Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Perfect, we're live. All

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right, welcome back everybody. House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We are moving pretty quickly through a committee bill we developed that would relate to who and how folks get notified when we are moving from copper to fiber based network. So I am representative Kathleen James. I'm from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Mary.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And joining us in the room?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Jonathan Wolfe from Premier Piper on behalf of

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the smaller Caledonia. Kim Gates is on the on the screen. Great. Dia Wellsbachner, BTD Group. Diaomi Perry with

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the KRAS Syndrome. Andrew Brewer with DRM representing Citi.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Sarah's on the screen.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright. We are here today to get some feedback on our committee bill from Consolidated Communications, Fidium Fiber. And that bill is posted on our website. It is, I believe, let me just make sure, should be draft 1.2. Yep, draft 1.2. So, you I assume have a copy of that. We've already done a committee walk through of the language and we're basically just here to get your thoughts and feedbacks today on what you think of the bill.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. So one, I'll start by apologizing. I had written testimony last night on a previous version of the bill and did not get the current version till this morning, but I have had a chance to review it, albeit relatively quickly. Obviously, the previous bill had referenced to outdated legislation, and so that was my big concern. With respect to this bill, I mean, you heard me last time I was here, my position is unchanged. This is a bill that is unnecessary. Fitting and fiber provides more notice than is required in this bill. This bill seeks to link consumer protections of the Department of Public Service for broadband service, which they don't even regulate. It just has substantial, substantial issues. Fidium provides, like I said, plenty of notice. It works with its consumers. It asks us in this bill, to provide tech support for devices. In many cases, the consumer actually needs to work with the provider of the device to understand what it needs. You know, Phytium can certainly work with it to make sure it works when it's connected. But every single device has the ability to work on fiber. The the consumer just needs to understand that with with whatever the particular device is because it can be an alarm. It can be security. It can be life alert. Phytium also has not had an issue. This seems like, a solution in search of a problem. We have had no issues with consumers. We have made the transition on thousands. It didn't even come to the attention of this committee until thousands had already been converted with no issues. We've received one comment to consumers in all of our filing, and that consumer asked that we just make sure that they could put their fiber in their conduit, make sure we waited till the ground froze before transitioning them so they could put their fiber in their conduit. We did that. We agreed to to obviously wait until they can can get the fiber in their conduit, which is frozen. There was a a news story about a woman with a Life Alert device. We reached out personally to see what we could do to help with that. And turns out she didn't have one until this week. And when she got it this week, we went and made sure it was installed and working. So, you know, I I really question the need for any of this this, and I I do believe it is completely preempted by federal law. This is an area where the FCC does regulate and has chosen to regulate. And so it is not appropriate for the states to create their own legislation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So thanks for that feedback. So I'm sure we have some questions. So, R. Sibilia? Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: One, Sarah, so you are, I believe in your testimony, you're continually referencing Phytium and the applications to the FCC have been from consolidated, is that correct?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: The copper product that is being retired is Consolidated Communications Copper product. The fiber product that we're transitioning to as a fitting fiber product. Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And, how do you count, consumer complaints or input?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: We count them through any, things that have been filed with the commission or any, you know, feedback we've gotten. We have we have a consumer complaint channel through the company.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: With the FCC commission, you mean?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah, filed with the FCC or, you know, with us through our escalation channels. We get lots of questions certainly and, you know, we respond to them, but we have not had anyone that has had concerns with the transition once their questions are answered.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And so just to make sure that I understand, it's your understanding that Vermont is preempted from regulating around public notice?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's not my understanding or what we've heard from Lester Council. And I guess the last, I guess I just offer a comment to the committee. Just a reminder that, we are taking this issue up, because we've had a lot of Vermonters who have had a lot of complaints and service issues during these transitions, and a number of them were brought to consolidated attention, as well as the department, during an open public comment period in which we specifically asked when this might be retired and did not receive information, the notice that was sent to the state, literally to the governor and to the PUC in a 130 page application. Seems like it's not actually hitting the park. And so I think this is pretty modest notification, public notice legislation that we're asking for. So, thank you. That's all

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I have to say, chair.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Other questions from the committee? So I just want to make sure I am clear on your feedback. So I'm just looking at the draft, at the draft bill draft 1.2, and we have obviously our findings laying out why we think this notification matters. And then the notification section that starts on page three. So this bill contemplates asking consolidated to provide written notice to the commissioner and to all affected customers at three kind of trigger points, so 90, sixty days, and thirty days prior to the transition. And then the commissioner would weigh in on the form and manner by which Consolidated would need to notify about these different things. So, the date of the transition, the details of the changes, instructions for customers to transition. And it's your position that we're asking too much? That's too

