Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, LABOR, ECONOMIC, & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Date:03/25/2014
ATTENDANCE
Time:11:00 AM to 05:22 PM
Exum
X
Hamner
X
Place:SupCt
Holbert
X
Navarro
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Nordberg
X
Representative Williams
Rosenthal
X
Ryden
X
This Report was prepared by
Szabo
X
Erin Vanderberg
Wright
X
Kraft-Tharp
X
Williams
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
Sponsor/Stakeholder Telecom Bill Presentation
HB14-1330
HB14-1329
HB14-1331
HB14-1328
HB14-1327		Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Amended, Referred to Appropriations
Amended, Referred to Appropriations
Amended, Referred to Appropriations
Amended, Referred to Finance


11:01 AM -- Sponsor Presentation and Panel Discussion of Telecommunications Bill Package

Representative Williams, chair, called the meeting to order. A quorum was present. Representative Williams provided a brief overview of the telecommunications reform bills on the day's calendar and explained that the bills were a package designed to modernize the state's telecommunications law and increase broadband coverage throughout the state. Representative Williams stated that the morning would include two panel presentations to provide an overview of the bill package. She said the first panel presentation would focus on the three bills related to telecommunications modernization: House Bill 14-1330, Updating Telecommunications Technology Language; House Bill 14-1329, Deregulate Internet Protocol (IP) Emerging Tech Telecom; and House Bill 14-1331, Regulate Basic Local Exchange Services. Representative Murray provided a history of past legislative attempts to modernize the state's telecommunications laws.

The following panelists offered brief presentations on those bills that sought to provide telecommunications modernization:

11:08 AM -- Jim Campbell, representing CenturyLink, discussed the telecommunications modernization bills. Mr. Campbell stated that these telecommunications bills are designed to recognize that the marketplace has changed. He stated that the bills would encourage investment while offering consumer protection through free market enterprise. He discussed the bills multiple "clawback" provisions that would allow the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to regulate providers and set costs if certain criteria was not being met in the free market.


11:12 AM -- Kristie Ince, representing TW Telecom, provided an overview of her organization. Ms. Ince stated that the legislation is a balance that protects consumer and competition. She discussed the history of TW Telecom, which started when the markets were opened to competition in the 1990s. She stated that her company continues to be dwarfed by legacy telecommunications industries. Ms. Ince stated her company's appreciation that these bills maintain the PUC's authority over wholesale matters and carrier-to-carrier disputes; she said while modernization is needed, so are regulatory backstops. She also stated that where there is effective competition, there should no longer be subsidy.

11:16 AM -- Milt Doumit, representing Verizon, discussed legislation in other states related to VoIP. Mr. Doumit stated that 28 states have passed legislation that deregulates Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) in the past three years. He discussed the purpose of the HB 14-1329, which he said exempts VoIP from regulation, codifies current law, and provides certainty to providers. He discussed data use rates of customers and said the bill does not touch the PUC's authority over 9-1-1.

11:21 AM

The panel began to respond to questions from the committee.

Representative Rosenthal asked the panel why deregulation was needed if the market was already competitive. Representative Kraft-Tharp asked a question about the potential for rate increases with no PUC regulation, and cited the example of California. Representative Rosenthal asked follow-up questions about the cost of basic service and the regulation outlined in HB 14-1331. Representative Exum asked for the panel to expand on consumer protection provisions in the three bills. Representative Rosenthal asked the panel to discuss the protections of landline service as outlined in the bills.

11:31 AM

Representative Szabo asked when the telecommunications terminology in statute was last updated. Representative Szabo asked about the reasons for updating definitions. Representative Rosenthal asked if deregulation has caused consumer prices to go down in any states.

11:35 AM

Representative Murray and Representative Coram opened the second panel discussion by providing an overview of the two bills related to broadband deployment: House Bill 14-1328, Connect Colorado Broadband Act; and House Bill 14-1327, Measures Expand Deployment Communications Network. The following panelists offered brief presentations on those bills that sought to improve broadband deployment.

