Category Archives: Cable

MN House looks at cutting HF4182: Equal Access to Broadband Act

Posted on by
Reply

The Minnesota Reformer reports…

The Minnesota House’s Democratic majority is expected to ax a proposal Monday that would have allowed cities to charge broadband providers a fee to place internet lines in their jurisdictions.

If they chose to enact the tax — or “franchise fee” — cities would have been able to charge up to 8% of the provider’s gross revenues. The cities could spend just shy of two-thirds of that on whatever they want, though the bill mentions the costs associated with burying the broadband lines — also known as right-of-way management.

Cities should be allowed to charge a fee because companies are placing the internet lines on public land, and cities incur costs to replace streets or sidewalks after the companies bury the lines, said Rep. Mike Freiberg, DFL-Golden Valley, the bill’s chief author.

Cities could use the remaining revenue — a bit more than one-third of the total — for government media programming, such as live-streaming city council meetings.

The “Equal Access to Broadband Act” also would have allowed cities to negotiate with the broadband companies to ensure equal broadband access within their communities.

The bill (HF4182/SF4262) is included in the House’s commerce omnibus bill, but Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers are expected to cut the provision on the House floor Monday. The Senate has not held a hearing on the bill this session.

Freiberg spoke to the Reformer before his DFL colleagues moved to cut the bill from the commerce omnibus package. He said it would ensure residents get equal internet access in their communities.

“This will actually be a benefit to residents, both whether they’re low-income or high-income, because a lot of low-income parts of cities are not afforded the same level of internet service that there are in wealthier parts,” Freiberg said.

The franchise fee model is similar to city fees on cable companies. Frieberg said with the decline of people using cable, cities are struggling to pay for their public programming like council and school board meetings.

Minnesota would be the first state in the nation with a broadband franchising fee.

OpEd from broadband industry on MN HF 4182, the Equal Access to Broadband bill

Posted on by
Reply

MinnPost has published on OpEd from Melissa Wolf, director of the Minnesota Cable Communications Association, and Brent Christensen, president and CEO of the Minnesota Telecom Alliance on MN HF 4182, the Equal Access to Broadband bill (I have been following the bill) that would allow local governments to charge franchising fees to wired broadband providers…

Access to fast, reliable broadband and internet services is vital for every Minnesotan. From schoolwork to work from home, access to digital tools is an essential part of day-to-day life, not a luxury. Unfortunately, Minnesota lawmakers are proposing wrong-headed legislation that will give local governments authority to hike the price of essential internet and broadband services by as much as 8% – costing consumers more and threatening to halt the great progress made toward affordable, universal broadband access across the state.

The legislation currently moving through the House, which we refer to as the “Internet Tax bill,” will authorize local governments to enact what are essentially new taxes – which they call franchise fees – on broadband service providers. Decisions to add these new taxes to consumer bills and how that revenue will be spent would be made with very little transparency to consumers. Minnesotans are tired of additional fees and taxes being added to their bills. Ironically, this proposal allowing local governments to tack on new “fees” to internet bills comes while legislators are promoting other bills to ban junk fees.

So, what do these new taxes mean for Minnesotans? It means duplicative, burdensome taxes can be levied on consumers, making access to essential internet services inaccessible for many. Consumers won’t be getting a better or improved product — they’ll just be paying more for it.

When inflation is hitting family budgets harder than ever, and as the Biden Administration is stepping up efforts with billions in investments to close the digital divide, it begs the question of why Minnesota lawmakers want to put these onerous new taxes on essential internet and broadband-enabled services and move our state backward?

Moreover, this legislation comes at a time when more than 240,000 low-income Minnesota households are losing access to a federal $30/month broadband subsidy that is running out at the end of April. Why do state lawmakers want to compound this issue further and risk putting access to affordable internet, perhaps permanently out of reach for thousands of people, by adding layers of new fees to broadband bills? Low-income, BIPOC and underserved communities will be harmed the most by this legislation.

Coon Rapids MN supports MN HF 4182, the Equal Access to Broadband bill

Posted on by
Reply

Hoodline reports on support from the Coon Rapids City Council for MN HF 4182, the Equal Access to Broadband bill (I have been following the bill) that would allow local governments to charge franchising fees to wired broadband providers…

Coon Rapids is throwing its weight behind a proposed bill aimed at bringing equitable high-speed Internet to all corners of the state.