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. So we notify customers four months in advance. You heard me last time say that we start longer than this and we notify them twice a month via mailing notices and in between via email and SMS. So we do significantly more than this already. So we have no issue with notifying customers. We do a lot more than this. And with respect to that notice, we have to put the notice in when we make the filing with the FCC. There is no ability to send it to the commissioner and then take feedback and change it. The FCC expects that the notice that we put in is the notice that was received.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And we had talked a little bit about how that notice is received by the commission, right? Whether it's sent by email or sent as a hard copy packet and how obvious the notification is whether it's tucked at the back of the packet or a cover letter and whether you might also notify the E911 board and was there someone else that we talked about? Department. Yeah. The department. Right.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: And is that problematic for you? I mean, we we have agreed with department that we will notify them. And the one we just did, we sent the department the notice. We sent them the Vermont specific notice. I want to say it was in the 30 page range. It was very clear, had all the very specific information that we sent that to both the department and the E911 board. We have agreed through MOU, as I testified last time, that we would, that we'll continue to do that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is the MOU done?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: The MOU has a draft. The MOU is subject. It will not be completed. I owe the department red lines to that. I got it last night. I have not had a chance to turn that. The MOU is subject to this legislation, though. If this legislation goes into effect, it will preempt, if you will, is probably not the right word, but it'll it'll it will be what we will do. Not, you know, we will not do the MOU consolidated. We'll we'll fight, you know, what it thinks it has to fight on this legislation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I think the I because we had talked about the MOU process during our previous meeting, and I think the concern or the caution I had maybe with an MOU is that that doesn't outlast this moment in time. Down the road, an MOU captures a moment in time and that statutory changes lock something more in stone or make it something that outlives turnover in personnel at your company or this particular agreement. So, I think that's where we were going with that, with feeling like the willingness to engage in an MOU process was great for now, but that it might not be in effect next time around. So I think that's where we were heading. Rep. Campbell?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure, thank you. So I guess I'm wondering if you could be a little more specific about the issues that FDM has with this bill. And just looking as the chair mentioned at the requirements of notice, it it seems like, as you say, Phineas provides plenty of notice now. So in, I'm looking on page three under oh, let's see. Line, line 11 says, Notice shall be given to all affected customers at least ninety days, sixty days, and thirty days prior. Is that a problem? That's something that Phineon does already, even exceeds that requirement, right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So is there any problem with that?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I mean, we already do it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You already do it.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. And it's it's required. I mean, notice is required by the FCC by the current process that exists.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Anyway, well, so I guess I don't see the Is there a problem with that provision?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: No, we provide notice today.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Then underneath that there's several, five or six, let's see, eight items underneath that. The date of transition, obviously that is something that you include in your notice. Details of service changes, including a potential impact to a customer's current telephone and broadband service. I'm sure that's part of your notice also. Is it not?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: So we certainly tell them that they will get higher speeds. They will get symmetrical broadband. They will get a voice over Internet protocol voice service. But I don't know. My problem with that is I don't know what that means. Like my problem with this is that it's vague and that you can at any point somebody could interpret this to our notice isn't sufficient. And currently we file a notice that the FCC has seen, the FCC has weighed in on and the FCC has approved. I don't like the separate regulation that may say something different. And then we run it into issues where the FCC has already approved this notice. You want something else and the FCC does not deem acceptable the notice that we provided. That's the problem with having two different regulators speak on the same issue.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Alright. I see. I I I think one of my colleagues has a

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: question as well. Would you take the question?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Sarah, I know that I have asked you, for a copy of the notice, which I don't believe you provided, perhaps it's in my email. Have you provided, a copy of the notice to the committee? I don't know that we've asked you for that.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I don't know that I specifically have. The the FCC notice that that I sent links to has the customer notice. It has the customer specific information blanked out, but it's the exact notice that is provided. Yes. Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do do we have the FCC requirements for notice somewhere? Is that something that we received? I I don't know. I think

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Sarah has provided it to us.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. It's it's in the regulations. Can if if, I can resend that if somebody wants to. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Thank you. Are the proposed notice periods less prescriptive or more prescriptive than the federal?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Probably a little bit more prescriptive in that it's thirty, sixty, 90. You have to provide notice under the federal periods prior to the submission. And then the comment period can be like you make the submission with the FCC, it's not exactly clear when they will post it. They have to post it for at least thirty days. And so in some senses that can be a longer or shorter period than that, depending on how long it takes them to post it in the Federal Register. So it's it's not so specific on the days, but but this is more prescriptive, I would say.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: And how many notices are you required to send under the FCC rules?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: My I would I would wanna double check. I believe it is only one, But I would want to double check that I'm not intentionally misleading. That is that's what I think it is, but I would want to double check.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Would you be able to follow-up with that information for Of

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yes. Yeah. But but, you know, we want our customers to transition. We want them to move to fiber. They have to place an order. We want that to go smooth. So we give them eight notifications, written eight written notifications and email notifications in between that totals 16 notifications, because And we want this to so we walked the department through one customer, we took one customer to show the department how much notice we give. In addition to the eight notices, and then the emails in between, we made 15 calls to the customer. So, you know, we work very hard to make sure the customers understand what's happening and that we reach them.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So are folks with just phone service given the same amount of notification?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: They will be. We have not started the transition with voice only customers as I described last time. We're only doing customers with DSL or DSL and voice bundled.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So you haven't come up with any sort of

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a package for voice only, correct?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: No, we will do the same notification. We're waiting on our product being all ready to go and and mirroring our tariff products today. But, yes, it it will follow the same the same lines for notification.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Bram Sibilia? Madam chair, I would just ask if we can have Alex check because I'm not seeing anything under Sarah Davis on our

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I was I was just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think she said that Sarah, did you say you'll provide written testimony, that you had written testimony ready, but you're working off an outdated draft and

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're just submitting written testimony based on draft 1.2? Yes. Great. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And and could you include a link to the, FCC notification reports?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And and the notice. That's what that's what I I'm not finding out.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Yeah, no,

