Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome back everybody. House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is still Wednesday, January 14 and we are still talking to Hunter from the Department of Public Service, but on a different topic. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Speaker 1]: Scott

[Speaker 2]: Campbell from Saint John Ferry.

[Speaker 3]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rowland four.

[Speaker 4]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Speaker 5]: Bramforth, Nurtured. Chittenden 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Windham two.

[Speaker 0]: Great. And in the room. Allison Despathy Vermaurens, Director Clean Environment.

[Speaker 1]: Jim Porter with Department of Public Service.

[Speaker 2]: Great. Hunter Thompson, Director of Telecommunications for the Department of Public Service.

[Speaker 6]: Maria Royal, lead lead to council. Super. Are you gonna be joining us

[Speaker 0]: for testimony? I'm looking at an outdated agenda, which is my fault. I'm

[Speaker 1]: happy to. Happy to. Absolutely.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. I just wasn't sure if you were, you know, here to here to listen or I couldn't remember who you added you to the schedule. Schedule. That's my goal. Did ask. Great. Well, maybe if you're if you're free later, if you're not doing anything, that would be great. So okay. And Maria is here from. Okay. For the record, Hunter, we're here to talk about consolidated communications slash Vidium and their application to discontinue legacy voice service.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you. So, of communications for the Department of Public Safety for a service matter. I might defer to Jim as a caveat on some of the legal questions around this. And I'll try to speak up. So again, I have a wealth of notes to kind of keep me on track. Most of this is coming off in the form of general statements about the discontinuance of copper as it relates to FIDM and consolidators. At an overarching level, the department is in favor of the transition from copper to fiber. This is a technological transition that needs to happen. The department recognizes the need to migrate away from this legacy software technology to a more modern telecommunications infrastructure. This is going to enable much more telehealth, much more online commerce, but there's much more interactivity the Internet. You know, I think we look back at COVID, and we can see a large population that was kinda left behind due to the lack of Internet infrastructure. And I think that the migration from copper technology to fiber is gonna aid in reducing that gap. As far as the discontinuance itself, the Department recognized and flagged the potential for issues around this transition in May 2024 in the ACE twenty three-forty two-fifty three, which was regarding increased investment in consolidated video.

[Speaker 7]: Sorry. Say

[Speaker 2]: that again.

[Speaker 0]: Say that again. Yeah. So in May 20, did you say faster? No. Don't say it faster. In May 2024, what?

[Speaker 2]: The department recognized and flagged the potential for issues around this transition from copper to fiber in May 2024 in case 234353, which was regarding Condor and Surflate's increased investment in consolidated Amphithium.

[Speaker 7]: Yeah. So this is the case where consolidated went to. Right? Yes. Yes. Correct. And the PUC had a case open to look at the CPG on us. Yep. And these were the comments from the department or there there were comments. Can you share those comments with us? Yep. You are you gonna read them now? Nope. Don't have them all written down. No. If we could get those comments, Yep. That would be

[Speaker 0]: That would be great. If you can send them along and then we'll post out.

[Speaker 2]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: And what was the case number?

[Speaker 2]: 23Dash400353DotEED. The petition. Yeah, I will send a link to that one.

[Speaker 7]: So,

[Speaker 2]: we're on that. The department had looked for some additional guardrails. In a few, you see that in the comments. Some of these provisions were included, some of them weren't. We'll also see that in the comments of the final order. At the onset of this process, not the process of the final discontinuance, but the process of the general conversion of copper to fiber, myself, the Director of Telecommunications, reached out to the previous Fidium Government Affairs Liaison, Scott Brooks, and we had started to discuss the topic of how we can create a MOU between fitting them in consolidated and the department to get some of this increased communication through us.

[Speaker 7]: Mhmm. Just clarifying, Hunter, you're talking about this specific discontinuing that went to the FCC, the what we're talking about here in this committee.

[Speaker 2]: These conversations started before this discontinuance was filed with the FCC. These conversations started months ago on how this process will look and how the department will be a part of it and be heard.

[Speaker 7]: And you were talking about an MOU before this FCC petition?

