The MN House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee learned more about HF3679 Telecommunications; prohibited practices added, missed repair appointments credit provided, and municipal and local telecommunications service governing provisions modified. (I wrote about the bill earlier.) It is re-referred to Commerce.

The goal is to add consumer protections and remove barrier for local governments interested in providing broadband services. The bill proposers are working with industry to refine the bill.

Testifying: Daniel Lightfoot from League of MN Cities. They support the removal of barriers to make it more difficult for local governments to provide broadband. We have seen municipal broadband work well.

Testifying: Brent Christensen from MTA. They oppose the bill, which might undermine their existing businesses. Also is provides regulations on only telecom broadband providers – not cable or wireless. It is discriminatory. The State says we are a utility like roads but we are more than an object and we are in a competitive environment. We are working with the bill author on changes that might work for us.

Questions:

How many cities want to become broadband providers?
18 active municipal networks – some work with providers and some take it all on.

Are there any cities that have failed with municipal networks? I don’t know why we’d like folks to do this?
Some cities have had issues – like Monticello, but now they are successful.

Cities don’t have to do this – but for cities where there is no good access it helps them help their constituents.

Are there reporting requirements? I don’t want the government to grow.

Where did the bill come from?
From the Department of Commerce.

Building broadband is risky. I have cable and DSL and I live in Hennepin County. CenturyLink has invested in my community I don’t want three people to decide that my city should get into providing broadband. Why do we want to remove citizen engagement?
We vote for our representatives.

Do we think the city should be able to raise taxes without vote?
Nope

This is like when a city person wanted a municipal golf course. The cities that might want to do this – should have to get 65 percent vote. Businesses have been providing this service. It’s too much exposure for a city. Carver County put in a fiber ring and the partner walked away. Condemnation is a three to two vote.
This law doesn’t mean a city has to become a broadband provider.

Referred to Commerce