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I didn't send that to the committee, Laura. I sent that to you when you were asking back before I had sent you a link to the notice and said that the notice was in our FCC filing.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sorry if I was not clear. No. Previously about you said the committee. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, you'll send to the committee? Yes. Great.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: It'll probably come come from mister Brewer because he's better at doing that than me, so I'll send it to him to get to you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. That sounds good.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Just to make sure I get all the right people on there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Do we have additional questions for Sarah?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: How long do you feel the MOU process is gonna take? Are we gonna be able to see that before a couple of weeks time frame or not?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, I believe Hunter gave it to sent it over to me yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening. I'm traveling. Unfortunately, I'm in California, but I I intend to look at that and get it turned right around to him. We've spoken. We have an agreement in principle and what we're thinking on ideas. We just had to put the language around it. So I don't have any reason to believe that would take more than a couple of weeks.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sarah, if you don't mind, since we have a few minutes, I thought I would just go through the other items that are included in the draft verification requirements and just see if there's anything that's not included in the FCC requirements or anything you have an issue with. I've gotten to item two, details of service changes, including any potential impacts to a customer's current telephone and broadband service. Item three is instructions for customers on how to transition their service to VoIP service or alternative services, including information and technical support for customers who need to continue their home monitoring equipment such as security system medical equipment or other equipment that relies upon telephone service to function properly. Is that something that's included in FCC?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: We certainly tell them how to transition to the VoIP service. They have to contact us that we will have to have a technician come out and place the and change the equipment. We certainly do that. We don't have technical support for the monitoring equipment, security system, medical equipment, etc. We don't support that equipment. That equipment does work on fiber service, but we don't have, you know, everybody's equipment is different. Everything everyone has is different. They should really be contacting the equipment manufacturer. I would worry about us doing that because it's not our equipment. It's not we don't support that equipment. We had talked about with the department a general notification about, you know, your equipment may be impacted. Make sure you talk to the technician about the equipment and make sure it's functioning, just sort of more of a blanket statement. But the specifics on each devices, we it wouldn't make sense for us to do that. Not we're not the equipment manufacturers.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That makes that makes sense. And that's something that Phineum does. It's not necessarily required by FCC. Is that right?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: That's right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Item four, disclosure. Do you want to get the amendment?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just to confirm. So it's not the providing information that you're concerned about. It's the technical support.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. Yeah. And like if by providing information, mean a general blanket statement that says this change may impact your devices, please make sure you check into that. We have no issue with that. Right? That's We're not trying to hide the ball here. If we were expected to go further and somehow explain each device or something specific about each device, I would be uncomfortable doing that. I would not think that was an appropriate role for us.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That makes sense to me. And for his disclosures about the carrier's obligation to provide regulated landline voice service to all residential customers in its service territory, including his obligation to provide a calling plan at the same price as offered prior to the transition unless a customer voluntarily chooses to make service changes. So that's kind of a long way of saying, basically, the new service will be the same price as the old service, but that's what it does now.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. When we do the voice only offering, that's what it will say because that's what it will be. Right now, the VoIP service is significantly cheaper and comes with unlimited, unlimited, right? Like VoIP is preferable to many consumers because one, it's significantly cheaper and two, all long distance in The United States is included. You know, local service is significantly more expensive and doesn't include that. So most consumers actually prefer it. But yes, when we have the voice only product, we will indicate that we have to do it at the same price, which is significantly more expensive.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's already required by existing tariffs,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: right?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So again, that's something Infineum does, not necessarily required by FCC. Right?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: That's right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Item five is information on availability of backup power options and battery backup devices to ensure each customer can maintain service continuity during a power outage, including clear information on the availability, cost and installation procedures for battery backup systems. Is that required by ASPC?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: No. No?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Oh, those requirements sunset in August.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's right. I remember hearing about that now.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: So we provide information and make available to consumers what they have for options for battery. We don't provide it. We just there's lots of places. It's a competitive market. They can order batteries from all sorts of places and then send notifications that they should test their batteries, you know, just like like anything. They don't last forever. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: right now, there's no requirement that that information be provided. Nope.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: There is not.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And just three more here. Six, a brief summary of and link to consumer protection rules at the PUC. And that's

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: We don't provide that, and we wouldn't expect to provide it. I mean, a lot of these customers are broadband customers. Their those consumer protection rules don't apply to broadband.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And seven is That's true. Contact information for carrier customer support and for division of consumer affairs and public information within the Department of Public Service. Do you provide that?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: No. We do not.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And the last one is any other disclosures deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner of Public Service and consistent with the purpose of this section. Obviously, that's just a catchall.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Scary and vague because we don't know what that means.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Well, thank you. That that that clarifies things for me. Appreciate it.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: No problem.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So just to just to follow-up question, because I really want to make sure I understand your objections. It sounds like a lot of this you believe you already do or you exceed. And then the additional things that we're asking you to put in the notification don't feel that onerous to me. I guess I'm trying to understand the vigorous pushback.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah. We have a notification that we sent to consumers. We had one notification that FCC came back and weighed in on it and said, like it a little different. We said, fine. We made it different. We have something that works that makes the FCC happy. And now we were supposed to add a bunch of things into it, some of which is vague, some of which is not appropriate for us because we don't support the devices. And so yes, we're concerned that that's going to derail the whole process that has been working to date.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Derail the process in the sense that you think the FCC would not support the expanded notification that you're providing or the additional info in the packet or?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah, I wouldn't know. I mean, we worked on getting something they approve. It works today and creating, you know, new requirements that are some back and forth with the department or they can add other things. You know, their catch all at the end basically says department could decide other things are required. It's just it's it's just we never know if if we're compliant with the state of Vermont and this this sort of vague requirements here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is the department Do you feel confident that the department is in tune with FCC regulations? Because the kind of the operating phrase here is that this notification be provided in a form and manner that the department prescribes. So, there's a role for the department here in saying, hey, we're going to ask you to make sure customers know this, this, this and that and here's how we think you should do it. Do you not think the department would be sensitive to what the FCC might strike down? I'm just trying to get to the Yeah.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I think the department and our conversations currently and what we're working on are great. And I have a ton of confidence, but I don't know what happens when people change there or there's someone new or I just I guess mine is the same as yours, right? You're saying the MOU may change. I'm saying, you know, we're having great conversations. We'll get to an MOU with the department. I feel confident in that. I don't know what this statute or how somebody decides to perceive this statute or apply to us in the future. That is my concern.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Rip Sibilia? Madam Chair, actually,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I guess this question is, I think for you. We have heard repeatedly that, we are preempted on consumer protection, And I believe that that's incorrect unless Congress has specifically preempted us on consumer protection. I believe that Vermont has some experience, as does our Legion Council, on this topic. So, I'd like to make sure that we do hear from our attorney her opinion on whether or not we are, in fact, preempted on consumer I don't know if you want now, or but I wanna make sure before we close this, bit that we, make sure we've heard all the way around on this and not just the company's, assertion. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Hi. I just wanna back up. I think I heard you state that broadband is not regulated. Yeah. It's