The Coon Rapids City Council, in a unanimous decision Tuesday, passed a resolution supporting the call for Equal Access to Broadband at the State Capitol, as reported on the city’s official website.

Amid the push for upgrades to current technological infrastructure, Representative Mike Freiberg of Crystal (43B) underscored the merit of the bill, telling Coon Rapids’ official website that “The equal access to broadband act will level the playing field with broadband ISPs while assuring build out and minimum upload and download speeds to meet the current and future needs of the business and residents statewide.” Broadband providers could be required to pay franchise fees akin to those imposed on cable companies, to utilize city right-of-ways for fiber optic cables.

These fees serve a crucial role beyond revenue – they directly fund public, education, and government (PEG) access programming.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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:

Cable, broadband providers say new MN bill could drive up internet prices

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been following HF4182, a bill that would establish equal Access to Broadband Act established, and modify broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions. In short it would borrow from the old cable franchising model to allow local government to charge broadband providers to deploy/manage broadband in the area.

KSTP reports on how the providers feel about the bill…

EVENT April 4: HF4182 Equal Access to Broadband Act discussed in MN House Committee

Posted on by
Reply

April 4, the MN House Committee on State and Local Government Finance and Policy will discuss HF4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified. (I have written about this bill before.) You can attend the meeting or watch remotely…

Thursday, April 4, 2024 , 8:30 AM

State and Local Government Finance and Policy

Chair: Rep. Ginny Klevorn
Location: Room 10
Agenda:

HF 4598 (Long) Independent Redistricting Commission established, Applicant Review Panel established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, legislative members lobbying activity prohibited, convening and conduct of regular legislative sessions requirements amended, and constitutional amendment proposed.
HF 4593 (Klevorn) Advisory citizens’ redistricting commission established, redistricting principles and redistricting requirements established, constitutional amendment to establish an independent citizen’s redistricting commission proposed, and money appropriated.
HF 4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified.
HANDOUTS: Handouts MUST BE IN PDF FORMAT and emailed to the committee administrator by 12 p.m. (noon) the business day before the hearing. If you are bringing hard copies, bring 40 copies. Note: submitted written testimony is public and will be included in the official committee record. It may be posted to the committee webpage if received by deadline.
TESTIFYING: Testimony is limited. The number of testifiers and length of time permitted is at the discretion of the chair, and is subject to change. Please plan accordingly. If you would like to testify, please email the committee administrator by 12 p.m. (noon) the business day before the hearing.
DOCUMENTS: Meeting documents may be found on the State and Local Government Finance and Policy webpage.
VIEWING: This hearing may be viewed on the House webcast schedule page. All video events are closed captioned with automatically generated captions.
*Agenda items (including bills) may be added or removed, and/or order may change.
o For further information on accommodations, please visit FAQs for Disability Access or contact the LCC Accessibility Coordinator at accessibility.coordinator@lcc.mn.gov
o If you are having accessibility or usability problems with any Minnesota Legislative website or software, please send your comments to the Accessibility & Usability Comment Form
o To request legislative services for American Sign Language (ASL), Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) closed captioning services, or live language interpretation services for Hmong, Somali, or Spanish speakers to testify, please contact the Committee Administrator as soon as possible.

Bills Added

HF4182(Freiberg)
Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified.

HF4593(Klevorn)
Advisory citizens’ redistricting commission established, redistricting principles and redistricting requirements established, constitutional amendment to establish an independent citizen’s redistricting commission proposed, and money appropriated.

HF4598(Long)
Independent Redistricting Commission established, Applicant Review Panel established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, legislative members lobbying activity prohibited, convening and conduct of regular legislative sessions requirements amended, and constitutional amendment proposed.

Attachments:

(3/30/2024)

(4/1/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

(4/2/2024)

 

Worthington City Council supports Equal Access to Broadband Act (franchise fees to broadband providers)

Posted on by
Reply

My Radio Works reports on Worthington City Council’s view of a bill I’ve been tracking (the MN Equal Access to Broadband Act)…

The Worthington City Council on Monday approved a resolution of support for efforts of the Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators to modernize public, education and government programming and public access funding.