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. Yes. Yeah. We have been in discussions with Scott and with Freedom about that. And I believe that when Freedom testified a couple days ago last last week, they said they were remained open to a MOU, and we have actually started those discussions again.

[Speaker 7]: Since their petition, they didn't know how

[Speaker 2]: to go about it. That's kind of where it Right. The department recognizes that given its inherent role, it is more likely to hear the negative experiences of consumers rather than the positive experiences. I think that's a fair assessment. You don't often have people getting told us to tell us how wonderful this is going. Army recognizes that Phidium is doing outreach beyond the single notification included in the FCC petition. I'm now to this. My mother, I actually asked my mother this week how this went, because she was one of the people who got notified in the petition in St. Helens. She said that after she got the initial letter that was included in the FCC petition, when she provided her email and made the official order to switch from copper to fiber, the information came fast and furious and notifications and the communications came fast and furious. The department recognizes that there's additional communication happening via Vidium besides that one single letter that you saw included on page 128 of the FCC petition. The pardon recognizes that for customers who don't just respond, who just don't respond to the communications, that their services put in a suspended state. But if they do respond and the border is not able to be completed by the date referenced in the letter, that is our understanding that PDM is just maintaining that service. I spoke to someone earlier and they were part of that group that is impacted by this. They got the letter from PDM. They called and they said, I want my fiber in conduit, I have the conduit, it just needs to be run. And Vidyam agreed and said, Okay, but we can't do that by the cutoff date. You're just going to maintain your service in this current iteration. Once spring comes, we're able to access the conduit and the trenching then we'll switch you over. So we recognize this happening. For the people that are placed in that suspended state, it's our understanding and it has been confirmed that in addition for them being able to reach customer service, they can pick up the phone and continue to dial 911 and reach emergency services. That was a big concern that we had. I believe Barb and Neil shared that concern and that has since been confirmed that regardless of whether or not the phone works to make outgoing calls or receive incoming calls, the ability to dial 911 still exists. Department recognizes that Fidium is not forcing voice only customers to swap and they will continue to support the voice only copper network until such a time that they have a VoIP product to offer. So, the populations that are impacted by this discontinuance are not people who only have what's called less basic local exchange service, telephone service. Those people are just being left on their current product until such a time that fit the organization to create an offer of a voice over product. So I

[Speaker 7]: just want to clarify, the department is saying they're not being forced, but in fact they are once there's an alternative for voice over IP service.

[Speaker 2]: That will be my that's my assumption. But currently, I mean, in this current discontinuances of going through these iterations, they're not even it's my understanding that they're not even reaching out to those people who have voice over service.

[Speaker 7]: So but so I have customers who have been to let go of their of our service, multiple customers as this transition is happening. So and and I understand the inevitability of it. I just wanna be make sure we're clear. So we're not forcing them in advance of the VoIP, but once the VoIP is available, they are in fact forced.

[Speaker 2]: I believe that's correct. Yeah. Testify to that, but I believe that's correct. The department does not take issue with the migration. It just takes issue with the communications. That's consistently been our issue. This is what we do at the Department of Public Service. Our job is to look out for the public good. We don't need to write your communications. We don't need to even vet your communications. We just need to know that you're doing a good job and reaching out to the citizens impacted by this technology change. Again, the department recognizes a need to migrate away from this consent as a department of public service. Finally, the testimony given on 01/07/2026 by bidding on once again in Friday, hoping to negotiate in the end of the year. This discussion has once again restarted. We actually have a meeting tomorrow between myself, the representatives in the department to go over the whole communication, I guess, chainless of truth that happens when they go to switch somebody so that they're gonna show us from the first communication to the final service and solve the number of paper mailings, emailings, and other communications that they get so that we are able to be more comfortable with. We're hopeful that this will result in an agreement where the department and Videom are both able to feel comfortable around the amount, around the manner and amount of which the inevitable switch occurs, as well as minimize any potential negative impacts for the virus. I lost that crossed off because I get kind of unhinged at times, but it might be hard to believe. But in general, we recognize this. We just got another petition. It was emailed to me on the twelfth for another 1,640 people. After the previous conversations that we just had, I think that intent is with the vision. I will probably put out a press release on our website with a link directly to that petition.