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: department of public service.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Okay. So what? I'm sorry. So

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: what is Thank you. I guess we go back to landlines, and I'm trying to make the connection between the VoIP and the regular old landline. Your company's choosing to discontinue those landlines. So the trying to get at this. The protections afforded to them are now null and void. And if that's the case, how can that be? Because your company has made that choice to go to the void where they had the protections on the top.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I did not say VoIP. I said Internet. DSL service is not regulated by the Department of Public Service. They regulate voice service. And as an ILEC and a provider of last resort in the state of Vermont, we are regulated and required to offer a voice only product at a rate prescribed by tariffs. I've been clear about that. So we absolutely have to do that. That is not broadband internet access service, which is not regulated by the state. There are tons of broadband providers in the state that you don't have in here, you know, because they're not regulated by the department. That's the difference.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Myself my question. I've just

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So there are protections built into the landline. Are the same protections for the voice? And I'm talking specifically voice. I'm not trying to get into broadband. Right now, I'm concerned about the voice product.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yes. So we are required to offer a regulated voice product. When we make the switch from copper, using a copper line to provide that product, to using a fiber line to provide that product, it will still be regulated, absolutely.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: But it's just the voice. If you read your piece of legislation, you talk about VoIP and you talk about broadband separately, and it's the broadband that is not regulated. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you. So that pops a question from me. If a customer takes a broadband service and VoIP, then is is is the VoIP part of broadband service part of broadband service and therefore not regulated by the by the state? Is that correct?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: No. VoIP is regulated.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So so regardless of whether you have it together with broadband or not.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Yes. This this this issue has gone to the Supreme Court in in Vermont. It's a little more complicated than that, but our requirement but in general, VoIP is regulated and our requirement as an incumbent local exchange carrier to offer a standalone voice product is unchanged in the state, regardless of the technology we use to provide that product.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Uh-huh. But but for customers who aren't on just standalone voice, if they're on broadband, then then the voice part of it is still is still regulated by the states.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: They would say yes. Absolutely.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Raj, for clarification.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, I have another question. I think you maybe gave us a clue as to a bit more of your concern. So, the bill is about telephone service, which you've helped us understand will continue to be regulated. And you've highlighted that your concern is around broadband that this also seeks to regulate. And so, I think the only mention of broadband that is in this bill is under section one b two, related to the details of service changes, including any potential impacts to a customer's current telephone and broadband service. Service. So if we were to strike and broadband service, do we then have your agreement that we, have the right to do this to protect our consumers in this way?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: You have the right to do whatever you want. I believe that you regulating the notice that is required from a copper to fiber transition is preempted by the FCC and federal law because they chose to regulate in that area.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So just not to be argumentative, I'll just ask you this one more time. Is it specifically that iteration of in broadband service that's problematic?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: No. And that's this is actually that is clearly problematic. Consumer protection clearly does not relate to that. But, you know, to say you're saying I'm preempted in consumer protection, you're trying to twist my words, which is fine. I mean, whatever you'd like. But what I'm saying is that this bill seeks to regulate a copper to fiber transition. Excuse me? Excuse me? Wow. Oh, no, she's making gestures at me. It's fine. It's fine. I know how I'm always treated. I encourage to watch the video on that. But anyway, the copper to fiber transition is specifically an area in which the FCC has regulated and created regulations. Obviously, there are consumer protection rules that I've never challenged that the department has. It's that saying that this specific notice as part of this process needs to have all these other things in an area regulated by the FCC is what I believe is preemptive.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Our intent is not to treat you with disrespect. So

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I know that for most of you. Absolutely.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Don't we just take a beat here. So I was going to ask you to clarify what I wanted you to clarify your concerns about federal preemption when our alleged counsel was in the room. Our alleged counsel is in the room now, so Maria, I never like to put people on the spot. But I will just flag that it'll be important for us to understand. I know that we talked about federal preemption before you drafted the language. So, we could ask you to chime in now or later we could return to this because we will want to get your thoughts about whether you think the language is federally preempted or whether we're moving into an area of consumer protection that we're okay to go into.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to do whatever you prefer. Could chat about it now or Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: If you don't mind, it'd be great. We're all here. Can you, You want me to sit