City Administrator Steve Robinson explained that community television in Worthington is funded through franchise fees with local cable television providers. The franchise fees received by the city are based on the number of customers.

As viewing preferences have changed, Robinson continued, many individuals have cut the cable TV cord and turned to streaming services, thereby reducing the fees the city receives to continue to fund Cable 3. Worthington Cable 3 broadcasts city council meetings, as well as many of the high school’s athletic and cultural events and local celebrations.

Current state law does not require alternative streaming companies to compensate cities for use of our public right of way. Two House and Senate bills have been introduced to modernize and provide sustainable funding for community television. One would assess a fee on streaming services, collected by local governments, to fund local public, education and government community television. Another would, in exchange for private use of the city’s public right of way by broadband providers, establish a broadband franchise requirement to generate compensation.

MN Equal Access to Broadband bill means new fees for broadband providers

Posted on by
Reply

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports on the MN Equal Access to Broadband bill (I have been following the bill in the Legislature)…

Minnesota cities are asking the Legislature for power to slap internet providers with new fees, an idea they say will lead to more broadband in the state with the added bonus of helping to pay for basic government access programming like video of council meetings.

But the idea has caused a stir at the Capitol, where telecom groups and Republicans argue the bill — with its significant support from the Twin Cities metro area — won’t actually aid rural Minnesota in bridging the digital divide at all. Instead, it would just bring in more cash to local government at the expense of broadband customers.

The tug-of-war has become contentious at times, pitting cities and their media operations against internet providers large and small and sparking debate about whether the bill’s title promising equal access to broadband is false advertising.

Gov. Tim Walz’s broadband office declined to weigh in as officials there plan to distribute more than $750 million in state and federal money to subsidize the construction of broadband infrastructure aimed at expanding high-speed internet options.

“The added fee on consumers’ bills will tip the affordability scale in the wrong direction,” said Brent Christensen, president of the Minnesota Telecom Alliance. “This legislation is contrary to everything the state of Minnesota, the Office of Broadband Development and my members are doing to see that all Minnesotans have access to quality broadband.”

Bills for broadband

Local governments have long negotiated franchise agreements with cable TV providers and utility companies to use public right-of-ways for infrastructure like wires.

Those deals usually include franchise fees, and for cable providers, a second fee specifically dedicated to what is known as Public Education and Government, or PEG. That’s basic public access media documenting local life and government.

There are federal limits…

Federal law limits cable franchise fees to 5% of annual gross revenue in that city, though the PEG fees are additional and uncapped. The latest version of the DFL legislation restricts broadband franchise fees to 5% of gross revenue and PEG fees to 3%.

Supporters have titled the bill as the “Equal Access to Broadband Act,” saying cities can negotiate consumer protections through franchise deals. Broadband groups have argued it’s a misnomer, that the policy will slow the spread of quality internet.

CCX Media on MN HF4182: Equal Access to Broadband Act

Posted on by
Reply

CCX Media has 30-minutes episode on  HF4182: The Equal Access to Broadband Act. (I also wrote about the meeting in the House Committee meeting.) Most of the episode consists of video from the meeting but the last three minutes give a view from CCX of the view. They come from a history of benefitting from cable franchising fees, which is similar to what is being proposed in the bill.

The actual meeting (again included in the episode) includes testimony from folks that support and oppose the bill.

MN HF4182: Broadband franchising fees is re-refer to State and Local Government Finance and Policy

Posted on by
Reply

MN House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee discussed HF4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified.

The bill sets up a system where local governments could charge a fee to broadband providers looking to use public networks. It is similar to cable franchising fees, which were often used for things like public access television shows (Public Educational and Government – PEG).

Con Comments:

  • Preemption – nothing preempts local franchising
  • Stacking – multiple layers of government could charge separate fees
  • Satellite and wireless are not included in this bill
  • Bills already allow wireless without a fee
  • It is permissive
  • Broadband providers are investing $300 million this year but franchising fees might change that
  • No other state has such a fee
  • Fees will be passed onto end customers
  • Neither the Office of Broadband Development or Broadband Task Force was not consulted about this bill
  • This creates an unlevel regulatory playing field
  • Bill authorizes unlimited fees
  • Changes how broadband services are regulated -moves regulation from FCC to local level
  • Cable companies already pay franchising fees – and those are passed onto customers
  • Feds already regulate wireless providers
  • MN law already protects local government and rights of way
  • The fees are revenue, not cost based, which isn’t allowed
  • This will impact broadband deployment
  • We need to recognize our desire to limit control with the last bill and this bill creates unlimited, uncapped source of revenue