11:39 AM -- Jeff Weist, representing the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association, discussed his organization. Mr. Weist stated that the intent of HB 14-1327 is to find a way for the private sector to work with local governments to accelerate broadband for underserved areas of Colorado and to increase broadband speeds in these areas. The bill includes sales tax exemptions and cost-sharing initiatives. He discussed HB 14-1328, and its provisions that safeguard subsidies.

11:41 AM -- Greg Romberg, representing Sprint, discussed two provisions in HB 14-1327. Mr. Romberg discussed the provisions related to siting towers more expediently, on a 90-day to 120-day schedule. He described the siting provision as a way that government can make it easier for private investment, and stated that this regulatory certainty will expedite broadband deployment. He provided an overview of the broadband sales and use tax exemptions in HB 14-1327. He stated his opinion that Colorado assesses tax on telecommunications products at a very high rate, similar to a value-added, or "sin", tax, while most every other industry in state is subject to manufacturers' exemption. He stated that the competition with other states that do not have this tax burden makes it harder for telecommunications industries to get broadband resources into our state.



11:44 AM -- Pete Kirchhof, representing the Colorado Telecommunications Association, discussed his organization's membership, stating that his members served 30 percent of the geography of the state. Mr. Kirchhof discussed the stakeholder process of the bill. He stated that while HB 14-1327 is not perfect, it is a good first step. He said that the state needed to be creative about funding mechanisms for broadband, and discussed the limited federal moneys available for broadband. He stated that HB 14-1327 was a three-part bill that deals with: 1) funding, 2) the process of funds distribution, and 3) grant-making. He discussed the high cost fund and explained that the bill would take money no longer needed to provide rural Colorado with basic service and repurpose those funds for broadband deployment.

11:47 AM -- Jason Hopfer, representing Viaero Wireless, discussed the stakeholder process involved in the crafting of the two bills. He said the key principles were creating a framework that did not increase surcharges and directing deployment to unserved areas. He said the bills set a baseline expectation, providing a floor rather than a ceiling. He said the bills were directed to consumers, created appropriate oversight authority, technology neutral, and aimed to help rural Colorado.

11:48 AM

The panel began to respond to questions from the committee.

Representative Szabo asked the panel about the original intent of the High Cost Fund. Representative Ryden asked if the fund would provide enough incentive to serve rural areas. Representative Hamner asked about the timeline to get broadband deployed to all rural areas. Representative Kraft-Tharp asked about the state's broadband mapping project. Representative Rosenthal asked what type of equipment is covered by the bills.

11:58 AM

Representative Williams made closing remarks on the morning meeting and panel discussion.

12:00 PM

The meeting recessed.

01:41 PM -- HB 14-1330

Representative Ryden called the meeting to order. A quorum was present. Representative Williams, sponsor, called Stephanie Donner to the table to provide an overview of the telecommunications bill package.

01:43 PM -- Stephanie Donner, General Counsel for the Office of the Governor, described the provisions of the five telecommunications bills.

01:48 PM

Representative Williams presented House Bill 14-1330, concerning an update of telecommunications terminology for intrastate telecommunications services. This bill amends statutory terms used in telecommunications regulation. Definitions are added or modified to reflect current practices related to competitive markets and types of telecommunications service providers. The bill also eliminates obsolete definitions and references, such as transitional provisions for the implementation of competitive markets in 1996.