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: up here or just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: If you don't mind, that'd be great. For the record. For

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: the record, Maria Royal with the council. So I think I'm hearing two different things. I think so the state definitely has consumer protection authority and regulatory authority over voice service, whether it's over a copper network or a fiber network. With respect to the incumbent local exchange carriers. Right? They're regulated monopolies still in Vermont. As you know, under federal law, under the communications act, it's a dual system of regulation. There's federal and state regulation. And under the Communications Act, there's a carve out that specifically says that states, you know, the exercise of their police powers in the interest of protecting the public, Consumer welfare is still deferred to, unless there's a specific prevention, but there are preemptions. I'm not aware of one. In terms of the notice requirement with respect to a transition, I would love to hear more about exactly what's required. My understanding, at least initially, was one of the purposes of that notice had to do with the other carriers that connect to the network more than the consumer. So, if there are specific requirements related to what needs to be provided to consumers, I would love to know that. Again, my understanding is that that wasn't in the federal law. So, the question on preemption, if there isn't a specific prevention is always if what the state is doing, if it's within their police powers, does it otherwise conflict with or interfere with a carrier meeting its federal obligations? So, if there's actually you can't do both. So, the way I interpret this, however you decide to proceed, that the supplements, they don't necessarily see the conflict. You can still comply with the federal law. So, you know, maybe I just need to hear a little bit more because I haven't really heard specifics about the preemption.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Sarah, when you provide your written testimony, would it be possible for you to be clear about your concerns about federal preemption, and then we'll have something to bounce off?

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: I can get our federal attorney to drop something up. It may take a couple of days.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is that would that be helpful, Maria? Great. Yeah. Great. That'd super. Thank you. Alright. So, Maria, thank you for We being do have other we weren't supposed to hear from Kim until eleven, but she is in the in the virtual room. Kim, would you wanna would you wanna just go ahead? And thank you, Sarah, for being here.

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: Thank you for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Okay, I'm working on unmuting here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, and if you're not No, I'm as ready as I'm going to be.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we're getting some feedback on draft 1.2, which was dated January 22.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: I'll just begin. For the record, my name is Kimberly Gates, and I'm with Franklin Telephone Company. Can you hear me Okay? Yeah. Okay. So now I have scribble notes everywhere. So I'm with Franklin Telephone Company, and it was started by my great grandfather in the 1890s. And I do a little bit of everything at Franklin Telephone. There, sorry. And I mean everything. So I flag, I dig ditches, I run cable, set poles, I do customer installs, customer service, tech support, engineering, CO Tech, accounting, and legislative and regulatory. So I do a little bit of everything. I've got my finger in everything. So that's my role at the company. I can give you full aspects to different parts of it. Franklin started providing fiber to the home in 2014. I believe we had less than a dozen customers at that time on fiber. In 2025, we now have fiber service down every road in our service territory. And our goal for this year is to convert everybody to fiber by 2026. Mother Nature always interferes with my plan, so we'll see how that goes. We are a member of the Telephone Association of Vermont. And all the companies are also en route to providing fiber to the home to all their customers. So those companies are Franklin, Ludlow Telephone, Northfield and Perkinsville, which are part

[Sarah Davis (Consolidated Communications / Fidium Fiber)]: of

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: TDS. Shoreham Telephone Company, which is GoNet Speed, Topsum Telephone Company, Vtel, which has been fiber only for, I believe, it's over ten years. I don't know the exact time. And Waitsfield, Champlain, Valley Telecom. So those are part of the TAV. We are all eligible telecommunications carriers. So we're required to provide for this status. One of them is to have a standalone voice option. So even with customers on Fiverr, they can have just voice service. They don't have to have broadband and voice. It can be just voice only. And we give customers information about the battery backup. This document and now I've spun my head around in a circle from this morning's testimony. I don't really feel like this legislation is necessary. I've been in the industry for forty years, and one of the things my father drilled into me was the public service board. They set the rules and the department was consumer affairs. And I still have that. If there's a consumer issue, that's what the Department of Public Service is there to address it and work with the consumer and the companies to deal with issues. Confused. I think I'm just generally confused today. But I'm confused with this bill. There's language in there with VoIP and voice service that get thrown all around that's confusing. So I have copper customers that technically are a VoIP service. It's all on how the call is actually translated. There's TDM. There's SIP. It's an IP protocol. It's on an internal private network. So you can have VoIP. It used to be like a magicJack or whatever, which was a VoIP that was pure internet. And you can have an internal VoIP system, which fiber is on a SIP based protocol. And I think what we lose sight of and so when a customer converts to Fiber, they get this is a little ONT that gets mounted at the customer's house. It needs a power cord. Fiber goes in there. Ethernet plugs in the other one, and then your phone services would plug in here. So think what this bill is trying to do is make sure the customer knows they need backup power for this to work. And we give notice to customers. We have it on our websites. We tell customers before we convert. The part that people also forget is customers can have a battery backup on this. But if they're using a cordless phone or they're using alert systems that plug into electrical power, those will not work because there's not power on those units. And I just want to clarify a little bit just to bring us back down. So the battery backup will work for this. But even if they're using their cell phone over the modem, the modem's not plugged into this.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So sorry for

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: the little demonstration. So I just wanted to reiterate, we're all going down Sorry. Live office here. We're all going down the path of getting customers on fiber. It's a more robust system and network. And the concerns for battery, I think we're addressing them. We're giving customers notice. And we have the department as customers can go to the department, we can work through issues with them. Think going through this legislation, the bigger concern for me is not this bill. Concern for my consumers is the effect that's going to happen when the tax changes to the telecom companies come into effect next year. Those are going to be much more powerful than this battery unit.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Ms. Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Kim, thanks for joining us this morning. So this bill is around when we transitioned from copper based to fiber based telephone service. So it's our understanding that you have to petition the FCC to do that. Is that also your understanding?