Pro Comments:

  • Cable franchising has created standards and ways to afford broadband
  • Broadband uses rights of way
  • Community media is an important resource and we are losing many forms
  • Cable access to programs such as local sports and government have been usurped by livestreaming
  • MN is a model franchising state
  • We need to distribute PEG on many forms to make info available – but only tradition cable pays for access
  • Franchising puts power in the hands of locals
  • Viewers don’t mind paying for quality programming
  • Local franchising has allowed us to do more
  • Franchising will ensure border to border broadband expansion
  • Local government has resources to handle customer service
  • Puts power with local government. This bill is about choice

Questions:

Why would this help low income Minnesotans?
Because we need the money to invest in broadband

Why doesn’t the fund specifically call out PEG?
We wanted to leave it to the local community.

How does this compare to Internet freedom act?
The federal bills look at small cell orders. We aren’t talking about cell or wireless. Through franchising, cities can make sure all residents have broadband access. Franchising is how cable was built throughout the Twin Cities.

The bill is re-refer to State and Local Government Finance and Policy.

Bill introduced MN HF4182: Equal Access to Broadband Act established

Posted on by
Reply

A new bill was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives: HF4182 Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified. It was referred to Agriculture Finance and Policy. It’s recommended modifications to an existing law that currently targets telecommunications providers. The change eliminates the word telecommunications, to widen the target to all broadband providers. It also morphs rights-of-way and franchising.

Here’s the description as introduced…

A bill for an act
relating to broadband; establishing the Equal Access to Broadband Act; modifying
provisions governing broadband services and broadband infrastructure; amending
Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 116J.39, subdivision 1; 116J.394; 116J.399,
subdivisions 1, 8, by adding a subdivision; 237.162, subdivision 4; 237.163,
subdivisions 2, 6, 7; 412.221, subdivision 6; Minnesota Statutes 2023 Supplement,
section 222.37, subdivision 1.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Continue reading →

Bill introduced MN HF4186: imposing fee on digital video services

Posted on by
4

HF. 4186,A bill for an act relating to telecommunications; imposing a public, educational, or governmental programming fee on certain digital video service providers; providing penalties; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 238 was introduced in the House. I am interested in learning more about how and why this is being approached. It looks like this is a way to address PEG (public, educational and governmental) funding.

Here’s the language as introduced…

A bill for an act
relating to telecommunications; imposing a public, educational, or governmental
programming fee on certain digital video service providers; providing penalties;
proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 238.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

[238.095] DIGITAL VIDEO SERVICE PROVIDERS; PEG
PROGRAMMING FEES.

Subdivision 1.

Definitions.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
the meanings given.

(b) “Digital entertainment service” means a paid service that: (1) provides audio, video,
or computer-generated or computer-augmented entertainment; and (2) delivers the
entertainment to a subscriber without regard to delivery technology.

(c) “Digital video service provider” means a person that sells, delivers, or provides digital
entertainment service to a subscriber in Minnesota by sending the media directly through
an Internet-connected device. Digital video service provider includes a direct broadcast
satellite service provider, even if the direct broadcast satellite service provider does not use
Internet-connected devices to deliver the digital entertainment service. Digital video service
provider does not include: (1) except as provided in subdivision 3, a cable communication
system; (2) cable service, as defined under United States Code, title 47, section 522(6); or
(3) any video programming provided (i) by a commercial mobile service provider defined
under United States Code, title 47, section 332(d); or (ii) solely as part of and via a service
that enables a user to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered
over the Internet.

(d) “Direct broadcast satellite service” has the meaning given in Code of Federal
Regulations, title 25, part 103.

(e) “Gross revenues” means all revenue received directly or indirectly by a digital video
service provider that arise from, are attributable to, or in any way are derived from selling,
delivering, or providing digital entertainment service to a subscriber residing within
Minnesota or a local unit of government, as applicable, during a single calendar year. Gross
revenues do not include bad debts, investment income, refunded deposits, or any taxes on
services furnished by a digital video service provider and imposed directly upon a subscriber
by a local, state, federal, or other governmental unit.