01:50 PM -- Don Eberle, representing Verizon, came to the table to respond to questions on HB 14-1330. He described his participation in the bill's stakeholder process and discussed the purpose of the bill.
BILL:HB14-1330
TIME: 01:53:37 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Refer House Bill 14-1330 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.
SECONDED:Hamner
VOTE
Exum
Yes
Hamner
Yes
Holbert
Yes
Navarro
Yes
Nordberg
Yes
Rosenthal
Yes
Ryden
Yes
Szabo
Yes
Wright
Yes
Kraft-Tharp
Yes
Williams
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:57 PM -- HB 14-1329

Representative Williams and Representative Murray presented House Bill 14-1329, concerning the exemption of certain internet-protocol-enabled services from oversight by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This bill deregulates certain telecommunication products, services, and providers. Specifically, the bill eliminates the authority of the PUC, in the Department of Regulatory Agencies, to regulate:

The bill also amends and adds statutory definitions for certain telecommunication products, services, and providers subject to regulation and exempt from regulation. Finally, the bill clarifies that it does not affect the scope or effect of PUC authority relative to the wholesale telecommunications market, federal telecommunications programs, or basic emergency service (commonly known as 9-1-1).


The following individuals testified on the bill:

01:58 PM -- Bill Levis, representing AARP, testified in opposition to HB 14-1329, HB 14-1331, and HB 14-1328. Mr. Levis discussed his previous work experience involving consumer advocacy and utilities regulation. He stated that the AARP is concerned that the bills do not offer enough consumer protections. He discussed the issue that VoIP-based phones do not pay for Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), the telephone services that allows persons with hearing or speech difficulties to receive a call, and the issue that telecommunications customers using a VoIP service will not pay into the High Cost Fund. He discussed the court opinions in Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as it relates to the bills.

Mr. Levis stated the AARP's findings that deregulation has not yet caused consumer rates to go down, and discussed the rate increase trends in other states after similar legislation has passed. He discussed the importance of maintaining the High Cost Fund and stated that there are three funding sources already in place to deploy broadband, including: the federal Farm Bill, the Connect America Fund, and EagleNet. He cited FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly's March 6 blog post entitled "Duplication Alert: Broadband Pilot Projects." Mr. Levis mentioned that there are other telecommunications industries based in the state, including Dish Network, Liberty Media Corporation, Level 3 Communications, and the Zayo Group.

02:08 PM

Mr. Levis began responding to questions from the committee. Representative Kraft-Tharp asked him to explain his statements that cell phones do not work and that the bills will get rid of landlines. He discussed the concerns the hearing impaired population has with cell phones. He discussed AT&T's stated goal to be an all-wireless network by 2020 and the FCC's trials of the impact of technology transitions. Mr. Levis stated that the current telecommunications atmosphere in the state is competitive, thriving, and that nothing needs to be done. He cited the Prism surveillance program as an additional reason to be concerned about all-wireless technology.

Representative Kraft-Tharp asked the witness to clarify his remarks about landlines. Mr. Levis stated that the telecommunications in Colorado are focusing on digital products, not on basic service. He stated his concern that there are no incentives in the bills to keep landlines. He cited the precedence set in other states where telecommunications have been deregulated, that these states do not reregulate. Mr. Levis stated that deregulation is not necessary. He said that the bill is rushed, driven by the industry, and that consumers were not involved in the stakeholder process, including AARP. In response to a question from Representative Rosenthal, he discussed the FCC trials further.

02:16 PM -- Katie Fleming-Dahl, representing Colorado Common Cause, testified in opposition to HB 14-1329, HB 14-1331, and HB 14-1328. Mr. Fleming-Dahl discussed the purpose of her organization. She stated that VoIP should be regulated the same as telephone exchanges. She stated that telephone service needs to be available and reliable. She stated that it was a mistake to codify deregulation. She said that if VoIP is to replace landline service, then the standards that regulate landline services should be transferred over to VoIP service. Ms. Fleming-Dahl discussed her organization's concerns around 9-1-1 service, stating that VoIP does not guarantee correct call routing and address recognition. She said that HB 14-1329 maintains the same level of protections for 9-1-1 basic service, but that the same level of protections should exist for VoIP service. She stated that consumer protections should come with the transition to VoIP service. On HB 14-1331, Ms. Fleming-Dahl discussed a Demos survey which reported rate increases from 8 percent to 100 percent in states that deregulated telecommunications, and also noted the up to 400 percent rate increases of some California telecommunications providers post-deregulation. She discussed a Colorado Fiscal Institute report that indicated high levels of economic inequality in Colorado, and stated her organization's concern that these bills may price the senior and low-income populations out of communication. She stated that the removal of the Carrier of Last Resort requirement was dangerous, particularly in crisis situations. Ms. Fleming-Dahl discussed HB 14-1328, and stated that there are other funding mechanisms in place for broadband build-out. She said that local governments would benefit from the repeal of the law that keeps them from building broadband independently.



