Lawmakers look for more time on broadband bills

As Vermont closes in on every home having high-speed internet access, some legislators have wondered if the state needs better consumer protections on the broadband marketplace. 

Two House bills have been introduced that would bar service providers from deceptive business practices and require them to offer cheap broadband plans, both in the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure. But lawmakers say they need more time with the proposals — which have faced opposition from the industry and scrutiny from some state offices.

“Our committee will not be voting on (either bill) before the important mid-session ‘crossover’ date on March 14,” said Rep. Kathleen James, D-Manchester, the committee chair. 

H.11, a bill sponsored by Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover, aims to increase transparency between telecom providers and customers. The bill includes a complaint system, regulations on disconnections during emergencies and a statewide commitment to net neutrality, among other measures.

The bill is about getting Vermonters connected in a fair and transparent way, Sibilia said, in a rural state with little competition among wireless companies.

The second bill, H.121, would require telecom providers to offer affordable broadband plans to low-income Vermonters across several price tiers and require companies to provide reports and data on their offerings. It was introduced by Rep. Chris Morrow, D-Weston.

Telecom companies believe the bills could hamper Vermont’s goal of universal broadband, and some administration officials say they have enough industry sway to go without the legislation.

Two representatives of the trade association for the wireless industry opposed both bills in testimony to the House committee Feb. 14. The association, CTIA, represents internet providers like AT&T and Verizon. It disagreed with H.11’s additional regulations and cited an 11 percent drop in wireless service prices since 2017 while other consumer costs rose.

The Department of Public Service’s telecom director Hunter Thompson told legislators during a Feb. 13 committee meeting that the department already uses relationships with broadband providers to exercise “soft power” to resolve consumer complaints. Thompson explained that while the department is not opposed to the bill, it already does the work the legislation would codify.

The attorney general’s office weighed in on H.11, too, on Feb. 14. Todd Daloz, director of policy and legislative affairs, said broadband-related complaints are largely handled by the Department of Public Service. 

“We do see the department as being a better avenue for this regulation,” said Daloz in testimony that day. Still, the director said it’s important for there to be transparency around public funds subsidizing telecom providers.

James, the committee chair, said legislators want to hear more testimony throughout the session before acting.

Pandemic-era broadband programs brought plenty of money into the state to get Vermonters connected, but as those programs end, the legislators behind the bills worry about affordability.

“We need to work on lowering/eliminating the digital divide. We will keep at it,” Morrow, H.121’s sponsor, said over email. The possibility of a vote this session aside, Morrow said the testimony taken on the bill has been informative.

The Vermont Community Broadband Board has not taken a stance on the bill, citing a “rural affordability conundrum.” Broadband providers will charge other rural customers more in order to provide cheaper service for low-income Vermonters if required by law, board members said in testimony to the House committee.

Jeremy Crandall, one of the two lobbyists representing telecom companies, called the bill “an artificial price mandate on private companies that serve your constituents” in testimony Feb. 14. 

Vermont’s topography, combined with its sparse population, often makes expanding to rural areas unprofitable for telecom providers.

The number of addresses without at least 25 megabits per second download speeds and 3 megabits per second upload speeds — up until 2024, the federal definition of broadband — continues to decrease.

In 2021, over 61,000 addresses weren’t served by 25/3 internet speeds, according to state data. By 2024, that number had dropped to about 20,200.

State officials want to see all addresses reach the 100/100 mark. Projects funded by the state’s broadband expansion loan program must provide those speeds.

A driving factor in network expansion in recent years has been growing communication union districts, multi-town municipal organizations that aim to provide universal broadband service across several communities. Similar to water or sewer districts, the communication union districts build infrastructure but in the form of broadband. Towns elect delegates to a governing board that holds open meetings, and profits from operations go back into expanding the network.

The unions formed from 2015 state law after persistent gaps in high-speed internet access in Vermont and concerns that cable companies wouldn’t build broadband in rural areas — because it just wasn’t profitable. What would become the first communication union district — the East Central Vermont Telecommunications District, which does business as ECFiber — formed back in 2008 and slowly built out to cover over 24,000 homes today. 

Increases in funding for broadband efforts brought on by the pandemic allowed other districts to follow ECFiber’s footsteps.

“It’s a great Vermont story,” F. X. Flinn, chair of the ECFiber district, told House members in an introductory meeting at the start of the year. “We’re bringing a lot of people into the state, we’re keeping a lot of people in the state, who otherwise wouldn’t be able to work from home, to live in these rural communities.”

(Via Community News Service, a University of Vermont journalism internship.)