MN HF4182 (Equal Access to Broadband Act) laid over for possible inclusion

Posted on by

The MN House Committee on State and Local Government Finance and Policy discussed HF4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified. (I have written about this bill before.) The bill was finally called after a very long discussion on an earlier agenda item (HF4593). Bill is laid over for possible inclusion.

Notes:
Proposed Amendment A: stacking of franchise fees, is not allowed, impacts only broadband providers, not wireless, caps the franchise fees.
Question:

Why not include wireless providers?
The bill deals with ISP not others.
Wireless providers provide internet access, so do broadband providers. What’s the difference?
They have always been excluded? Because the legislature based rules one small cell and wireless that excludes wireless from franchising.
Amendment A3 is added.

Testifier from CCX Media (cable companies): They produce unique programming with PEG funding. Newspapers are not surviving. We will a need in our programs. They do advocacy for consumers. The provide tech support for cable companies.

Mayor Testifier: local s, broadband franchising should mirror the community service that cable franchising does. Franchise fees pays for regulatory services as well as programming – such as elections, local sports and government meetings.

Testifier from MN Telecom Alliance: broadband providers invested $360M in broadband. But this bill makes it harder to invest. We oppose the bill. No other state has passed this legislation. It opposes ITFA (Internet Tax Freedom Act). Cable franchising is not easily smoothed into broadband franchising. It will increase consumer bills. This will hurt broadband buildout.

Testifier from MCCA (cable association): this bill would stop broadband deployment. It puts an 8 percent tax on broadband. It makes it less affordable. It conflicts with other regulations.

Testifier from Wireless association: some of our concerns have been assuaged with the amendment. We already have lots of regulations. We want more amendments to exempt wireless.

Testifier from center for fiscal excellence: these fees function like taxes, which should go to general revenue. But these taxes are already earmarked for specific things. The question is where the fees will be used. Research shows cable franchise funding doesn’t always go to PEG or other legit cable-related services.

Questions:

I was a mayor and we worked with a provider. Why do we want to tax my residents? Most people get their info online anyways.
It is comparable with what we’ve always done with cable companies. If you have a good experience – you don’t have to charge the fee. It’s opt-in/opt-out.

How would this help offset municipal infrastructure costs? What costs?
Costs to deploying broadband. Or rent for rights-of-way.
It’s how we treat existing utilities this same way – for access to public rights-of-way.

So this is really like a rent to public spaces?
Partially – but also do raise revenue and defray municipal costs.

So this is raised revenue? Don’t we have other ways to pay for public education and information? I get a lot of bills. This is a tax.

I worked in a city. We called this a tax. Who pays this tax.
The tax goes to customers’ bill.
That is confusing to people. I see it on my bill and I think it’s the fault of the provider when really I should be made at the city.

Here are the written comments:

Leave a Reply