02:24 PM -- Patricia Yeager, representing The Independence Center and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Yeager discussed her hearing impairment and stated that she is dependent on landline service to be connected to the world and to be able to hear the person on the other side of the call. She discussed her participation in the efforts to make cellphones accessible for the hard of hearing. Ms. Yeager stated that, in her experience, landlines provide a clear ringtone, but that she does not hear her cellphone when it rings. She discussed her experience living through the Waldo Canyon Fire and discussed the problems with cellphones in crisis. She stated that she requires both a cellphone and landline to make her feel safe living in Cheyenne Canyon. She stated her opinion that the technology behind next generation (NextGen) 9-1-1 is not yet a viable replacement for 9-1-1 as we know it. She asked the committee to consider three points: cellphones do not have adequate accessibility for the deaf and hard of hearing; NextGen 9-1-1 is not tested enough for large-scale crises; and that the PUC needs to have regulatory authority to ensure these provisions are in place before the funding mechanisms for basic service and TRS are pulled. Ms. Yaeger responded to a question from Representative Exum on the bill's language around 9-1-1 service.

02:32 PM -- Erik Mitisek, representing the Colorado Technology Association, testified in support of the bill. He discussed the importance of IP infrastructure to the state's economy and responded to questions from the committee. Representative Ryden asked the witness to speak to the concerns about the bills' impact on landlines. He offered an analogy likening the telecommunications transition to VoIP to the introduction of the telegraph. Representative Kraft-Tharp asked the witness to address previous witnesses' concerns about 9-1-1 and accessibility. Mr. Mitisek discussed the work being done in the medical services devices industry in catching up to VoIP; he stated that innovative products will be coming to the market to solve that gap. He discussed the current conversation around Food and Drug Administration approval of these devices. Mr. Mitisek addressed the concerns around 9-1-1, stating that the telecommunications industry depends on their success in 9-1-1 and that self-regulation has been successful in that area. He brought up the example of how the FCC has been instrumental in solving regulatory telecommunications issues, like the transfer of a consumer's phone number when that consumer changes their carrier. Representative Williams discussed the avenues still available to telecommunications consumers. Representative Rosenthal asked a question about the telegraph comparison, and referenced historical problems with consumer protection in the face of large businesses. Representative Murray reminded the committee that VoIP is not currently regulated. She stated that Mr. Mitisek made a good point around the FCC's regulatory authority. She stated that that there is nothing in this bill that cannot be changed in future sessions if the legislature finds problems with the way telecommunications industries are operating in the state.

02:50 PM -- Michael Price, representing the Coalition for a Connected West, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Price stated that the bill package will encourage investment in underserved areas of the state. He said the telecommunications conversation was an important one for the state to be having, because internet access has a tremendous impact on the state's economy. Mr. Price responded to questions from the committee about 9-1-1 and accessibility. He stated that consumers can rely on the FCC to work with providers to ensure a smooth transition.

02:58 PM -- Milt Doumit, representing Verizon, testified in support of the bill and offered to take questions from the committee. Representative Exum asked Mr. Doumit to address the issues of hearing impairment. He stated that the telecommunications market is explosively competitive, and discussed the current applications available to perform text-to-voice and text-to-braille functions.

03:00 PM -- Joe Benkert, representing the Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority, testified neutrally on the bill. He discussed the bill's treatment of emergency service and discussed the 9-1-1 landscape in the state. Representative Williams responded to a question from the witness about the bill's intent around emergency service. She stated that she believes the language maintains status quo and PUC will maintain the same authority it has today to regulate 9-1-1.