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: You have to petition And I'll have to circle back with the lawyer. But my understanding is I have to petition them if I'm doing away with service and not providing I have to petition them if the change is resulting in reduction or impairment of service. That's my understanding of it. And I'm not giving them a reduction in service.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So you have not petitioned the FCC to transact? Have

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: not petitioned the FCC, and I don't plan to petition the FCC.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Interesting. So this has come about because of petition to the FCC and the notice that, was required with that. Do you understand, what the difference might be in the the two cases?

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: I overlash my fiber to the copper. The copper is going to be there. Realistically, you get a better service off the fiber. But it's a fine line.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So what would be the difference if you were to kind of cross that line?

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Well, I'd have to go to the FCC and I don't plan to do that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And what

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: would that allow you to do?

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: I don't know the answer to that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So now a little bit confused. I see Thompson is here, so hopefully he can shed some light. No, he's shaking his head no on the difference between the two transitions and why one would go to the FCC and another would not. Does our attorney She's looking into it right now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're doing some research. Sure. You know, it's interesting because we've there's a a theme in all the testimony we've been taking in recent weeks across a bunch of issues about the public's ability to engage or be notified in processes that may work really great 80 to 90% of the time, and then when they fail, we hear about it. And you hear about it. We all hear about it. And so our intent often is to try to wade into those areas where the system is letting folks down. And I understand the balance we're trying to make when maybe it's something that works great almost all the time and then it doesn't. I'm really curious to know what the cow thinks about this. Just curious if the fly cow has any comments.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Cow is pretty subdued and needs a good dusting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Brent Okay. Bailey?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Could you go over your demonstration again over I I was a little confused about the lifeline not working when you you had the control box there.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Okay. So so the requirements for battery backup when we give customers notice is that this box won't work unless it's plugged in to an electrical outlet.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Okay. So if they do a battery backup from us, they can buy a battery backup from us or they can get it from Amazon or wherever. Just what's plugged into it will work for battery backup. But if they don't plug in their Lifeline machine or their modem to battery backup, they they don't work. Everything everything would need to be backed up. And we customers that we have areas that have a few power outages. And for the most part, those customers all have generators. So then everything works. It's on the generator and stuff. But if there's not power or backup power to something, it's not going to work. So this is just one piece for the backup power.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Folks have any more questions for Kim? Kim, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate your time.

[Kimberly (Kim) Gates (Franklin Telephone Company)]: Alright. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You bet. Right on time. Alrighty. For the record.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Hunter Thompson, director of health and maintenance for the public service department. Get settled and get on my paper something. It's my understanding that community asked me to come and provide comments on the committee bill twenty six zero seven two six.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Draft 1.2.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Draft 1.2. That's the one I read.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Also, I think mister Porter had been asked to testify, but just kinda so everybody knows, carrying the department's position with me today. So mister Porter and I talked about this at length. Great. His his opinions are incorporated into my notes as well. So as mentioned, we're working on MOU with video around notification and customer interactions. At install time, as it applies to battery backup and auxiliary devices, we've drafted that MOU. And as Sarah mentioned in her testimony, I sent it yesterday afternoon. She is on the road. I'm not surprised. She hasn't had the easiest to read it and get back to me. This is what we're trying to achieve. We understand you want to move or we understand what you're trying to achieve, and we want to move forward in parallel with the understanding that this is the department's thoughts on the bill. So page three, section d three of the bill. I'm assuming everybody or or is it? I was confused on the section that said, inspections for customers on how to transition their service to voice over IP service or alternate services. The alternate services raised my eyebrows. Is this asking the service provider to to provide information on how to switch to a different provider or some other mechanism?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Where I thought I knew where you were, now I don't. Where?

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Page someone on page three of six at the bottom, number three.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, see. He's right here. Okay. Oh, okay. So say again. Sorry. I'm there now. So