(f) “Local unit of government” means a city, county, township, commission, district,
authority, or other political subdivision or instrumentality of Minnesota. Local unit of
government includes a joint powers commission and a local public, educational, or
governmental programming organization.

(g) “Public, educational, or governmental programming” or “PEG programming” means
a public access facility, as defined under United States Code, title 47, section 522, that is
provided in accordance with United States Code, title 47, section 531.

(h) “Subscriber” means a person who: (1) receives digital entertainment service from a
digital video service provider; and (2) does not further distribute the digital entertainment
service in the ordinary course of business.

Subd. 2.

PEG programming fees authorized.

(a) A local unit of government must
impose a PEG programming fee on a digital video service provider that sells, delivers, or
provides digital entertainment service within the local unit of government’s jurisdiction.

(b) A PEG programming fee assessed under this section equals five percent of the digital
video service provider’s gross revenues that directly or indirectly arise from, are attributable
to, or are in any way derived from digital entertainment services sold, delivered, or provided
to subscribers that reside within the assessing local unit of government. The assessment
authorized in this section is for each year or portion of each year that the digital video service
provider sells, delivers, or provides digital entertainment service to subscribers that reside
within the local unit of government.

(c) A digital video service provider must pay the PEG programming fee assessment
under this section directly to the applicable local unit of government 45 days after the date
the calendar quarter closes. In addition to the PEG programming fees assessment, the digital
video service provider must submit a report that documents the information used to calculate
the quarterly payment.

(d) A digital video service provider may, but is not required to, itemize the costs
associated with a PEG programming fee on a subscriber’s bill. If a digital video service
provider itemizes the PEG programming fee on a subscriber’s bill, the amount itemized
must be labeled accurately and reflect the exact amount of the digital video service provider’s
PEG programming fee that is attributable to the particular subscriber.

(e) For purposes of this section, a subscriber resides within a local unit of government
if the subscriber’s billing address is located within a zip code that the local unit of government
has jurisdiction over.

Subd. 3.

Cable communication systems.

A cable communications system that sells,
delivers, or provides digital entertainment service that are not included in the franchise fees
that the cable communications system pays under a contract executed with a local unit of
government pursuant to this chapter must pay the PEG programming fees authorized under
subdivision 2. A cable communication system subject to this subdivision is required to pay
PEG programming fees under subdivision 2 only for the digital entertainment service the
cable communication system sells, delivers, or provides to subscribers in Minnesota that
are not included in the franchise fees that the cable communication system pays under a
contract executed with a local unit of government pursuant to this chapter.

Subd. 4.

PEG programming fees; use; documentation.

(a) PEG programming fees
collected under this section may be used by the collecting local unit of government for
capital or operating expenses associated with PEG programming and, at the discretion of
the local unit of government, may be used to address unique local community needs and
interests relating to local public, education, and government communications technology.

(b) A local unit of government must document how PEG programming fees collected
under this section are used. The documentation must be created and maintained in a manner
consistent with the standards and guidance issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board.

Subd. 5.

Digital video service provider record keeping.

(a) A digital video service
provider subject to this section must maintain records regarding the sale, delivery, and
provision of digital entertainment service in Minnesota. At a minimum, the records must
include: (1) the digital video service provider’s gross revenues received that directly or
indirectly arise from, are attributable to, or in any way are derived from selling, delivering,
or providing digital entertainment service to subscribers in Minnesota each year; (2) PEG
programming fees paid to all local units of government in Minnesota each year; and (3) the
reports submitted to local units of government under subdivision 2, paragraph (c). The
records must be maintained for the period of time specified under section 541.05, subdivision
1.

(b) A digital video service provider subject to this section is subject to an audit of gross
revenues and PEG programming fees remitted under subdivision 2. An audit under this
paragraph may be conducted by the local unit of government or the local unit of government’s
agent only to determine any overpayment or underpayment of the digital video service
provider’s payment of PEG programming fees to the local unit of government.

Subd. 6.