3:05 PM

Representative Williams distributed and discussed Amendment L.001 (Attachment A) which would allow the PUC regulatory authority over "slamming," where a subscriber's telephone service is changed without their consent.

140325 AttachA.pdf140325 AttachA.pdf
BILL:HB14-1329
TIME: 03:07:40 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.001. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Exum
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection



03:08 PM

The sponsors made closing remarks.
BILL:HB14-1329
TIME: 03:09:03 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Refer House Bill 14-1329, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 10-1.
SECONDED:Hamner
VOTE
Exum
Yes
Hamner
Yes
Holbert
Yes
Navarro
Yes
Nordberg
Yes
Rosenthal
No
Ryden
Yes
Szabo
Yes
Wright
Yes
Kraft-Tharp
Yes
Williams
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:09 PM -- HB 14-1331

Representative Murray presented House Bill 14-1331, concerning the regulation of basic local exchange service as it affects effective competition. This bill modifies the statutory framework for the regulation of local telephone service. The bill limits, but retains, authority for the PUC to regulate basic emergency service (emergency service) and the providers of basic local exchange service (basic service). Emergency service is subject to regulation unless the PUC approves a reclassification. In the case of basic service, the bill provides that:

With the exception of wholesale telecommunications regulation, dispute resolution between carriers, and requirements related to emergency service, the bill eliminates the PUC's authority to regulate:
• the white page directory and other listed telephone number services; • advanced features (e.g., call waiting, three-way calling) and premium services; • telecommunications services and products not otherwise classified under PUC statutes.

Funding from the HCSM is available for any provider of local landline service in areas without effective competition, and HCSM funding may be used only to provide support for basic service in these areas. An eligible provider may receive the difference between the reasonable cost to provide service and, as determined by the PUC, a reasonable benchmark price for basic service.

The following individuals testified on the bill:

03:12 PM -- Greg Glischinski, representing AARP, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed his personal appreciation of technology. He stated his concern with the bill is that it deregulates basic exchange and puts consumers at the risk of rate increases. Mr. Glischinski discussed the fixed incomes of most of AARP's membership, and how a rate increase would be a burden to seniors in the state. He discussed examples in other states of rate increases after deregulation and responded to questions from the committee.

03:18 PM -- Margaret Hughes, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed her consumer experience in Californian after telecommunications deregulation. She said the telecommunications companies promised that rates would remain the same, but the rates continued to increase. Ms. Hughes discussed the issues the bill raised for seniors and people with disabilities, and reminded the committee that a lot of people need a landline, like her daughter who is on-call in the medical profession.

03:21 PM -- Betty Proctor, representing the Colorado Senior Lobby and herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Proctor stated that she valued her landline. She stated that her organization opposes the threat the legislation poses to 9-1-1 and the likelihood of rate increases. She responded to a question from Representative Ryden on whether the testimony made her feel better about keeping her landline.

03:24 PM -- Lynne Smith, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Smith stated that cellphones are fun and innovative machines, but that they do not provide reliable phone service. On the other hand, she said that her landlines work 100 percent of the time. She stated that until cellphones can provide reliable phone service, they are not legitimate substitutes for landlines. She discussed how the PUC assisted her with prior issues related to cellphone contracts.

03:28 PM -- Patty Stein, representing the 60 Plus Association, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Stein provided an overview of her organization. She stated that today's seniors are adopting technology and embracing new communications devices. She stated that greater connectivity allowed seniors to keep in touch with family and health providers. She cited a 2012 Pew Research study that showed 69 percent of seniors use a cellphone and 50 percent use the internet. She stated that the current state regulations over telecommunications were written in another era. Ms. Stein responded to questions from the committee.

03:33 PM

Representative Williams responded to a question from Representative Kraft-Tharp about consumer protections. She referenced the various "clawback" provisions in the bill. Representative Murray stated that the goal of the bill was to build in as many consumer protections as possible.