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the alternate services piece instructions for customers on how to transition to services. Transition their service to VoIP service or alternate services. I didn't know if that does that mean that a service provider is asked to provide information on how to transition away from their service. Is that what the alternate service providers means? These are notes I made on the bill. The other part was including information on technical support for customers seeking to continue home monitoring equipment, such as security systems, medical devices, or other equipment. So I think I understand the ask here, but I think each individual service provider is best suited to answer those questions about their individual service. For instance, asking a telecommunications company to provide technical support for our life of art systems since misplaced. So,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the technical support is a specific concern.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. On page four, right at the top, number four, the spec disclosures about the various obligation to provide everybody with landline voice service to callers and for customers. I just flagged that it mentioned the price point, and it was mentioned before, but so far VoIP service has proven to be substantially cheaper than regulated telephone service. I assume a good portion of that is because of the technology that was being delivered over. Next piece, the next one down, number five. Information on the availability of backup power options and battery backup devices to ensure each customer can maintain service continuity. Kim got to go first, so she stole my thunder there, but I'd like to flag a similar concern as that. It's not an issue, but it bears noticing that in the event of a power outage, only a device that's directly wired to the ONT would continue to work. If you have a cordless phone and the power goes out, your phone won't work. If you have a life or a device that has a base station, that won't work. So again, understand the aim, but I think it needs maybe expansions or more just more information around the battery backup. Right? Because it implies simply having a battery backup in the ONT will enable all the telecom devices to work in your house, and that's not that's not the case. I think last week, to be honest, sometimes it puts together, someone asked about average power outages. So I talked with the director of engineering and got that report. In 2024, the average outage for all the power companies was three point seven eight hours as for everybody across the state. The higher end times that skewed that average up was some of the smaller municipal power companies, and even those were in seven point o two, six point nine three, and 6.75. So they're all under the eight hour threshold. Those are the two thresholds that seem to be commonly mentioned when battery backups are mentioned is eight hours and twenty four hours. So just so you know that we did look at the data and it seemed to be under the eight hour threshold. Next was section e, VoIP service provider reporting beginning on or before 11/01/2026. And annually thereafter, each VoIP service provider shall file a report with the department. I think I understand the question here, but I don't think that this will get an accurate view into the people who have opted to keep service during the power outage. And I think that speaks a bit to what Kim said is that this to draw a conclusion from people who opt for a battery backup ignores the people who have whole house generators, Powerwalls, or some other non direct purchase battery backup solution. And I will admit that I was unaware that direct purchase was no longer an option after the sunset of last September 1. The last time I checked, it looked like it was still an option on the website. So I was a little caught off guard for that. Just to provide some empirical evidence. As example, I have a friend in Washington Electric territory who has one of those, like, battery backup generators, basically a big plug in battery that you then unplug and plug in. He uses that for a sump pump when the power goes out because he thinks that's not a phone call. If he needed to, he could then move it down to the basement and plug in the home. So just that reporting section, I don't think provides enough granularity to That's exactly what? Sorry. Enough granularity to get it what the report's desired outcome is. Do

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you support the does it seem like it could be a useful report? Is it information you would want to see? Is it

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think the information, it's not unuseful information. It's useful, but I don't know how we would get there. I'll get to that in a second. So on page five, section D, department monitoring in addition to reviewing annual reports required under the subsection E of this section, the Commissioner of Public Service review report that we've had, the audit report submitted to 09:11. So I reached out to Barb to get these nine zero one reports about access to these reports. I'm not sure what they look like for the power outages, so I'm not sure the lift that is needed to crunch the data to have an informed opinion on a particular section. But for the originating carrier outage reports, the cause is often not reported. In all instances that I've seen, I looked at a couple this morning. One of them from January 23. I guess they're both from January 23. One of them listed the cause as explicitly power outage, and the other just reported service outage. So those originating carrier reports that go into 911 don't always report the cause of the outage in a way that can then be bubbled up to to do what this section is asking. For the record, part of the commercial mail commercial mobile radio service or cell service is available. I think that one is nearly impossible to glean from the outage report. To go back to my previous example, one the one that reported a power outage as a cause reported the location as current, and the one that reported service outage reported the location as. So even though there's a total number of outages or people without service reported in those carrier outage reports, the actual location is not granular enough to determine if they have self-service. Again, like if someone reported Middlesex as the outage location, I would not be able to confidently say whether or not commercial mobile radio service was available to locations impacted by that outage without knowing the actual street addresses because service in the part of Middlesex is great if you're going up 89. If you're on my side of mental sex, then service is not as good. Getting to the actual, what the report is actually asking for from those two pieces of data seems like an aspect we can quite fulfill. Page six. Section I. Whether the state the commission will challenge the movement of the first annual report, the general assembly, recommendations, and then, excuse me, whether the state should establish a program designed to provide financial assistance to low income customers. For costs associated with the purchase and installation of battery backup, will unilaterally say I think that that program would be great, this is an idea, and I don't need to look at the data. But the data that's being collected in the reports specified by this bill will not offer any additional insight into that because there's no income data related to it. Simply asking for the provider to let us know how many customers have decided to opt for a battery backup. And there's no way to triangulate that with the income of the customer to see if they will opt in, if they have a certain income threshold, or if they did not opt in because they have a Powerwall or a generator, or because they think their cell phone doesn't want to print their phone service or an outage. So the stuff we are currently doing, I think that takes me through the bulk of the bills to explain this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks. Rep Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So are you ready for questions, or did you wanna