Enforcement; penalties.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a digital
video service provider that fails to remit PEG programming fees to a local unit of government
under subdivision 2 within 30 days of the deadline established under subdivision 2 is assessed
a monetary penalty in an amount equal to two percent of the gross revenues derived from
or pertaining to selling, delivering, or providing digital entertainment service to subscribers
residing in the local unit of government during the reporting period. An additional penalty
of up to one percent may be assessed for each subsequent 30-day period a digital video
service provider fails to remit the assessment due, up to a total cumulative monetary penalty
of five percent under this paragraph. A monetary penalty or late fees assessed under this
subdivision must be remitted directly to the local unit of government that is owed the PEG
programming fees under subdivision 2.

(b) A digital video service provider that fraudulently fails to remit in full the programming
fees to a local unit of government under subdivision 2 within 30 days of the deadline
established under subdivision 2 may be assessed a monetary penalty in an amount up to
100 percent of the gross revenues derived from or pertaining to selling, delivering, or
providing digital entertainment service to subscribers residing in the local unit of government
during the reporting period. A monetary penalty assessed under this subdivision must be
remitted directly to the local unit of government that is owed the PEG programming fees
under subdivision 2.

(c) A digital video service provider that fails to make available for audit the records
required under subdivision 5 within 30 days of the deadline established under subdivision
4 is assessed a monetary penalty in an amount equal to one percent of the gross revenues
derived from or pertaining to selling, delivering, or providing digital entertainment service
to subscribers residing in Minnesota during the reporting period. An additional one percent
penalty may be assessed for each subsequent 30-day period a digital video service provider
fails to submit the report, up to a total cumulative monetary penalty of five percent under
this paragraph. A monetary penalty assessed under this paragraph must be remitted directly
to the local unit of government that is owed the PEG programming fees under subdivision
2.

(d) In addition to the remedies under paragraphs (a) to (c), a local unit of government
adversely impacted by the action, or failure to act, of a digital video service provider under
this section may, within seven years of the subject action or inaction, bring an action to
recover any unpaid assessments and monetary penalties, or enjoin the operations of any
noncompliant digital video service provider, in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(e) In addition to the remedies under paragraphs (a) to (d), the attorney general may
enforce this section under section 8.31. An action taken under this paragraph is in the public
interest.

Subd. 7.

Exemption; limitations.

(a) This section does not apply to a digital video
service provider that earned less than $250,000 in gross revenues from providing digital
entertainment service to subscribers in Minnesota during the previous calendar year.

(b) Nothing in this section affects the authority of the state, a local unit of government,
or an instrument of the state or local unit of government with respect to the ownership and
control of public property or public rights-of-way.

(c) A department or agency of the state or a local unit of government does not have the
authority to regulate the rates charged by a digital video service provider.

(d) Nothing in this section exempts a digital video service provider from paying a tax
or fee, including but not limited to a tax or fee that is or may later be required to be paid by
or through the digital video service provider with respect to the provision of any
communications service, that is or may later be imposed by the local unit of government.

(e) A digital video service provider is not otherwise subject to regulation under this
chapter solely as a result of being subject to this section.

MN Senate Committee learns about Line Extension Program and Easements for Broadband

Posted on by
Reply

Today the MN Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Finance and Policy Committee heard a bill for a program that would introduce a reserve auction for Line Extension to single homes looking for better broadband. Cap per household is $25,000. Also it looks for commercial providers to get easement permission to deploy broadband as cooperatives got last year.


[note Wednesday I am adding a link to the live session – you’ll need to scroll to the Ag & Rural Dev segment. On Thursday, I should be able to update with archived link]

Here are the related documents:

S.F. 3476Johnson

Financial assistance program to extend broadband service to unserved areas establishment; process to allow existing easements to be used for broadband service establishment

The big issue today seems to come from the railroads; apparently they missed the similar bill that passed last year allowing electric cooperatives to use existing easements for broadband. The railroads are concerned about the safety of undermining the tracks. The Cable Association that has introduced the bill is concerned with equity for electric cooperatives and other broadband providers. The Railroads apparently weren’t aware of the bill last year or this probably would have come up last year. The legislators would prefer that the railroads and broadband providers work this out to get “peace in the valley” before moving forward. The fact that the bill was passed for the electric cooperatives will likely make this more difficult.

The Line Extension Program was not discussed much although the documents (linked to above) address it. The League of Minnesota Cities supports this bill. The MN Broadband Coalition supports the easements and has some reservations on the Line Extension Program – mostly that funding for it competes with Border to Border grant funding. “The Coalition would strongly prefer that the Legislature use state general fund money from the $9.3 billion surplus to und SF 3476.”

Doug Dawson predictions in upload broadband discussion

Posted on by
Reply

Doug Dawson recently wrote about the “Looming Battle Over Upload Speeds” as a precursor to doling out funds to deploy broadband. Even I can find discussion about broadband speed tedious … until you put a dollar sign in front of it, then it’s not just academic and Doug does a nice job queueing up the discussion…

By next week we’re going to see the opening shots in the battle for setting an official definition of upload broadband speeds. You might expect that this is a topic that would be debated at the FCC, but this battle is coming as a result of questions asked by the U.S. Department of Treasury as part of defining how to use the grant monies from the American Rescue Plan Act. Treasury has oddly been put in charge of deciding how to use $10 billion of direct broadband grants and some portion of the gigantic $350 billion in funding that is going directly to counties, cities, and towns across the country.

Treasury asked for comments through a series of questions about the broadband speeds of technologies that should be supported with the grant funding. The questions ask for a discussion of the pros and cons of requiring that grant dollars are used to built technologies that can achieve speeds of 100/20 Mbps versus 100/100 Mbps.

Treasury is not likely to see many comments on the requirement that grant deployments must meet 100 Mbps download speeds. All of the major broadband technologies will claim the ability to meet that speed – be that fiber, cable company hybrid-fiber networks, fixed wireless provided by WISPs, or low-orbit satellites. The only industry segment that might take exception to a 100 Mbps download requirement is fixed cellular broadband which can only meet that kind of speed for a short distance from a tower.

And putting jerseys on the respective teams…

A recent blog on the WISPA website argues that argues for upload speeds of 5 Mbps to 10 Mbps. The blog argues that it costs more to build 100/100 Mbps networks (as a way to remind that fixed wireless costs a lot less than fiber).

We know the cable industry is going to come out hard against any definition up upload speed greater than 20 Mbps – since that’s what most cable networks are delivering. In a show of solidarity with the rest of the cable industry, Altice recently announced that it will lower current upload speeds of 35 – 50 Mbps down to 5 – 10 Mbps. This is clearly being done to allow the cable industry to have a united front to argue against faster upload speeds. This act is one of most bizarre reactions that I’ve ever seen from an ISP to potential regulation and a direct poke in the eye to Altice customers.

Back in March, we saw Joan Marsh, the AT&T Executive VP argue that 21st-century broadband doesn’t need upload speeds greater than 10 Mbps. This was an argument that clearly was clearly meant to support using grant funds for rural fixed cellular technology. It’s an odd position to take for the second largest fiber provider in the country.

Access and Impacts Report: tracking Internet Essentials customers before the pandemic

Posted on by
Reply

The Technology Policy Institute just released a report on Access and Impacts: Exploring how internet access at home and online training shape people’s online behavior and perspectives about their lives…

This research addresses these questions through a survey of subscribers to Comcast’s Internet Essentials pro[1]gram. The 2020 survey was fielded prior to the pandemic; it has a total of 618 respondents. The research also has a longitudinal design by which 218 respondents from a 2018 survey were called back in 2020.

They look at three questions:

  • How does having access at home shape people’s online behavior?
  • What factors may influence people’s online behavior once they subscribe?
  • Does having home internet access affect how people view their lives?

Here are the high level findings:

A study of Comcast Internet Essentials customers finds that home broadband service has…

A home access effect: 81% of IE subscribers say it helps a lot in carrying out online tasks, which in turn is correlated with:

  • Acquiring more computing devices
  • Expanding the scope of online activities
  • Optimism about the future

A digital skills effect, which is limited to the 34% of IE users who have had formal digital skills training.

  • Skills training is linked to higher levels of confidence in digital skills
  • This, in turn, has a link to greater internet use for education and other purposes
  • There is a correlation between digital skills training and people’s optimism about their futures

Looking at people’s digital skills training experience shows that:

  • Education is a large motivator for pursuing training

  • Learning how to better manage privacy and security of personal information also plays a role

  • Both in-person and online modes of training matter to users.

  • The time and location of training matters to those who pursue it, and many say a time that better fits their schedules would improve the training experience