03:36 PM

Representative Williams distributed and discussed Amendment L.001 (Attachment B), which clarified a line in Section 9 of the bill about providers exempt from regulation.

140325 AttachB.pdf140325 AttachB.pdf
BILL:HB14-1331
TIME: 03:37:56 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.001. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Holbert
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection



03:38 PM

Representative Murray made closing comments on the bill. She said that the bill amends a 20-year-old law, while preserving consumer protections. She said that the regulation of carriers must reflect the changing technology, and that the bill would create a level playing field for the industry.
BILL:HB14-1331
TIME: 03:40:02 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Refer House Bill 14-1331, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 10-1.
SECONDED:Holbert
VOTE
Exum
Yes
Hamner
Yes
Holbert
Yes
Navarro
Yes
Nordberg
Yes
Rosenthal
No
Ryden
Yes
Szabo
Yes
Wright
Yes
Kraft-Tharp
Yes
Williams
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:42 PM -- HB 14-1328

Representative Williams and Representative Coram presented House Bill 14-1328, concerning the deployment of broadband into unserved areas of Colorado through grant-making from moneys allocated from the Colorado high cost support mechanism. Until its statutory sunset on July 1, 2024, this bill creates the 13-member Broadband Deployment Board (BDB) in the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). The BDB administers the newly created Broadband Deployment Fund (BDF), from which grants are awarded for broadband development in unserved areas of the state. Funding to the BDF is provided by transferring an amount from surcharges in the High Cost Support Mechanism (HCSM), as allocated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

Funding from the Colorado High Cost Support Mechanism. The bill authorizes the use of HCSM financial assistance for access to broadband service in unserved areas of the state. In addition, the bill authorizes the use of the Colorado High Cost Administrative Fund for PUC costs associated with broadband deployment.

To offer financial assistance, the PUC must determine the amount of current HCSM surcharges that are no longer necessary to support universal basic service. Allocation of funds to the BDF results in a subsequent, scheduled reduction in HCSM surcharges by percentages set according to calendar year.

Allocated amounts are immediately transferred from the HCSM to the BDF. A report on the status of the HCSM must be included in certain DORA reports and its annual presentation to legislative committees of reference.


The Broadband Development Board. Members of the BDB are appointed by the Governor and legislative leadership, and include representatives from:

Members of the BDB are compensated with a $75 per diem for attendance at meetings, plus actual and necessary expenses for BDB business.

Broadband service grant awards. The BDB begins its work three months after funds are initially transferred from the HCSM to the BDF. After developing awareness and at least six months for existing local carriers and local governments to develop proposals, the BDB may consider applications for new broadband projects in unserved areas.

Completed applications for broadband service grant awards must be copied to the relevant local government (e.g., town, city, or county with jurisdiction over the project area) for a 60-day notice and comment period. Thereafter, the BDB reviews projects in accordance with criteria developed by the BDB to advance the objectives of the bill, such as having multiple funding sources, providing "last-mile" broadband service, and achieving minimum broadband network speeds.

The BRB makes an annual report to the General Assembly regarding projects receiving broadband service grant awards.

The following individuals testified on the bill:

03:48 PM -- Miriam Gillow-Wiles, representing the Southwest Council of Governments (Southwest COG), testified neutrally on the bill. Ms. Gillow-Wiles expressed her concern that local governments have no ability to access broadband deployment funds under the bill, since they are not included in the definition of a "local entity." She discussed Southwest COG's use of a $3 million grant from the DOLA in 2010, which Southwest COG matched with $1 million. She said the grant was used to enhance broadband service in nine out of ten communities that Southwest COG serves. She said that Southwest COG is governmental organization that has been in operation for four years and as a previous provider of broadband it should fit into applicant requirement.

