Vermont pay. I will say we believe it's an affordability success story success story that ultimately benefits everyone, including low income consumers, which I understand this bill is certainly emphasize, we do believe there's considerable evidence as to what paints that affordability success story. We heard a lot of conversation already about competition. Here in Vermont, it is our understanding that most of the state consumers have access to at least two carriers. And there are four of our members, I mentioned, that operate here in the state of Vermont and serve Vermont consumers. I also wanna emphasize constant innovation. You know, anybody that, you know, has a cell phone at this point will understand, that wireless technology is constantly evolving. It evolves every single year. I will also emphasize that demand is skyrocketing. If you look at the chart in terms of how much data we use every single day, over the last ten years, it is the chart literally goes like this every year, and that's not gonna change anytime soon. And I also will emphasize there's extensive investment in infrastructure, including here in Vermont, to improve our networks, to get to always get better, to provide better services for your constituents and your consumers. And so specific to house bill one twenty one, those those are some of the reasons why, frankly, we strongly oppose and frankly would urge extreme caution in going down this path and considering what is essentially a price mandate policy. That is what House Bill one twenty one ultimately is. And I use that term excuse me, purposefully because, again, that's what this bill does. It is an artificial price mandate on private companies that serve your constituents here in Vermont. And we believe there's no question that the assets that I mentioned, which are assets to wireless consumers, will be put at risk with this bill. But I do wanna go just beyond wireless for a moment, and speak to excuse me. Speak specifically to price mandates in other sectors, if you will. Because we believe there is considerable evidence that price mandates ultimately harm the people that they're intended to help, which is consumers. Over the last several months, we conducted analysis of various price mandate policies that have existed over the last twenty years, not specific to Vermont, nationwide. And I just wanna share a little bit of what we found. The state of Hawaii, they instituted a gasoline price mandate for several several years. And the result was higher costs for consumers, and they ultimately did away with that gasoline price mandate. Markets with rent control. Right? You know, I'm sure many of us are familiar with what rent control is. When you have rent control, usually, you see reduced investments and a lack of housing options. And then one other element that we found related to federal activity were And when those price gaps were imposed, it led to higher cost for consumers and lower benefits for them as well. [Speaker 7 ]: I think we have some questions. Can we interrupt while you're going? [Jeremy Crandall]: I have almost or would you I survey That's okay. No. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Representative, I survey to the chair. [Chair Kathleen James]: You have a a little bit to go? Or [Jeremy Crandall]: Little bit. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. Yeah. Let's hold our questions in. [Jeremy Crandall]: Thank you, Rose. [Chair Kathleen James]: I'm glad [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: to be in the queue. Okay. [Jeremy Crandall]: I do just wanna end on this piece is that it is important to to point out that there may be significant legal implications of house bill one twenty one as well. The bill as drafted may directly conflict with federal law that does prohibit regulation of wireless prices, and I'm happy to talk more about why that is our analysis. But I'll just end with this. Access to connectivity is critically important. Don't want it to be missed either that our members do provide a range of plans, offerings, and initiatives that are geared towards affordability for low income consumers. Some of these are as low as twenty dollars per month specific to Internet. And so for sure, we have a lot of progress we still have to make, but we firmly believe this is not the way to get there. We have plenty of evidence that the current construct for wireless is working for many consumers in terms of affordability. And when price mandates have been have been imposed elsewhere, the outcome is not one that ultimately benefits consumers. So I appreciate your patience, representative. [Speaker 7 ]: You were up first. You wanna jump in? [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. I was trying to think through or understand better the the sort of comparison to, like, a price cap on gas in Hawaii, rent control. Because those seem to me to be caps imposed across uniformly across an entire Yeah. Market sector as opposed to a price break for a a small and clearly identified group of, like, say, eligible low income folks. So I don't that doesn't seem like the same to me. [Jeremy Crandall]: Well, madam chair, to be candid with you, there are not many price mandate policies that exist here in the United States. So when we were conducting that analysis, it was a challenge to find, you know, an apples to apples comparison. And so, you know, we we looked hard and far and wide, and