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I got a little bit more. I can make that. So what we're currently doing, so the announcements the announcement that was out from Fidium or the last or the FCC petition that we got from PDM from the last, discontinuous notice, created an announcement that goes on our webpage that bubbles up to the state of Vermont homepage, includes a link directly to our website with our new page about the copper to fiber transitions. That page on the department site includes a link to the FCC sites, links to the provider's petition, sections about power outage and battery backup, a section on medical and auxiliary telecommunication devices, and a section on how prepare for the transition, as well as direct contact information for the department, CAPI division, and a direct link to the CAPI division in place reporting for long term. We did outreach to organizations who offer assistance to vulnerable populations. We talked to the chair of the BTRS. We talked about the MOO yesterday. We reached out to Dale, the Department of Aged and Independent Living, and they have not yet provided any specific navigator programs to assist with the comfort of fiber transition. But it has been added as a discussion point to the next ETRS meeting for all of the people that come together to see how that would work. And then we do direct advocacy approach. I don't know if any of you were copied. The person we helped last fall copied, well, Sibilia Valedonia. Everybody in the state, it seems, was copied on some of these emails. But we spent a fair amount of time with a person in Morrisville who was transitioned to ensure that his fax machine worked for his work. He was a counselor and sent a lot of faxes back and forth and gave us a signature. And to extract the voicemail messages from the old copper biggest voicemail system, to put on a CD to give to him because, again, choked up, they were the last recordings he had of his deceased wife. So that's the level of advocacy and involvement we are happy to get involved with to ensure that stuff happens. So, for again, for the department's position, the MOU has been drafted and sent to FIDM. It's not finalized, but the process has started and continues to move forward. It includes notification at one hundred and twenty days so we can get that announcement I just spoke of, created, posted to our website, have it bubble up to the state of Vermont website. Then again, at thirty days, Dara mentioned that she went through the notification process for a customer who didn't actually call to make the switch and their service wound up going into a suspended state, they called the next day. So, when we looked at the thirty days versus fourteen days for the next notification, the actual percent change in people who called between those two was minor excuse thirty days. This will allow us to prepare for the calls which will be generated by the population of people that will schedule this call to call us and say, Hey, my phone's not working. My service is suspended. It also includes requirements on the two additional separate communications at the time of install. One outlining the need for a battery backup with full service to maintain service in a power outage, and one on the need to let the installer know of any auxiliary devices that need to that the customer has that they need to ensure work on the new system. In general, we wanna see this change, the switch from copper to fiber. This is a technology transition that needs to happen. We're trying to resolve this with the MOV Lithium, and we would happily come back and provide an update next year on how.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Doctor. Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So thank you for this, director Thompson. Problem that I think we're trying to solve is making sure we understand essentially who can call 911 and and when, and who might have problems calling 911. I mean, if we really boil it down.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Would you agree? Public safety issue. Yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, a couple of questions I have. This that was helpful feedback. Do you know how many service quality investigations there have been in the state with this company

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: and its predecessors? Off the top of my head. So have a feeling as far as

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I could not give the number myself, but it's there are there are multiple. And having engaged with the department and this company over time and having having been the genesis of one of those service quality investigations when it was suggested my consumer should move to make sure they could be in touch with public safety. I'm a bit skeptical about the durability and efficacy of an MOU. I certainly appreciate and like all of the things that I've heard, you talking about being included in that. They seem appropriate. And so I I think it is important to put something more, in statute. It seems like that will have more teeth. So, is your are you able to provide us any suggestions in terms of, like, edits, like, actual words?

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Are you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: able to work with our are you able to work with our attorney to

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think we can probably do that. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a similar question. I you know, like I said, you know, we wait in when it feels like some part of this is some part of the process isn't working for folks. And so I I was gonna ask you similarly if we if we feel that waiting for an MOU is too sort of temporary or not the way we want to go and we do want to set something in statute. It would be great to get really direct feedback from you guys in your important role as ratepayer advocates, which you know, we rely on you for that, about what parts of the bill don't work, are redundant, aren't going be helpful, is a waste of everybody's time, and what parts of the bill really could effectively and strategically advance consumer protections around the transition from copper to fiber. That's really what I'm interested in. And, you know, I I don't wanna bog things down with an overly complicated bill that doesn't work and doesn't help. Madam chair.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So, I I mean, I would just I'm not sure that I understand why the MOU that is being worked out, which, you know, sounds great, why we can't incorporate them into the language that we've got here. I do have one other question, and I would if you wanna answer that, but I do have one other question.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I'll just say I work with PA. My my notes are notes saying they'll be the one second. I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: definitely would be interested in hearing from the department. It doesn't I I about why we have some providers filing with the FCC and some that are not. I just wanna understand the technical difference there. So Franklin is small and extremely in touch with their consumers, but I'd like to make sure I understand what the difference is there, madam chair. If we could just get some response from that, if that's email or something. Email's fine.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's definitely a question for the lawyers.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: To go through the FCC statute and just to see what the what the reasoning is there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mr. Howland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I wanted argue about the system average duration index that you quoted as seven hours in a distribution system for system average for Green Mountain Power. There are customers that are out for seven days. And and so a twenty four hour backup. There there ought to be a method that the customer could be informed that he needs a larger capacity battery. And I don't know if they're sophisticated enough to equal amp loads to amp hours that they they need service, but, I mean, the battery backup that is around every computer in the State house here might be a little bit larger than the battery that's gonna be provided to the I just wanna flag that up

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: there. Yep. Yeah. So that number came from a report from the director of engineering. It says CAIDI, which is some of all the outings over the over the the number of customers. And it is just that it is an outage. It doesn't take in the outliers. I've got friends in East Montclair, Washington, Georgia, and through the ice storms a couple of years ago. I think they were around like four days. So there's definitely some outliers there that have much longer outages, but in terms of averages, that's what the numbers

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: if you're in a large village, you seldom see an outage. If you're it's kind of proportional to the miles of exposure you have of your distribution.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Great. So we will, I think we'll just put this on ice and wait to hear back from you. I think that's our next step. So I think we can just wait wait to hear back from you folks and then decide what we're doing next. Great. And we had some information coming from Sarah as well. So I think we're now in waiting hear mode. Great. Thank you. And, Hunter, what what would be your timeline on that?

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I will talk to as soon as I will have to apply to. I would expect probably next week. She expects midday Wednesday. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And you'll submit your written testimony that you have already?

[Hunter Thompson (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's this is notes and chicken scratch. So Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Great.