[Speaker 7]: Rep Sibilia in Southworth. So you did not receive notice of the previous?

[Speaker 2]: I received notice of the previous as I was in discussions about the MOU. 'll see my notes. I just received that on Monday, November 17 at 01:04PM.

[Speaker 7]: And when great. That was during the public comment period, like a few days before the public comment period. So my so you didn't receive that in advance of their petition to the FCC?

[Speaker 2]: That's good.

[Speaker 7]: This one, do you know where it is in the timeline? Have you received it in advance of their petition to the FCC?

[Speaker 2]: I believe I received it concurrently with the petition to

[Speaker 7]: the FCC. So there's currently a public comment period that's open at the FCC on this? I believe so. Yes. And so and what I think I heard you say is the department is considering putting out a press release about that Yes. Which seems highly appropriate to me. Yes. Do have another question. I have a question, Algy.

[Speaker 0]: I I have a question about so the the put the petition that we're talking about right now, that is to do what? The same same thing?

[Speaker 2]: Six Correct. Yes. Same thing.

[Speaker 0]: Just 1,600 more addresses.

[Speaker 2]: 1,640 more people in some other exchanges, including Saint Johnsbury, New Fane, Williamsville, Jacksonville, Jamaica, and Wartsboro.

[Speaker 3]: To make the conversion?

[Speaker 1]: I mean, the fiber conversion?

[Speaker 2]: Correct. To migrate people from legacy to operate the fiber service.

[Speaker 0]: You said that's about 1,600.

[Speaker 2]: Yes. Mhmm.

[Speaker 7]: So, Brooks? Can I just ask my second question? Yeah. Sure. We know. So, my other question is around notice and why it feels really important to me for the department to be engaged in this and engaged in this early on, and that is related to copper dependent technologies for things like life alert, for elevators, other other items. And, you know, not everyone is reading their or has the ability has equal ability to decipher notices that are sent to them. And so I've asked you, Director Thompson, about, you know, whether or not it's even possible to adjust for those those copper dependent technologies, which you assured me that it is. I presume that there's some costs associated with that, probably some time that's associated with that. Can you speak to any programs that are available to help Vermonters migrate their copper dependent technologies over to fiber compliant? Am I being clear or

[Speaker 6]: not clear?

[Speaker 2]: You're being clear. I don't believe there's any specific programs, but I also want to caveat that, but I don't think that there is a large amount of technology that is completely fiber dependent. Think that copper dependent. A lot of this stuff, for lack of a better way of saying it, disc works. Majority of this stuff we plug in and whatever device is on the side of ONT or the side of the fiber that's providing the diapone has no idea that it's fiber on the other side providing a diapone. There are a few instances where this comes up and it's largely with older devices. I know Life Alert has been brought up. I've spoken to Life Alert more than once, even before this, for some other people who reached out and have been reassured a number of times that Life Alert devices work over fiber connectivity. So if there's no changes that need to happen to your Life Alert, whether you plug it into a VoIP system or whether you plug it into copper. I know there had been a previous report, it's probably before Christmas about it, and I'm unsure about the details around that. But or I'm sorry, life alert devices work with fiber and with one. The one issue I have seen was I got a call last year from someone in Mooresville, had about a 35 or 40 year old fax machine that he wanted to keep using that needed an additional box that helped with the conversion from copper to fiber, and I think the box itself cost $90, and you just gotta stick it in between the two, and it makes it so his 40 year old fax machine continued to work. Cheaper device machine.

[Speaker 7]: So

[Speaker 6]: the labeler that there's

[Speaker 7]: like a customer would have sync it's seamless. They don't need to do anything.

[Speaker 2]: That's my understanding. That's what my conversations with them. Again, with the caveat that if you potentially have a 25 year old life alert device that potentially exists, that that would need to be updated or that would need one of the a digital analog converter box in line to make it work.

[Speaker 7]: Feels like a pretty important change for those folks to know they need to make.

[Speaker 2]: I agree. And part of the discussions that we are having with Vidium at the moment is additional questioning around whether there are any additional devices that the person uses that are related to health and safety.

[Speaker 7]: Deafblind is my last one. People are deafblind. That's the systems? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: Those and the reports I found, those work seamlessly as

[Speaker 7]: well. Seamless. No change in equipment. Nothing needs to happen. That's the claim that has been given to me. By Vicinium.

[Speaker 2]: As well as we have an annual, or I'm sorry, a quarterly at this point, PTRS meetings. A lot of people are looking out or looking to migrate away from that traditional DeafBlind community service that happened over TTY to more internet connectivity,

[Speaker 7]: basically chatting applications back and forth. I would just encourage you to check-in with the entities that are actually servicing these Vermonters since consolidated has repeatedly, shown that they're not always thinking about these folks, thinking that Doctor Southworth.

[Speaker 3]: So this was the second filing that you're aware of, that 1,600. Correct. Yes. Just wanna point out that when we had consolidated on, I specifically asked a question if there was another filing in

[Speaker 2]: the pipeline. Yes, sir.

[Speaker 3]: And the answer was no. Not that they were aware of.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Was looking for my notes Yeah. Thank you. I was looking for my notes from last week, and I

[Speaker 7]: can't find it.

[Speaker 2]: What's concerning to me?

[Speaker 0]: That I lost my notes? No. I didn't say that.

[Speaker 2]: That they're

[Speaker 3]: they're not being upfront with us.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Mhmm. That would be a good question to bring back to well, when we're when we're done with testimony today, I wanted to have a similar conversation about who do we need to hear from, what do we think we need to do about this, if anything. So could you put a could you remind me? Oh, I won't Remember yeah. So sounds like we'll need to hear from consolidated again. Okay. Sorry. Oh, yeah. Brett Campbell.

[Speaker 2]: I'm just wondering about if anybody so I'm thinking about putting out a notice. Didn't say John, sorry, putting out a notice about people that this transition is happening. If some one of your devices doesn't work, where do you go? So I'm I'm assuming CCI will provide a a a phone number. Is the department also prepared to take those phone calls? Department is always prepared to take concerns from constituents and use what leverage we have to get an amount of resolution. And is is providing those phone numbers to customers who are being transitioned part of what Citi is required to do? I would have to defer to the FCC order on exactly what is required, but I know that the phone number at the end of the order has a generic help desk number which will triage people and triage at Boston. For the department or for For the video.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Okay.

[Speaker 2]: Is there something I do, what I'll do is just provide the department's number and my So that would be the CAPI? That would be CAPI. Yes. Okay. Yep. And provide my number directly. I'm always happy to help any other than Okay. Just call me.

[Speaker 0]: Do you have any you'd like to end up? For Hunter, are you still looking through your notes?

[Speaker 2]: No. And there's no SOFOX section on this.

[Speaker 0]: Disappointing. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: I I don't know that I've got anything to add. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I think Hunter's covered them pretty well.

[Speaker 0]: K.

[Speaker 7]: I have one more question. Yep. So in terms of we are federally granted a lot of, issues related to telecommunications providers. It does appear that we are not federally granted on requiring notice for these types of things. So does the department have a position on some sort of build and suspenders approach here where you can get a nice MOU and we can put some state law with some teeth behind it in terms of notice?

[Speaker 2]: So, the department's position is that we are hopeful that we will come to an agreement where the department and they are able to feel comfortable and we are now around the amalgam manner in which this inevitable switch occurs as well as a potential negative.

[Speaker 6]: That's another question, Yes. And then I have a couple

[Speaker 7]: of comments. So I if if we may, madam chair, I would like to know if the department is opposed

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. To us. The government

[Speaker 7]: putting statutes and rigorous requirements.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Why don't we put a pen in that just for one second? Can you hang on for a minute and stick around? Great. So I wanted to talk a little bit, and this is a good time to do that, about next steps for this conversation that we're having in our committee. We had talked about, in our testimony last week, about an MOU between consolidated and the department. So, a question in my mind was whether our committee felt that was sufficient. If we wanted to see that MOU, if we wanted to weigh in on what the MOU should include, or whether we would like to move forward with great, let's get an MOU in place, and we will also, you know, get a bill out that outlines some of the things we'd like to see so that we've got this in statute as well as an MOU that represents a moment in time. So, if as committee we decided it would be useful to also have statutory language then my questions are we would need to draft a committee bill. I don't know if some of the provisions near the end of H11 would be a starting point for that or if they're not relevant. And

[Speaker 4]: then we would need to hear from, we

[Speaker 0]: would need to take testimony, we would need to get opinions basically, on what that language is, what we include, what we not include, and hear from everybody whether they like that or don't like it, and then we would need to vote on that. So that's I see I feel like we're at a crossroads where we're either gonna take oversight testimony, make some requests, you know, about the MOU that we hope to circle back on, like, here's the MOU. What do you think?

[Speaker 7]: Or whether we feel like we need to pass a bill. So So, madam chair, this company has a history in the state of Vermont of multiple service quality investigations. We've heard testimony today that I would consider that to be not in good faith to be talking about an MOU and then petitioning the FCC with no without notifying the apartments or this. And, you know, I think putting in place in statute some modest requirements related to notice, feels pretty modest and, like the least we can do for Vermonters as they're going through this transition. And I I would like to see us at a minimum put in place some requirements to notify e ninety one, requirements to notify the department, both in writing and in email about this, just so that they're able to help notify the public. I agree that this migration is inevitable. It's coming. But let's

[Speaker 0]: do your monitors. Do folks wanna see yeah.

[Speaker 2]: So I caveat that. I don't know I was supposed to include it on the email we got a couple days ago.

[Speaker 0]: That's A great new development. That's voluntary. Right? Correct. Yes. Yeah. That's a new new development. So how do folks feel about this? Wanna draft a committee bill? Do you wanna request that we see the MOU and see what's in it?

[Speaker 3]: I'd go and see the MOU. First. First. Yeah. Just I understand about putting it in statute, But I also look at the other side of it is if they don't do what they're told, what are their implications for doing that?

[Speaker 1]: Where are the

[Speaker 3]: penalties? So it's not just requiring them that. We have to hold them to that. And how do you do that and on what avenue do you do that?

[Speaker 7]: That might be a great question for director Porter. If we put something like that in statute, how would we hold accountable?

[Speaker 3]: Especially because the FCC is involved in this. I mean, would we be overreaching by x, y, or z or not? I just just wanna be careful that we're not putting something into play that we can't do anything.

[Speaker 1]: Typically, with MOUs that have happened with regulated utilities in the past is they've been an opportunity once they've been agreed to by the parties and the PUC approves them, then they have allowed for things that maybe were beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. We did a lot of broadband MOUs, and so once that was adopted, then it became subject to PUC's review, even though by subject matter, it wouldn't necessarily be. Does that make any sense? It's funny when we went through this some years ago with detail. They got a grant for their service territory and they pulled out all the copper and did the fiber. The federal law was a little different than what it is now, and it was not as prescriptive. And so they actually worked with the department to inform their customers and, you know, battery backup was a big deal. And so this is and and that's a company, you know, at times, we've had adversarial relationships, but that was one they were trying to work with us and their customers to get better information, which seems to not exactly be there with this current crisis.

[Speaker 0]: Well, just going look and see if any other thoughts? Maria, do you have anything to add?

[Speaker 6]: Nothing inconsistent with what was just said. I think on the preemption issue, you're right to consider that if you decide to move forward and have statutory requirements. As you all know, the Communications Act contemplates dual jurisdiction between the federal government and the state government when it involved the service like broadband. It would be kind of inherently interstate, but this also implicates voice service, kind of the interstate voice even though it's part of a broader interstate network. So, essentially, what the Communications Act says is states are not permitted to enact laws that have the effect of prohibiting telecom service. You know, introduction into the market or provisioning service. And in addition, are kinds of carve out that says, states notwithstanding that you know, you can't enact laws that have that effect, You are still permitted to regulate the interest of consumer protection, public safety. So it's all kind of envisioned in the whole act that states still retain that authority. So I think what it comes down to is, since there are FCC regulations that have notice requirements, as long as you don't do anything that hinders that process, stops or delays that process, interferes, conflicts with, then I think you're okay. So, just keeping that in mind. And as far as enforcement goes, I think, you know, you can have penalties, you know, monetary fines or penalties, you know, that might apply. That might be one way of enforcing statutory requirements. Anyway.

[Speaker 0]: So, wouldn't mind seeing a draft committee bill just because it would give us something concrete to look at and compare to the MOU and take testimony on something for people to reply to. So I think it could be and we don't have to, you know, if we get it in here and we get testimony and we don't vote it out, we don't vote it out. But to me, gives some it's people something very concrete to testify about. This is what we're looking at. This is what we're considering. What do you think? So I so I'll request it. And I I think it can be simple, and you guys help me pitch in. Like, I think it we wanna include who is notified, And we wanna make sure that it's not just the governor, the PUC, and and, the depart the secretary of defense, but also, the department and the e nine one one board. That would be a good starting list. And then when they're notified?

[Speaker 3]: Prior to the filing would be

[Speaker 0]: But how how far prior I'm just thinking in order. Okay. So Yes. Don't That's

[Speaker 3]: up for discussion, but I think that we need to

[Speaker 7]: have that prior to in filing. Prior to the filing.

[Speaker 3]: It would just be good to

[Speaker 7]: know before.

[Speaker 0]: Sixty days. I feel like sixty days is a thing that happens. Yeah. And then how they're notified is important. So I think dropping a 138 page packet in the mail is not okay. So we could say, you know, by mail and email to the, you know, commissioner, the chair, the commissioner chair, the agency head.

[Speaker 5]: As I recall, they buried their notice at the bottom of that 138 page docs. And

[Speaker 0]: Yep. And the notification needs to be clearly upfront?

[Speaker 5]: In the front and

[Speaker 0]: out. And then I don't know how you you know, whether this is too much, but some sort of acknowledgment that it's been received. I I think you know, we send these notifications out. I mean, I even just I, as state rep, Feel like I send things out and I you know?

[Speaker 2]: It's pretty easy.

[Speaker 0]: I don't like having to email people three or four times to say, did you get

[Speaker 4]: my email? Did you get my email? So maybe there needs

[Speaker 0]: to be some sort of acknowledgment of receipt. And then in terms of enforcement and penalties, I I to me, it seems sufficient that it staked off. I don't know. I mean

[Speaker 3]: What if they violate it?

[Speaker 7]: What are you Then what? If you So

[Speaker 2]: my backing up a little bit, the construction process here, they definite identified 1,640 people in six exchanges, less than 300 people per exchange. They must have done some prework already. They must have already lacked their fiber on and and run it down the road, and now they and and so I kinda pay attention to the lashers on the side of the road where I drive by them, and they're forever going just a few sections of pole length. Maybe not forever, but they they know well in advance between in their construction process. And so I think they are holding off on their notification. I I think they could notify a lot sooner. And that took kind of a question of how how they build and what they know so that they're not telling anybody. And and what's the construction process? What's the timeline from the date of first notification to this suspending service?

[Speaker 0]: You know why we could press on that last week?

[Speaker 3]: Yeah. It was good. I don't

[Speaker 0]: On the timeline, which is in my TBD notes. Yeah.

[Speaker 7]: Madam chair, I appreciate the bill that you've outlined. In terms of, holding them accountable, I think we can reach out to the attorney general if they violate the laws. Is that right?

[Speaker 6]: You mean in the absence of anything?

[Speaker 7]: Anything, yeah, of any penalties, like what?

[Speaker 6]: I don't know. I mean, you might wanna specify what you call happened. I mean, typically, you know, well, maybe this is too much, but you could say that a violation of these consumer protections are a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which would be a hook for the attorney general to enforce violations. And that comes with a whole host of investigatory authority, state's attorneys, as well as private individuals. Transaction. So, anyway, that's just something that

[Speaker 2]: Then what happens if the attorney general finds that they are in fact in violation?

[Speaker 6]: Are in violation? Yes. Are penalties and there is provision in the consumer protection. Yep.

[Speaker 7]: And what what we're talking about here is notifying Department of Public Service and the e nine one one board by mail and email. So presumably, it will not be that hard to Why? What a big seven months. Month.

[Speaker 2]: The time I gave four months was the the notice.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Speaker 2]: And then they mailed for the third week share out. I

[Speaker 7]: I like that as opposed to quitting fine.

[Speaker 0]: I do too. I feel like a fine is Yeah.

[Speaker 7]: I think that's arbitrary. It is better.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Any other so so now that you've heard that whole thing, any thoughts on that idea, or would you wanna come back in and testify when you've had a minute to

[Speaker 2]: We would have to process that.

[Speaker 7]: Back and testify. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So we will get a committee bill going, and then when we have something something for folks to look at, we'll have obviously, we'll invite consolidated to come in and then guys come in. We'll get everybody back in. And then in the meantime, it sounds like the MOU is proceeding on its own parallel track. Yeah. So

[Speaker 3]: playing devil's advocate to a certain point.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 3]: If we're entertaining putting this into statute and Department of Public Services actively trying to do an MOU, is there a chance that they're gonna clash to where an MOU may be the best avenue, and they're gonna walk away from it?

[Speaker 0]: Walk away from the MOU? Yeah.

[Speaker 3]: Just simpler is always better as long as the end result is the same.

[Speaker 2]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 3]: If we can accomplish the same thing through the MOU, is it necessary that we do the statutes of charge as well?

[Speaker 0]: I I can only tell you what I worry about with an MOU is that it feels more like a point in time for me. And so

[Speaker 3]: That's why.

[Speaker 0]: You know what I mean? Three years from now, we're all gone and Hunter's gone and everybody's turned over and consolidated. And, you know, I just, you know, I just worry about

[Speaker 2]: Three new

[Speaker 3]: owners were consolidated. Yeah. I just wanted to bring that point up.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. But I don't

[Speaker 7]: don't really know the answer to that.

[Speaker 4]: On that point, I was wondering how long this transition's gonna be for you because that makes a difference. Right? And I know there was little bit of testimony on that, but maybe we need to get a better sense. I I wondered if part of the timeline for the transition overall has to do with their own budget and how they make decisions. So because to me, an MOU because it is a point in time, like, could work if if we're talking about a pretty speedy transition. But if this is really gonna drag on and we're not gonna have a good sense of what they prioritize, one, then maybe that would imply that statute change would be.

[Speaker 5]: And it did sound from their testimony like this may be a long process.

[Speaker 7]: I guess that's it.

[Speaker 5]: They suggested that they'd identified one set of customers whom they were notifying, and the other ones are not getting notified because they're not part of this transition, it sounds like. And can I just point out the sad state of affairs that we're contemplating legislation to force a communications company to

[Speaker 7]: communicate? Published on this.

[Speaker 0]: This is probably irrelevant, but one thing I'm thinking about with the statute is if we word it properly, whether it might outlast all of us and its usefulness. Like, by the time we we finish this technological transition, is there is there gonna be another one on the I mean,

[Speaker 7]: I don't know. I'm a sunset in place, man. Sure.

[Speaker 2]: No.

[Speaker 0]: Thinking of the opposite. Yeah. Actually, I'm thinking of trying to write something that would

[Speaker 5]: So when they're when they're

[Speaker 0]: would think ahead.

[Speaker 5]: When they're ripping out the fiber and replacing

[Speaker 0]: When they're ripping out the fiber Yeah. Replacing it with chip implants in our heads or something, then you know? Thought that was

[Speaker 7]: Consolidated. Yeah. Sorry. Consolidated may

[Speaker 2]: be the larger, larger, largest of the communication. How are the other companies? You mentioned Vetel, should they fibered out? Are they computers? Vetel's. And what about the smaller telephone companies? Are they in various stages or they I think they're in various stages in the transition to go completely to fiber. It's like, little telephone, TDS, They're a big conglomerate of little packages around the state. Yeah, they continue to move people, but not in the bulk and not as many people at one central at one time. We also, quite honestly, moved out beers on the King's face. Like it, frankly, telephone in the northern part of the state has a good example of exactly how a small local municipal telephone company can be around them. And they've transitioned the bulk of their books to FireEye. All with proper notifications.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Alright. Hunter, thank you so much for coming in. We are back at 01:00. We're switching back to 02:48 a. And this afternoon we're going to be hearing from our wireless providers. Okay, we can go off