these were ones that we could find that had some sort of, you know, synonymous comparison to what you all are looking at here. [Chair Kathleen James]: To me, the a more apt comparison would be something like LIHEAP where, you know, l income eligible Vermonters get fuel assistance. [Jeremy Crandall]: Madam Chair, I I appreciate you mentioning that. I think LIHEAP is a good example where LIHEAP is not a price mandate at its core. I'm not an expert on LIHEAP, but I wanna be totally transparent there. [Chair Kathleen James]: Well, neither am I, actually. I'm just trying to find, like, where the where the true analogies. [Jeremy Crandall]: So LIHEAP, as far as I understand, having, you know, worked in in this space generally in state politics for twenty years, is that LIHEAP is at a is at its core a subsidy program. Mhmm. It is not an artificial price mandate. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: Medicaid comes to mind as a price mandate to provide health care to low income people. [Chair Kathleen James]: It's public. And then public. And it's problematic. Is public and funded? [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: I mean, I I I think your examples were instructed on a broad level or did not apply to this case at all because it's across the board. You there's plenty of opportunity for your companies to make their money on non low income people. And then, indeed, you you said that some of them are already offering a twenty dollar plan. Right? So why would they object to they're already offering it. Why would they object to it just being stipulated that they need to provide it? [Jeremy Crandall]: I appreciate that question because, number one, what we are talking about here is, again, an artificial price mandate, number one. Number two, because the terms and provisions in terms of the range of options that consumers here in Vermont and nationwide pay when it comes to their wireless services are driven by, yes, the market, by competition within a given market, by consumer demand for for services, and also the cost of growing our networks, which I have to emphasize. Again, this is an important conversation about affordability, but growing our networks is expensive. Thirty billion dollars was spent in twenty twenty three alone to grow the nation's networks. I do know speaking to our members based here in Vermont. Their investments are in the tens of millions of dollars, each year over a given amount of years. And so I I really have to emphasize that the prices that we all pay, including myself as consumers, are driven by those market forces. And, again, I also point back to that forty four percent reduction, also driven by market forces, not an artificial price mandate. And I will just add one other thing, representative. I know you all are familiar with the New York law, you know, that is now enforced. There are bills now in New York to lower that price mandate to ten, five, I believe. I know for sure five, and I believe there may be a bill lowered to zero dollars. And so I I don't think there's a better example of what is an artificial price mandate for our for our providers. [Speaker 7 ]: And that bill has gone through the courts and then deemed legal. Correct? [Jeremy Crandall]: So I'm happy to I if would have to take a deeper dive on the New York law. So first of all, I wanna emphasize in talking about New York that at its core, we believe it's bad policy. I'm more than happy to, you know, discuss the legal ramifications of it. But our opposition at its core is we as you've heard from me already, that it's not a good policy approach to take. The New York law is in effect. I do know that you also have heard you all have heard from during your, your hearings that one provider that is a member of ours has stopped providing fixed wireless service in the state of New York. And it said explicitly, it is because of passage of that law, excuse me, that law going into effect. And I really wanna emphasize this because, representative, it was something that you all were talking about with the last bill specific to our members in the wireless space. The Internet that we provide is the fixed wireless access Internet. It is the most popular in terms of new adoption Internet available to your constituents, And it also skews on the affordability side. It is one of the more affordable options. And so I don't think there's a better example of this policy will have unintended consequences that will harm the the exact issue that we're trying to you all are trying to address here, which is affordability, and our members are as well. We want plans to be affordable, for our consumers. So can [Speaker 7 ]: you give us an example of BixPartners just so we're all clear what that means? [Jeremy Crandall]: Yeah. I'd be happy to. So the example that you probably have seen in the news, specifically in New York, is called a Internet Air. That's AT and T's Internet offering. I will also share that the other, three members, UScellular, T Mobile, and Verizon, all offer some version of fixed wireless here in the state. But, specifically, what it is on the wired side, you know, you have a fiber cable running to your home. On the fixed wireless side, it's a box kinda like what you have in the middle there that acts essentially as a mini cell phone or a mini cell tower that connects to other, pieces of our infrastructure to deliver your own Internet to the home. [Chair Kathleen