03:52 PM -- Phil Buckland, representing the Clear Creek County Board of County Commissioners, testified in support of the bill. Commissioner Buckland stated that businesses in small rural communities require broadband. He said that broadband improves the health and educational services in rural areas. He said he supports the bill because it helps the state to move forward.

03:54 PM -- Connie McLain, representing the Gilpin County Board of County Commissioners, testified in support of the bill. Commissioner McLain echoed the prior testimony from Commissioner Buckland. She discussed the broadband connectivity issues that affected her office.


03:55 PM -- Robin Wiley, representing the Yuma County Board of County Commissioners, testified in support of the bill. Commissioner Wiley discussed the broadband needs of the agriculture industry. He also discussed the reliance that banks, hospitals, and schools have on broadband. He discussed the work of a 2012 broadband task force in Yuma County, which included representatives from the industry, local governments, business, and agriculture. He responded to a question from Representative Ryden about the task force and whether Yuma County will be able to do much with the amount of money available. Mr. Wiley stated that it is not enough, but that the bill is a good start.

03:59 PM -- Darlene Carpio, representing Yuma County Colorado Economic Development, testified in support of the bill. She discussed the work of the Yuma County broadband task force. She stated that businesses and agriculture in Yuma County had to make sacrifices due to lack of broadband availability. She stated that broadband should be considered an essential utility and said that the bill provided a funding source that Yuma County could build on.

04:02 PM -- Wendell Pryor, representing the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation, testified in support of HB 14-1328 and HB 14-1327. Mr. Pryor discussed his organization's successes in deploying broadband in Chaffee County; however, the work is never done. He referenced Governor Hickenlooper's Colorado Blueprint, and shared that broadband was identified as a top priority in one-third of the counties in the state in that document. He discussed the issue of broadband as it relates to economic development and education. He stated that broadband helps to prevent brain drain in rural areas. He discussed the importance of broadband to the medical field and emergency notification systems. He stated that the bill would prevent rural Colorado from becoming "Other Colorado." On HB 14-1327, he stated that the bill set good time requirements and recognizes partnerships between carriers, local government, and state government, vis-a-vis the Colorado Department of Transportation.

04:07 PM -- Mike Brazell, representing Park County Board of County Commissioners, testified in support of HB 14-1328 and HB 14-1327. Commissioner Brazell discussed the importance of broadband to his community. He said that the number one question realtors in Park County get from potential buyers is, "Does this site have internet access?" He discussed the utility of broadband to telecommuters. He discussed its importance to schools and stated that Park County had to bus students in areas without broadband over an hour to get them to facilities that were capable of administering the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) tests. He said he was dismayed that the United States invented the internet, but that this country rates average on internet connectivity. Similarly, he said, Colorado ranks in the median of national access to the internet. He responded to questions from the committee about internet connectivity in Park County. Commissioner Brazell stated that the topography of Colorado makes it difficult to get an accurate broadband map. He stated that it would take Park County the entire distribution of funds allocated, around $7 million, to provide everyone in the county with broadband access, and they are only one of 64 counties. Commissioner Brazell discussed satellite internet and the equipment necessary to connect rural areas to broadband. He discussed the stakeholder process in crafting the bills.

04:21 PM -- Tim Brown, representing the Colorado Farm Bureau, testified in support of HB 14-1328 and HB 14-1327. Mr. Brown provided an overview of his organization and his own background. He discussed the broadband access disparity in rural areas and offered statistics. He stated that the health care industry, schools, and businesses required broadband to keep rural Colorado competitive. He discussed the changes in farming technology and how it, too, has become reliant on broadband, using internet connection to guide machines, save water, and more. He stated that broadband is imperative to the success of rural Colorado.

04:27 PM -- Tony Lombard, representing Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI), testified in support of the bill. Mr. Lombard relayed CCI's discussions on the bill. He said that CCI would like to see a county commissioner included in the membership of the bill's Broadband Deployment Board.


04:31 PM -- Bonnie Petersen, representing CLUB 20, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Petersen discussed her organization's longstanding concerns with broadband deployment. She discussed the history of broadband deployment to rural areas. She stated that broadband access is as critical as telephone access. She stated that the state's current regulatory scheme is not bolstering broadband in rural areas. She said that the bill was a good start to creating public policy around broadband.

04:36 PM -- Stefan Stein, representing ViaSat, Inc. and the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA), testified in support of the bill if amended. He stated his appreciation for the sponsors working with the SBCA on an amendment to make the bill technology neutral.

04:40 PM -- Bill Hun, representing Dish Networks and the SBCA, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hun echoed the testimony of his counterpart.

04:46 PM

The sponsors distributed and discussed Amendment L.003 and Amendment L.004 (Attachments C and D, respectively). The sponsors asked two stakeholders to return to the table to discuss the amendments.

140325 AttachC.pdf140325 AttachC.pdf140325 AttachD.pdf140325 AttachD.pdf

04:51 PM -- Jason Hopfer, representing Viaero Wireless, and Jeff Weist, representing the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association, returned to the table to discuss Amendment L.003 and Amendment L.004. Mr. Hopfer stated that the amendments responded to the satellite industry's concern that these bills be technology-neutral.
BILL:HB14-1328
TIME: 04:54:39 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.003. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Holbert
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
BILL:HB14-1328
TIME: 04:55:00 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.004. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Holbert
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:



04:55 PM

Representative Szabo distributed and discussed Amendment L.005 (Attachment E). The amendment added a definition for "incumbent provider" to the bill.

140325 AttachE.pdf140325 AttachE.pdf
BILL:HB14-1328
TIME: 04:55:42 PM
MOVED:Szabo
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.005. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Holbert
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection



05:02 PM

The sponsors delivered closing remarks.
BILL:HB14-1328
TIME: 05:03:52 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Refer House Bill 14-1328, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 10-1.
SECONDED:Hamner
VOTE
Exum
Yes
Hamner
Yes
Holbert
Yes
Navarro
Yes
Nordberg
No
Rosenthal
Yes
Ryden
Yes
Szabo
Yes
Wright
Yes
Kraft-Tharp
Yes
Williams
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:05 PM

The committee took a brief recess.

05:10 PM -- HB 14-1327

The committee came back to order.

Representative Williams and Representatives Murray presented House Bill 14-1327, concerning measures to expand the deployment of communication networks. This bill sets statewide policy concerning the deployment of broadband technology. Specifically, the bill:

05:14 PM -- Andy Karsian, representing Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI), testified in support of the bill. He stated that his organization appreciated the bill and its inclusion in the stakeholder process.

05:15 PM -- Greg Romberg, representing the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, came to the table to discuss proposed amendments. He stated that the amendment addresses a few issues related to trenching notification. Specifically, if an emergency repair needs to be done, the amendment would allow trenching without a 10-day notice.

05:17 PM

The sponsors distributed and discussed Amendment L.002 and Amendment L.003 (Attachments F and G, respectively). The sponsors explained the amendments.

140325 AttachF.pdf140325 AttachF.pdf140325 AttachG.pdf140325 AttachG.pdf
BILL:HB14-1327
TIME: 05:18:43 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.002. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Hamner
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection



BILL:HB14-1327
TIME: 05:19:03 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.003. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Hamner
VOTE
Exum
Hamner
Holbert
Navarro
Nordberg
Rosenthal
Ryden
Szabo
Wright
Kraft-Tharp
Williams
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection



05:19 PM

The sponsors made closing remarks.
BILL:HB14-1327
TIME: 05:20:33 PM
MOVED:Williams
MOTION:Refer House Bill 14-1327, as amended, to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.
SECONDED:Hamner
VOTE
Exum
Yes
Hamner
Yes
Holbert
Yes
Navarro
Yes
Nordberg
Yes
Rosenthal
Yes
Ryden
Yes
Szabo
Yes
Wright
Yes
Kraft-Tharp
Yes
Williams
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:22 PM

The committee adjourned.