James]: Who's I don't know who's the answer. Representative Southworth, I think. Representative Southworth. [Member Michael Southworth]: Great. You mentioned that this bill is possible to have legal implications against federal law. Yes. Can you give us any examples of how that would do that? And if not, that's fine. It's just be interested to know how you think it can flex. [Jeremy Crandall]: Yeah. Representative, I'm sorry. That was in your question, and I I didn't somebody's question. Question. I didn't follow-up on that. I apologize. So what I wanna specifically mention on that, first of all, I am not our legal counsel at CTIA, so I'm happy to follow-up if you need more details. But related to mobile broadband services, federal law is very clear that the Federal Communications Act prevents states from regulating prices for mobile services. And, again, I I mentioned that fixed wireless, we believe that's one of the best innovations in our space as it relates to the New York law. So this is what I wanna emphasize on the legal piece. The bill before you in our analysis, house bill one twenty one, is not the New York law. They are not the exact same bill, if you will. And so the way we view house twenty one twenty house bill one twenty one may very well include mobile broadband services as well, which is expressly in conflict with federal law. So at some level, it is a distinction between the two bills where we feel there there are some significant legal challenges. Thank you. Yeah. [Chair Kathleen James]: Representative Sebelius and miss Reina. This is I want [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: to say thank you for bringing this. That is incredibly helpful. So and before I kinda talk about why it's helpful, I was looking up the source for the data, and I did not find it. And I did not see it in your testimony. So is that [Chair Kathleen James]: something you could follow-up? [Jeremy Crandall]: I'd be more than happy to. Thank you. Would you like me to speak to her for you? [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Or I'd love to see it. [Jeremy Crandall]: Yes. I mean, you I'd be happy to verbally tell you and then obviously follow-up. On the electricity data, we had a group called AACG affiliated with Northeastern University developed the best water excuse me, water and electricity data. We can only get one of them here in Vermont on the electricity side pulled from the best municipal and state utility resources available. It's it's not always the best the easiest data to get. And on the wireless side, that is collected from our members, what rates have they charged over that time period. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Okay. So then that is not cited, just that electric is cited. Right? [Jeremy Crandall]: So the source on the bottom there, that is a report that I'd be happy to follow-up with you and provide to you. That report covers both data sources. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Oh, it does. Okay. Great. Thank you. So you have laid out here, you know, what we are seeing in terms of the pricing with electric and fixed wireless. And so you're just fixed wireless. You are not cellular. That's right? [Jeremy Crandall]: In terms of what I'm speaking of? [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: In terms of this this That statistic? [Jeremy Crandall]: That statistic is wireless writ large. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Does that include cellular? [Speaker 7 ]: Yes. Okay. Yes. [Member Tara Torrey]: So [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: in Vermont, our our electric goes to everyone that wants electric. Right? And so we that's those lines can be very expensive. We've got folks here who have tended lines, I think. I don't know them. But, to maintain, to build, to repair after climate change, etcetera. Have you estimated what it would cost if you had to construct a network that covered every address that is covered by electricity in Vermont, [Chair Kathleen James]: what [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: that would what the impact would be on the prices? [Jeremy Crandall]: Cover. Like, cellular network covered by electric. I'm sorry. It sounded like So [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: in Vermont, you're looking at rates that include service to every Vermonter. That's reg we regulate this, right, that wants it. The data on wireless is just for where you cover. And my question is, which is not every do you have estimates of what the impact would be on your rates if you had to cover every home that was electrified, say. So if we were comparing apples to apples in terms of coverage. [Jeremy Crandall]: So I do not have that data point for you today? [Speaker 7 ]: Okay. [Jeremy Crandall]: I would be happy to well, I wanna I wanna follow-up on something. You know, I was in the room with the dialogue previously. I just do wanna emphasize that representative Sebelia, you you raised what is the you raised the topography of the state of Vermont. It's in southern Vermont. And I have not lived there, but I am familiar with it. And I do wanna emphasize in talking about this conversation about coverage, which I'm hearing you. Wireless at its core is a line of sight technology. Mhmm. And Vermont is a mountainous state, and I know that's something you all love about. It's something I love in coming here on a personal level. But I wanna emphasize, there is a direct line, if you will, between topography, connectivity, and the amount of wireless infrastructure that it takes to ensure that connectivity, which I hear you're talking about. And there are many other policy dynamics related to that conversation that I don't want to be lost here. Yeah. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. And let's see. There was another oh, yes. Just to I think the representative of Southworth asked about that federal law. Would you be able to provide the citation for that law as well? [Jeremy Crandall]: The Federal Communications Act? Oh, it's [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: the Federal Communications Act. Excuse me. I would That section that you are referencing? [Jeremy Crandall]: Section three thirty two, but I'd be more than happy to follow-up with you. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Three thirty two. That's fine. That's it. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. Sure. [Member Tara Torrey]: Victoria, just a quick question, and you have this might not be something you can help with. I'm just curious about your awareness of other state approaches to affordability? Because we just listened to our ten year telecommunications plan yesterday. And, you know, very clearly, rural can't pay for rural. And we're trying to figure out how do we support people. Is there are there states that you're aware of that are using state support to advance affordability? [Jeremy Crandall]: Yes. Representative, that's thanks for that question. So, yes, this is a this is a popular topic this year. And, of course, it goes without saying you all have heard about the affordable connectivity program at the federal level, which our members were strong endorsers of and participants in. There are a range of policy discussions going on in a range of states. But I will say, and madam chair referenced LIHEAP at the top, you know, there's some good seeds there in terms of LIHEAP and in terms of the affordable connectivity program and in terms of I know there are other bills in other states that look at that type of model as a way to both provide affordable connectivity for consumers, but also not impacting this, the, you know, the forty four percent that I keep talking about, which we believe is critically important to consumers here in Vermont. But I'd be more than happy to follow-up with you on that as well [Speaker 7 ]: in terms of more specifics. Yep. [Chair Kathleen James]: Oh, I'm yes. Greg Campbell, you're a little [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Greg Campbell [Chair Kathleen James]: is patiently sitting in the corner. [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: Yeah. I'm trying to be patient. Following up on on rep Tory's comment is is what I'm interested in. This bill is is really about, how to provide, low income households with service with affordable service. So it's it's not it's not about, pricing per se. It's a it's about this this specific issue. And, certainly, one way that that has been done in in in telephones is the universal service fund approach, which is, essentially, a tax on every and everybody's service in order to provide a subsidized service to folks who qualify. I I'm wondering whether, CTIA, and and and the providers would would support, some approach like that, perhaps even a a public private approach where, there's a a small fee on people's sub, bills that the that the provider companies also match in order to to to provide a fund that could buy down this the or subsidize the service for for qualifying low income households. [Jeremy Crandall]: Representative, trust the camera. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: That's You can still However you wish. Okay. [Jeremy Crandall]: Representative, thanks for that question. First and foremost, you know, I'd be remiss, you know, I represent our members. And so, you know, a policy question like that would have to follow-up with them, to get back to you on that. But I do want to point out in, you know, what representative Campbell was referencing, there is a lifeline program that exists that I think you all have heard about in the testimony this week. But it is important to keep in mind that when a revenue generator is applied to wireless consumers, that's going to affect those consumers. And and the manner in which that is often done disproportionately impacts low income consumers. But that being said, representative, happy to chat with our members and get [Speaker 7 ]: back to you about that. Great. [Member Michael Southworth]: So [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. Get more, Scott? [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: No. All done. Thank you. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. [Speaker 7 ]: How many fixed wireless customers do your your clients have in Vermont [Jeremy Crandall]: That is not customarily information that you know, there's a certain level of proprietary information that is shared. We're all friends. Representative, I sit by my first statement. What I would say is same thing. Let me confer with with our members. What I will say, I do just wanna share a couple of data points. It's not a direct answer to your question. But I said at the at the top that it's the most popular new type of Internet, if you will, of new, you know, you know, emerging technology type of Internet. Ninety percent this is a national number. Ninety percent of all new broadband subscribers nationally are choosing fixed wireless as their option. And those four carriers that I mentioned that operate here in Vermont, AT and T, Verizon, T Mobile, and US Cellular, as far as I understand it, all offer [Speaker 7 ]: a fixed wireless option here [Jeremy Crandall]: in in parts of the state. That's [Speaker 7 ]: Cool. Follow-up. Yeah. Comcast, Xfinity, part of your group? [Jeremy Crandall]: They're not. They're not. [Speaker 7 ]: They're not. They offer mobile LANs as well now. Yeah. [Jeremy Crandall]: They are not they are not part of our board of directors. They're not, you know, sort [Speaker 7 ]: of in the the on the core of our membership. [Chair Kathleen James]: I I had I just had a follow on question to Red Heart, and then we'll go here. Welcome. So sorry. So Xfinity, Comcast, not a member. [Jeremy Crandall]: So, madam chair, so we if you CTIA has board of directors that Yeah. That drives our policy direction that directs our policy to the role that we speak to. I believe that, you know, we have sort of lower tier where, you know, they may be listed on documents, but they're not a core member of our organization. [Speaker 7 ]: I would put Comcast in that category. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. [Jeremy Crandall]: We represent those wireless entities that I spoke to. [Chair Kathleen James]: The reason I asked was that I I was just gonna ask you to speculate, and you you probably can't. But why one huge provider is able to offer this kind of a program for low income customers and and others don't or can't or or aren't? [Speaker 7 ]: She's referring to their fixed wired program where they offer for [Chair Kathleen James]: Yep. [Speaker 7 ]: Seventy megabyte second service for fifteen dollars, all inclusive, if you qualify under the service low income search pitch distance. [Jeremy Crandall]: Yeah. Thank you, representative. I heard [Chair Kathleen James]: you. Thanks. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. No. [Chair Kathleen James]: And I That's it. [Jeremy Crandall]: Oh, I'm sorry. I was [Chair Kathleen James]: trying to get to the the same thing as rep Kimball was talking about. We're we're trying to figure out a way to help low income folks be able to afford these services, and it's hard to find it's hard to find the way forward to it. [Jeremy Crandall]: So I'll just say this. You know, it's it's not my role to speak on behalf of Comcast. I'll defer to them Right. And organizations that they are members of. Right. I do have to point back to my previous comments about New York that, you know, one of our members that offers fixed wireless here in the state, you know, they said in their press release, in their public comments, we are ceasing that type of service, which is, in our view, an affordable service for the folks that that ultimately, hearing you, madam chair, that you're talking about trying to provide some sort of affordable pathway for. They said we're gonna cease that operation because of a law similar, not the exact same, but similar to the bill that's before you. And I also don't want it to be missed again that, number one, our members that operate here in the state have have affordable Internet option pathways, number one. But I also do wanna point back to that it not be missed that the the dynamics that exist within the wireless industry are what lead to that forty four percent reduction that we're talking about. So can progress be made? Absolutely. But please don't I I don't want that to be missed that that the in the wireless space, the dynamics that exist ultimately benefit consumers. [Chair Kathleen James]: Would your members in Vermont be a fine defining affordable as just prices driven lower by the market, or [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: how do [Chair Kathleen James]: they define affordable? I wonder. That's [Jeremy Crandall]: a question I've never been asked before. So first and foremost, I [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: Oh, right. [Jeremy Crandall]: Welcome asking our individual members that question. But at a core level, competition does exist in the wireless space. You know, I I this is an important for Vermont, like any state, has its own unique challenges. But it is a reality that competition exists in wireless at a level that is quite different to many other industries. And so it is in our you know, it behooves us to offer effective service to as many people as we can in as many places that we can, and each of our members have to compete with each other to provide all of that to a consumer. [Chair Kathleen James]: Rick Clapton? [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: I'm just looking up AT and T news, press release from there. It went off of the New York market, but the chair called on me before I found any data in that article Oh. Which is which is fine. [Chair Kathleen James]: Sorry. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: You know, I'm just wondering. I mean, that seems like an odd decision to me for a company of AT and T's scale and scope. And I wonder sort of how many customers in New York they were expecting to be required to provide this low cost service to. It just seems like given given New York's demographics and socioeconomic spread that that's a little bit hard for me to intuitively feel that there was a big economic threat to AT and T's business in New York, but they made a decision. [Jeremy Crandall]: Representative, would you like me to Please. Yeah. Yeah. So a couple things. First of all, I you know, at the risk of a little bit I'm not trying to repeat myself. I apologize. But I really have to emphasize this point because representative, I asked each of our individual members that you're working here in Vermont that specific question. And the first thing they said to me is, I don't know that that it's realized by, you know, ever anyone outside the telecom space, how expensive our infrastructure actually is, what a cell tower costs, and all that goes into deploying it in terms of, you know, engagement with the community and all that, what is critically important. It is critically important. And so when you're talking about trying to stand up what is a new, very exciting, if you will, technology that doesn't require fiber to a home, there's a lot of infrastructure that goes in goes in to be able to deploy that. And I will mention and forgive me, representative. I don't remember who mentioned it. But during the q and a earlier this week on this bill, there was a discussion of, well, okay. If if there's a twenty dollar benchmark and the average plan in terms of wireless is in the fifty, sixty, maybe seventy dollar range, what happens in that middle amount? And I just go back to our infrastructure is expensive. We are continuing continuing to invest. And it the the data in our from our perspective does not say that let's set an artificial price mandate, to solve or address this policy question that's before you. [Speaker 7 ]: So Yeah. Do the towers this is just a technical question. I don't understand how it works. The same towers you put up for mobile wireless are the ones you use for fixed wireless? [Jeremy Crandall]: In part, yes, sir. [Speaker 7 ]: Yes, sir. So the So Oh. Yeah. So you're building out that wireless infrastructure and then regardless, and then you're piggybacking on that for the fixed wireless antennas or I'm not it just can you explain that how that works a [Jeremy Crandall]: little bit? I'd be happy to. So at its core, fixed wireless, the Internet, you know, the Internet that I'm talking about functions very much like your cell phone. It very it functions at in the same manner as your cell phone. If you think about the amount of data that we use from an Internet perspective inside our own home, it's significantly a significant amount more, than we may use on our smartphone. Although, I would say that gap is narrowing pretty significantly considering how much we all do on our iPads and our smartphones. But, essentially, it is the same highway that we're talking about. And when you are talking about that being, you know, ninety percent of new customers are choosing fixed wireless, you're talking about a significant amount of infrastructure that you're gonna have to expand, add to that tower or of towers otherwise or otherwise. Because of [Speaker 7 ]: the bandwidth, not because of the technology. I'd say it's both, but yes. [Jeremy Crandall]: And and, representative, I'd be more than happy you know, we have a significant amount of information that, you know, paints the picture of what fixed wireless is, and [Speaker 7 ]: I'm happy to follow-up with all that. Sure. Great. Thanks. [Chair Kathleen James]: Alright. Let's take one more question, and then we need to I think sergeant Armstrong is probably here. [Member Christopher Howland]: So the fixed wireless, the antenna the cell phone stays stationary, and a lot of data comes to control the Internet. But if that cell phone then goes in the pocket and travels down the road, the amount of data that's required to carry on a voice is much less? Correct. Correct. And so this so the well, I got my answer. [Chair Kathleen James]: We have an engineer in house. Alright. Great. I think thank you so much for joining us. We really Thank you. Appreciate it, especially if you traveled to be here. Yeah. [Ranking Member Laura Sibilia]: In a [Jeremy Crandall]: great state. No complaints. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yeah. [Speaker 7 ]: Make a motion. We did absolutely. For security training. [Chair Kathleen James]: Yep. Assuming they're here [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: There. Yep. [Chair Kathleen James]: Need this thing. [Speaker 7 ]: Ahead is. [Chair Kathleen James]: Super. We are gonna move into executive session for security training. So thank you so much for being here. [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: Thank you. [Chair Kathleen James]: Oh, sorry. Waved you out. It's been moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. We are moving into oh, Scott. [Vice Chair Scott Campbell]: Are you gonna well, you you you're gonna go off of YouTube, but you're gonna stay on the on Zoom. Is that so? [Member Christopher Howland]: Can you just target everybody by hand? Right? [Member Graham Kluttner / Assistant Jack Locker]: That's so we can just have [Jeremy Crandall]: the Zoom call. This won't be live streamed to YouTube. [Chair Kathleen James]: They're ready for Super. [Jeremy Crandall]: It'll just be this. [Chair Kathleen James]: Okay. So we have moved into executive session for a security

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Energy and Digital Infrastructure 2025-02-14 1:00pm

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: