 We have someone substituting in for one of our members, that's what we're waiting on, but I think we'll get started without him. And we're going to start, welcome back I should say, welcome back to the Peg Access TV workgroup. We had our public hearing this morning. We're coming back to try to figure out where we go from here. And we're going to start off with Dan Glanville who will be talking about funding as it is, revenues as they exist now. Great, thank you very much Senator. So a few items. The issues that I'm going to speak to are the settlement pertaining to the CPG between Comcast and the regulatory body here in Vermont. As you know we went through a renewal of our CPG. There were some contested issues. Groups were authorized to partake in mediation, which is a standard process in the process that we work in. You know that Clay attended those mediation sessions as well as Lauren Klein and me and others. And we had about five of them I think. Although it seemed like they were fine. They were long days. They were long days. They were starting early in the morning that went sometimes into the near dark in the late month of June. So long days. But we resolved some pretty substantive issues. And one was the interactive program guide whereby we're going to move the Peg channels from their current location into the four digit universe. And as a result of that the Peg providers, the AMOs in Vermont, and I'll use that word interchangeably, but they mean the same thing, will have access to the interactive program guide of Comcast systems. So we're happy to be able to work that out. And one other thing we're also working on is that there will be $77,000 in payments that will be made to the AMOs for rebranding expenses associated with the change in the channel positions. I recently went through the process of approving those checks. So those will be hopefully cut and sent very soon at $3,500 per AMO for that cost. As well as a one time payment of $55,000 for playback equipment and support of a provision whereby we're going to launch a state HD channel. We're going to pay that money this year, even though we're going to work with the AMOs to win to launch that because it doesn't have to be launched until 2021. But we're going to work to launch that at a time that meets the needs of the AMOs because there's some work that they have to do to get ready for that. In addition, we've been constructing additional plant miles here in Vermont since the CPG was renewed. Additional what? Plant miles. Oh, okay. Plant miles. Yeah. So that's going to be, we will complete 350 miles before completion of the CPG and we're well under, well within the target to complete that, probably ahead of schedule. We will also maintain existing video return mines that exist and that's the ability for the AMOs or pay providers to go mine from various locations that exist today. And we put in some language that will also, the parties reached an amicable resolution on how we will build new return lines going forward. In addition, we have a one-time payment of $100,000 to be used by VAN to look at some alternative technologies whereby they can utilize this for the provision of remote origination. And then we will have a payments of $440,000, which will be $20,000 per AMO which will be used by the AMOs for internet service at the Peg Studios in remote locations and also to support the use of alternative technologies. As a result of that courtesy service that is currently offered to the AMOs will not continue after a date's served. But those are the funding requirements of the settlement and all of those are settled in place in the Chexar vehicule for that process. Do you need anything to add to that? No, I'm quite close. Thank you. Questions? Dan, let's see. So, we heard some testimony in the hearing this morning that the actual amounts of payments from Comcast and our cable companies have actually decreased over the past year. And is that something that they concur with or... Well, let me offer this. I think there was some great testimony here today and we've always had a good working relationship with the AMOs and understanding the benefit that Peg Access and AMO Access brings to the local community and we think that was most of the testimony that was received here today. That being said, so for instance, we had a spreadsheet that was entered into our meeting at some point that did show the funding from 2006 through 2019 and there was a substantial increase from the 2006 calendar year through really 2017 and there was a one-time gap change which resulted in a decrease to the AMO payments for calendar year 2018. That being said, I believe if you look at the data that's presented you'll see a pretty substantial hockey stick increase prior to that juncture and if you remove the gap decrease I think you'll see that we've reached a pretty level funding where it has not seen a decrease per se and I think that presented at our last meeting without gap being included we think that funding has been fairly static in 16, 17, 18 and we think we're on target to be consistent with that in 19 as well. So the gap funding, gap changes resulted in an actual dollar decrease going out and is that decrease, if you look at the curve and you get this decrease here does it then continue at that level of decrease or does it jump back up to the original line at some point? I think it would be fair to say it continues at the level of decrease. It continues at the level of decrease. Is that likely to decrease even more? Not as a result of gaps. When we went through the gap proceeding there are certain things that do impact year over year. One of those is advertising sales is included in the funding model that is put forward and advertising sales vary from year to year. If it's an election year there are more advertising sales in particular markets that will lead to increased funding as a result of the percentage payment. So you will see some up and down as a result of those normal fluctuations in the business. No, it just seems to me that you can't really actually take out a year from your projections, right? Are you suggesting that we just disregard 2018 in your projections over time? No. Okay, I misunderstood that. What I was saying is that there was an adjustment as a result of the General Inceptor Accounting Principles that took place in that particular year. If you look at 2006 we were at state-wide funding at about 3.5 million. In 2007 we went to 4.2 million. Then we consistently went up and when we got to 2017 we were at 7.2 million. In calendar year 2018 that number decreased to a little bit below 6.9 million. So there was that decrease. We actually believe when we complete calendar year 2019 we'll be pretty steady with where we were in 2018. That was one time reduction that endures and the impacts on the access centers as we heard was significant because they're operating on such high strengths. No, I understand that. That's another question. The changes the EFCC made said that as part of that 5% you can count in-kind contributions. And some of the things you listed Interactive Program Guide, Money for Rebranding, 350 miles build out, I'm not sure what that is. Money for Equipment Upgrades, is that included in what you are counting against your 5%? So the dollar amounts that I went over as a result of the settlement are not in-kind provisions of the CPG. They are not. So are there in-kind provisions that you are providing as part of the 5%? That actually decreased the amount of money down to the embers? Not today as we see them. So I think that a key word there is that stated earlier, Representative, you said you can but the provision, the ruling by the FCC is really not anything that we can choose to do or not do. So if there are in-kind provisions they will be assessed, evaluated and determined whether or not there will be a reduction from the 5%. To date, everything in the CPG, in the analysis, with the exception of courtesy services that remain in the CPG, at this juncture I believe the only things that are in-kind are the courtesy services that are currently in the CPG. And the only reason I'm asking these questions is because I really want to try to get a handle on the actual financial monetary contributions to AMOs as opposed to anything else. Yeah, I think that's a fair question. And right now we are in an evaluation stage and as I said, the only thing that we have determined at this juncture that are in-kind would be the courtesy services. So we're evaluating what those are, we're evaluating what the value is and then what the position will be with regard to whether or not there is an offset. Okay, thank you. Courtesy services to municipalities and schools or courtesy services to AMOs or both? Both, but the AMOs won't be torn out so those are gone. So potentially the courtesy services to municipalities and schools could be an offset? Yeah, and there has to be, we're evaluating that more in Glenby to determine which ones are actually being utilized and determine what the value is and then maybe an additional question on that as to whether or not there is a desire for those services to continue. So I think one of the challenges before us is to get a handle on what the short-term revenue shortfalls are and more long-term concerns and can we address each of those with one solution or is there a short-term solution to give us a little bit more time to then address what a longer-term funding solution might be? And I think to that end, one of the things the Vice Chair and I have been talking about is just trying to get a handle on how much money is needed over the next year versus over the next five years per year. I see Lauren Glenn grabbing some papers. Is that related to this question? Yes. Wonderful. Okay. Sorry, we sent it Friday, but we may have it now. I'll just bring them on. I'll use this all of them. Okay, great. I have stuff attached already. Yeah? Oh, you put them on. Yep. She looked at you. You didn't put them on Friday. That's okay. Okay. So we can distribute to folks in the audience, Lauren Glenn, if you'd like. I'm going to make you cast this version of it. I just laid a council on how much I meant to do it. You're incredibly helpful. And thank you for putting these today. No problem. Okay. So, Lauren, do you want to take us through? Yeah. I would always want to get yourself situated. So, these two pieces of paper. Yep. Anyone would like them? So, Elizabeth Malone and the land looking group put this together in response to the question that you just raised, which is looking ahead, what does van anticipate to be the funding gaps that we're concerned about? And so let me just address the text part and then the chart part. The text here identifies what the assumptions are. And the assumptions are is that we expect cable revenue to continue on a steady decline. Now, we don't have, well, first thing I would say, is we know that large companies like Comcast are working hard to keep their affinity customers and to keep customers coming through what is essentially a cable gateway. So, we understand that. And there's also, but we don't know what those trends are from the company's perspective. And really what we do know is the cord cutting trends that are reported publicly. So, we assume that there will be a steady decline between now and 2030. We, as you heard today, many of the access centers or several of the access centers are doing alternative revenue sources, including municipal funding, underwriting, and fees for services. And so, what we have done on this chart is done some projections based on modest increases. And again, you heard from Tammy at NAP TV and Angelica and Richmond and these centers and core Trowbridge and Brownboro. And what these folks are saying is we're working hard and diversified but we don't think we're going to be able to make up the difference, the big difference. But, you know, perhaps we can make up 30% of that over 10 years, right? So, it's not impossible. It's just a pretty heavy lift. So, what we did was create roughly anywhere between a two and a 7% increase in each one of these categories between now and 2030. And this assumes that the access centers are doing what they do now, not that we would take up VIT as a revenue source, no special projects, selling airtime on a statewide channel. Those aren't factored here. This is just if we were to continue today. So, we have a projection of the head fees declining. And then we see municipal contributions starting to increase. And again, this is an aggregate. So, some centers may be more successful than others. We see that we could increase underwriting support over the next 10, 11 years. Fundraising certainly, that will come, as we know, at a cost because of the time spent who's currently being used to deliver direct service. And then fees for service, diversification of charging for memberships or production services. And then the loss offset funding. So, this is the part of the chart. I think it's the question you were asking. What do we think that we're going to have to make up? Make up. And that's, so the expectation is not that a legislative solution would yield all of this revenue, but it might yield a significant part of it as the cable revenue starts to decline. So again, the assumptions are not airtight, but they're meant to create a scenario for us to understand what we are looking for. So, what we're looking for really is a 40 percent franchise fee, potentially 40 percent offset and 20 percent diversified revenue, which again will vary center to center. So, it just gives us a picture. We can start to visualize where we're at and where we think we will be. Was there anything you wanted to add, Kevin, to that explanation? Okay, thank you. Questions about the chart, clarifications needed? So, is this an annual, so we have 2020 of a $500,000 loss offset. So, I imagine that states the same in 2021 receiving another $500,000 in 2022 and then it would jump up. A triple in 2023. So, the half a mill is meant to represent that gap loss, gap loss, which centers are still struggling with. But it's an annual, or is it for three years? Well, the gap loss, I mean, at a certain point, you stop talking about the gap loss. Your revenue has been adjusted in 2018 and it's here reflected, I think, I'm just trying to understand. It might be a stupid question. You might have already answered it. I just want to make sure that I understand that that's an annual, or is that $500,000 for three years? It's a snapshot of each year. So, it's a snapshot of 2020. So, they're just 2021 and 2022 are not present. Yeah. Okay. It's going to fall somewhere between the two. Yeah, not a dumb question. We just took out those columns to make it more complicated. Okay, thank you. And essentially it's the difference between declining PEC fees and diversified funding efforts. So, do you have any comments on the accuracy or the reasonableness of those projections? Well, I might agree in 2020 but I just there's no way of knowing. Right. And I mean, no disrespect to your assumptions. No, no, it's the best guess given the information we have. Carrie, did you have a question? Not just yet. Okay. So, now we get into the real meat of this committee which is how to proceed what we know is that there's a half a million shortfall right now because of GAP. Beyond that, we don't know exactly what it will look like but we can assume it will be at least that and probably much more than that. And so, it is the time when we all sort of need to put our cards on the table and say what are each of us thinking about the best way forward. We have this meeting and then one more. By November 15, we're supposed to make a recommendation to the legislature whether it is in, well, we'll be in bill form of one way or another whether it was a recommendation for funding or for further study. And so, we don't have a tremendous amount of time between now and then. We need to give legislative council time to do the drafting and so it's, we have to really start kicking the ideas around now kicking the tires and see where we want to go. So, I'm happy to start wherever people would like to begin. I have no agenda other than to hear from the committee and see what emerges as the themes. There was some testimony this morning about other possible revenue sources in particular from Kelly and up in studio but that might be worth considering when I look at this chart and just look at the municipal piece I think that's going to be a very heavy lift for for access stations despite all the value that comes from them but that money comes out of the property tax it has to get voted at town meeting and the property tax is the most stressed tax in the state and how it's the one that we're concerned about. So, I'm just very concerned that that may be a rational request I don't know that anyone that you're actually going to get just an excellent point Karen so even looking at the projection for what we might be able to expect from the municipalities this might be a ambitious thank you that's the where I'm looking for. So, Karen contributions from the municipalities are generally a line item in the municipal budgets. It depends on the town sometimes it's a line item in the municipal budget sometimes it's voted separately like you have that long list of social service organizations $200, $500 and they're voted separately in some towns as the package in some towns. If the fees were considered an assessment on the towns based on the services they get from the AMOs wouldn't that be something I mean the town budgets often to other assessments they basically have to provide because otherwise they give out services and so this could be considered the same way that hey if you're going to benefit of this they might have to help support it. It could be considered that way. Yeah. I think given where I said as the representative for local governments we would support that. I mean we would say it's a shift from well not from the legislature but it's a shift in the municipal level which is considered to be the throwback contributor of funding to whatever is the cause of the debt and I don't mean to be the scum of the garden party but I think that's pretty less stuff. So if I might just comment that one of the one of the questions in my mind is how far do we go to change the policy currently the state does not have any involvement in supporting public access television to provide a state funding mechanism could be a change in policy and so anyway it's something that may or may not be acceptable to the legislatures legislators at the state level so whatever we recommend we've got to recognize that it involves a state funding source that's going to be a policy change and we're going to be taking on responsibilities as a state that we don't currently have. Right. I did have one other thought this morning there was some discussion about interactive television and if the access stations were to take on some of that responsibility I sort of think you're doing already by providing that access to information and events that that might be a legitimate role for the legislature to help fund and it might be it might come at quite a bit less than maintaining all those interactive television stations cost when they were still there so with that suggestion I'd like to ask our band representative there what what technology I mean how complicated would that be for the public access to these stations to do to provide for more interactive services We're looking at that right now I don't have a completely cogent answer but what we have been researching is the capital investment necessary for a switched video network we certainly have the physical locations and some capacity that could be farmed out on a fee-for-service basis but the real cost is going to be the capital investment and as I think Steven Wettekle may have pointed out there are it may not be as cumbersome and as expensive as it was the first time and there are a couple ways to go but it's not insignificant because having a bridge for ten sites across the state is of high quality video to a switch is not insignificant so we're researching those prices right now to understand what that would be in order to provide a sketch of a proposal for this committee to look at so we are putting together the capital expenses and then some of the operating expenses again I think we can provide a sketch but the real question is going to be how to recover that capital investment right and to keep it upgraded and they're made yeah and I think the other issue is it the access centers then everyone access network are we work very closely on policy questions but we are a loosely assembled group right it's very anarchistic group I mean just imagine municipalities trying to get together to do something I mean it's you know not our DNA or DNA is our policy work and then to serve our community so that would be a shift in the way that this organizational capacity is directed so it's not just simply lighting up the centers it's changing how we work which I don't think we're opposed to working through but it's not just some other thoughts yes please um in the course of doing this work we've done a lot of research about what is happening in other parts of the country related to this question and I'm going to use crude terms that may or not politically so palatable but I'm just going to say them which is how to extract public benefit from the right of way so public access the franchise fee is a kind of compensation that is extracted or is put aside because the public right of way is being used by cable industry to provide commercial services and so the FCC or the congress said in the Cable Communications Act franchise fees are a kind of compensation for the use of that right of way as we have talked about on the communication side that's title 6 on the telecommunications side title 2 universal service 911 and other types of public benefit are a compensation which is a better word than extraction a compensation for the use of the right of way the dilemma that we're facing in both of those industries the cable side and the telecommunications side is that those technologies are being offset by the internet and by broadband so people are getting their entertainment online they're using VoIP for their phone they're using other kinds of tools so the revenues from the public benefit on both the cable side the title 6 side and the title 2 side are declining so regulators and policy makers looking at both of those industries are asking the same kind of questions and they're looking to the internet as a revenue source which is title 1 which has been reclassified as title 1 upheld in a recent DC court decision but what we've been trying to find out is how tied are the state's hands with regard to collecting public benefit from broadband use right and there are different approaches to doing this and in fact a recent this is also distributed to your desk which came across our desk late last week which I think has some bearing on this question and then I won't go to my recommendation so what is distributed to you here is a report by the members of the federal state joint board on universal service so again keep in mind universal service is a kind of public benefit on the telecom side and public access is a public benefit on the cable title 6 side and these state members of the federal state joint board have put in a series of recommendations that I think speak to this dilemma that we are looking at on the cable side and on page 6 in short what they're saying is we should look to the internet and to broadband as a revenue source for universal service perhaps the kind of short story and what they say here in number 12 paragraph number 12 commenters responding to the commission's FNRPM generally agreed the commission could use its permissive authority the FCC the commission to expand the contribution base for universal service it is clear that the FCC has legal authority to extend contribution requirements to a broader class of providers of interstate telecommunications where it is in the public interest so when you have the opportunity to read this when we leave you're going to see that this state the state members of the federal state joint board are looking to broadband as a way to fund universal service so in order for us to really understand what we can do as a state and what we can't I think we need more study and I think we need more in-depth study by people who spend their time thinking about these questions because when we started to delve in them we found these questions we found some really interesting examples that actually and in the case of this report recommend connection based assessments on residential services and revenue based assessments on business services so these are the kinds of ideas that are cooking on a national level but also on the state level yes states like Kentucky there are different states that give us some examples but it is beyond I would say my pay grade as a pretend litigator to really have the legal understanding of where the state's authority can live and since this is a question that is you know certainly there's a $500,000 problem today but as we can see this is going to be we're not dropping off the cliff with pay grade revenue in the next couple years it's a slow decline I think that with what I'm going to say following things that I think could be in a kind of study continued study that we could commission with some help possibly from the attorney general's office although whether they have adequate capacity to do this is a good question the study includes what is the state's authority to gain public benefit from the use of the rights of the way what are the limitations what are models from other states how could we calculate the revenue that is projected and what kind of data and mechanisms do we need in order to actually implement something along the lines of an omnibus public benefit from rights of the way that so I'll put a period on that so I think we just need some more time and some more expertise because the direction that people are going in policy recommenders are going in nationally is in the direction that I have just described but it is really a new frontier where the authority as a state is constantly in question and isn't fully resolved and may never be fully resolved but I think we could get our bearings if we study this very in a focused way there in my comments so let me ask the question this is a proposal from the state members of the federal state joint board on universal service to the federal who have frankly iced them out and so they've decided they're going to just put in their recommendations whether they're being asked for them or not okay so basically there was no response from the federal it just was issued on October 15 the response was issued this this was filed oh this was filed on October 15 yeah so we have no feedback from the federal you know but it represents quite a bit of research that I think is germane for our even though it deals with universal service it is the same it is a relevant policy question what we're asking so I would say I can sound like a broken record but some of the younger people who are in the room want to know what that was it's in but I think those are fair statements not the recommended decision but the what you said with regard to a couple of things with regard to the services currently offered as we know we've gone over earlier there's a 5% cap or at the 5% cap I think that if you go back to from 6 06 through 19 you face substantial increase you've seen a leveling off on that so as a result of that I also think it's fair to look at 2020 my rough math is we probably finish ahead of the prior year at the end of 19 as compared to 18 but we'll see where that comes out just rough math on that I do think also that I think you said two things that I think are worth considering in the fact that today and I think is correct let's perhaps look at what the options are but the reverse of that is fair to look at what the limitations of that are too and I don't think that's something that looks above my pick right too as much as I'd like to compliment myself so that I do think that there has to be perhaps a broader analysis and as a result of not being at a cliff today I think it would be in my opinion a fair recommendation of this group to explore the options and limitations so that we could perhaps regroup at a later date in 12 to 24 months to relook at that issue and I don't know how you write that or how you put that into effect but I think it would be otherwise we might be meaning no disrespect to anyone on the panel we'd be spending our wheels a bit to find out what we want to come up with so I think it's fair not being at a cliff to look at options and limitations and perhaps we might find that there are options but we also may find that the limitations prohibit those options and I just don't know what they are so I think it's a fair discussion I do wonder if we were to go that route what does that do to budgets for the next year or so for the access stations the negative stations it goes back to my question is there a short term fix needed that is is it a straight appropriation act what is that that will bite us some more time and so I think that is also a question for us but I want Clay to be able to question our clarification but I think is this a viable next step for us is to ask for more research in these areas and of course that also will probably require an appropriation to pay for that study and who might do that study but we'll put that on hold for a second Clay I'm relieved to hear that it's above your pay grade and your pay grade it's safe to say it's above my pay grade is that the nodding I did just want to point out to the comment that what is the question what is the fair charge or to extract a benefit from the public rights of way that when you talk about the 5% franchise fee the companies are paying that that's a pass through tax to the users and to people like all of us who are customers and telephone and cable companies so there is an impact on Vermonters and going to the affordability of living in Vermont states have for their own USF have moved to a connection based fee for an assessment on telephone service and that's fine we have to realize that that moving from a percentage of your retail bill to a flat connection fee has an impact that may be disproportionate on Vermonters a consumer that spends a lot of money on these services may see a slight reduction whereas a consumer spends only a small amount may see an incredible increase in their monthly fees so I think that's just something to think about but I do concur that I think studying it is a very good idea and really understanding the limits of our jurisdiction especially with living a fee on internet sales because I think that's an area where both SEC and Congress have spoken quite clearly against I think that's fair by studying I'm not advocating a particular position but I think it's worth and I think Clay raises a very valid point that federal authorities have opined on this matter so a lot of different directions we could go in but I want to make sure we come back to something the vice chair said earlier which is are we as a committee in agreement that that we should be weighing in on an area in which we haven't had authority in the past I'm restating your question an additional thought on that is that there's a number of different ways that we go we could try to introduce an increase in a USFV which would provide a certain amount of money we could propose another type of fee which may or may not be acceptable based on current criteria by the FCC or we could just go to straight appropriation process and say for the short term we could ask the appropriations committee to allocate a certain amount to provide grant program for the AMOs that need that type of assistance the latter case is probably the most simple it doesn't change it doesn't do much in terms of a change in policy for the state and it's been done before on a one-time basis in the meantime we could ask for a study for what the possible ramifications are and abilities of the state to make some other type of engagement some other type of method for funding so am I hearing a general consensus that one of the main charges coming out of here that we'll give to the legislature is a study of some kind is that what I'm you want to assume that is what people are thinking Dan what are we thinking Dan I believe and I may be in the minority I believe that the current level of funding at this juncture given the increase that it has seen over the last decade with a relatively stable other factors of the economy being very stable I would submit that we should not at this juncture have a request for legislative action for additional funding I do think that we should continue the model we're not at a cliff that really happens over a determined period of time and then reexamined that's just one person's opinion we take a short break we may how much time would you like absolutely we'll take a five minute break are we back on the record great thank you for the opportunity take a quick break to be clear on a couple of points so obviously I work for Congress but I'm the industry representative here today I think as the industry we have no opinion with regard to if there were a legislative effort on the $500,000 we'll stand back from that we have no opinion on it that's it we do think as I stated that the 5% has increased at the level that continues with the creation of meaningful public access by the Vermont Access Network and its members while others on the panel want to look to opportunities that may exist our counter to that from the industry would be to ensure that we as a group also look to the limitations that would exist and obviously as any both the representative and the senator know the language as well so just wanted the opportunity to make those comments thank you and so when you speak of the limitations you're speaking specifically about federal preemption correct correct thank you so back to the question at hand Lauren Glenn has proposed that recommendation perhaps coming out of this committee is for further study so the pieces I'd like to get nailed down today what would that study entail what are all the different areas of research who might be charged with doing that research we don't know yet how much would be needed to be appropriated to do that research and as Maria Royal our ledge council lawyer reminded us that would be in addition if we felt like as a committee we needed an appropriation to backfill the the money left unaccounted for from the gap changes so what are the charges that we would like to give to a group hired to do the research for us what are those various threads so what is about rights of way I'll just recap just for the purpose of moving it forward I think the question of the state's authority to assess public benefits from the various titles one two and six and even 32 is that the one the agency of transportation right away fee that we heard right away chief talk about so there's a certain limitation so if you could Lauren Glenn just go over those a little bit more slowly so I make sure that our attorney can get down all the different pieces so I mean this is not the perfect thing yes no this is work in progress but state authority to assess public benefits for the use of its right of way from from firms that from private companies that utilize the right of way both that authority both the authority and the limitations as Dan said we would look at title one which is title two which is telecom from which universal services is constructed title six which is cable I think I want to say title 32 which is the right of way the agency of the US transportation statutes govern the states management of federal and state right of way I will double check if that's the right number and then so not only authority and limitations but models what other states are doing that may indicate a way forward and what other entities are recommending like these state members of the federal state are doing forward for example and what other decisions such as example the recent DC court of appeals ruling on the mozilla FCC case which has to do with net neutrality but may have implications on state authority to manage and acquire compensation of some kind so the net neutrality case that DC court of appeals recently came forward and they said a couple of things they said that the FCC's decision to classify internet as title one stood so it should stand it was an appeal but they also talked about visiting state authority because the FCC said states have no authority to do anything related to net neutrality and the DC court of appeals said that needs to be looked at again because we're not convinced that's true they didn't say go ahead states they said this needs to be looked at some more so there are several cases that are in play that have an impact on the direction of policy nationally and on state level just to add to your list of tight levels around right of way you might want to add title 24 municipal highways are actually the vast majority of roadways in the state title 24 that's the municipal statutes and what this municipalities can do related to this is really interesting question of it merits some investigation and then finally to you know with this research and what we can and can do or could be done to create some models for calculating what revenue rejections would be and if we actually have what we need to calculate that because for example as my friend Steve Whitaker points out often we don't have GIS data where all the polls are in the state and so if one of the models was a poll attachment fee I know that's not your favorite thing Clay but I'm just saying if it was we might not even have what we need to say how much would that generate because we might not know where they are and what to multiply them by I'm scared to go that was it right now, thank you so I do think it's worth noting that a couple of things that we're spoken about that the franchising law that exists with regard to cable service which is where the 5% comes from finds in its writings that the cap is at 5% for the use of the public right of way and I think one thing that's worth stating as well is that that outline in federal law specifically outlined that the local franchising authority shall determine what that is and there are local franchising authorities that are at the 5% but it also follows through that some of them are as well as 1% or even less than that across the country but what is determined as a local franchising authority is interesting because here in the state of Vermont the local franchising authority is at the state level meaning the certificate of public good is given by the state so they have taken the authority through their state law as given to them under federal law to determine that they are the local franchising authority as we go south to Massachusetts the Massachusetts legislature has through that authority under federal law determined that the local franchising authority is in fact the municipality so it's important to recognize that that the 5% is at the 5% in Vermont because the local franchising authority being the state has put it at that and in Massachusetts it varies based upon the as a sum of Massachusetts but the number of communities throughout the state that choose to do that between as low as less than 1% and as high as the 5% and then in other jurisdictions in Connecticut which is very similar to how it's operated here in Vermont the local franchising authority is the public utility regulatory authority as empowered by the statutes in the state of Connecticut and similarly over in New York they follow a model that's very similar to Massachusetts so it varies but the LFA the local franchising authority is just that and they determine the 5% so that's my long-winded way of saying there really isn't an opportunity under the federal law for it to be granted at the franchise be at the state and then have an additional grant of that by a local municipality just wanted to put that out there in addition to the 5% I think that's a valuable clarification I think it's also important to know that on the FCC level you know the trend is the most recent FCC case looking at whether in-kind services should be subtracted from the 5% that's not a finished case in other words there's more cases to follow and least access television is being looked at as to whether that is a violation of the cable operators first member rights that's an argument that's being made it may be that public access in the next 5 to 7 years not to be an alarmist but the way that the the direction of the work of the FCC is going is towards eliminating PEG as a requirement and to create a level of claim that does not require PEG franchise fees so we're also dealing with a bigger ecosystem and with franchise fees may go away in the conversation that we're having and so to understand where we might be able to recover them when there is no 5% to recover is an important bigger picture so I don't mean to be dire but the sort of policy horizon that we're looking at is one in which the FCC may say not PEG franchise fees that's that deal that was made in 1984 with the municipalities in exchange for rights of way that's not legitimate anymore of course that will go to congress I mean you know it's an endless cycle but that's the environment we're operating in I've not read those tea leaves like you have read them I'm a paranoid litigator the crystal ball in a spot that's right other thoughts actually with respect and that point of view that might change considerably what kind of information we want from any further study here if you think that those fees are going to go well together then what are we looking at yeah but respectfully I don't think we can live I don't think that we were our charter was to look at what is I think it was to look at what is currently and we're looking at what is rather than these and I can't where you're coming from but we believe that the provision of peg access is going to continue and we see nothing nothing away from that and I'm so glad to hear that and I think the reason I brought it up in response is that if there is no fibres I mean there is a fibres of limitation but if there is no fibres then looking at alternative then that's not a limitation right and you know what the state's authority changing authority in terms of broadband fees which I understand are pretty curtailed but there are some interesting examples that could be looked at then it's a different discussion and we're looking at a longer term horizon so you know it's hard to deal with speculation but we're trying to deal with what's really happening the important thing I think for all of us to keep in mind is we still have democracy and we will continue to have a legislature that functions and we will continue to have committees of jurisdiction that will continue to look at these issues and so I really see the charge of the committee we are moving us towards currently getting more information that we need assuming best case scenario we're looking at a minor shortfall in the future that we need to fill in the long term that at least we have the information that we need to figure out what choices that we can make in the future for a longer term funding mechanism if it's needed I think all of us who serve, I can speak for you Mike as well who serve understand that the only constant is change so we can only deal with what's in front of us and it could be that when we sit down in January there's already been another piece thrown into this conversation and so all we can do is in good faith move the conversation forward and I don't think either of us as long as we are in the legislature are going to take our eye off of this issue because it's one that's of significance to both of us so and I appreciate that you in this conversation are not always glass half full because we need to be sober about the conditions that we're in so I appreciate both of these perspectives very much and I appreciate that you're both willing to serve on this committee because we need both of those views so I have one more thing to add absolutely so the last piece for the Ram not so following the creating the models for calculation and making sure that we have some ways we have what we need to make those projections I would say we could also an outcome of this study committee would be some draft policy that the legislature could consider going forward with that some language that would come out from that and so in terms, go ahead Mike I was going to say when you talk about draft policies what do you have in mind there I don't have anything in mind yet but I just wanted to make sure that it deliverable was some language that we could move we want recommendations maybe from what other states are doing for what is permissible what is not permissible so it's summarized as an output of this specific directives of who's doing the study well more like we've looked at all this we've done crunch these numbers and we think here's two or one or two ways forward for the legislature to consider as policy because this is about policy change ultimately it can be about policy change or it can just be an allocation but if it's a policy change what would be recommended I think any policy change would have to be informed by the results of the study that would be policy well I think it's one thing we have one more meeting left so we'll have a chance to see a draft and have another round of discussion on that draft absolutely so the chair and I met with our legislative counsel Marie Royal who's been staffing this committee and what we're trying to do here today is to give her the rough outline of some drafting that she can do for us we'll circulate it to the committee and certainly when it gets to be something that is coherent enough to post to the website we'll do that and then we will come back the next meeting and really deal with the document in front of us and then by the 15th of November we're supposed to have that nailed down so it's pretty tight timeline so just one other extremely unpopular suggestion when you're looking at ways to raise revenue for continuing enterprise it might be worth also looking at is this the most effective delivery system for those kinds of services and do you want to put that did you get that Marie? more effective well I just don't know but we have around the state how many? and you're organized you're not actually organized under a fan but as you describe it you're an anarchist I love anarchy actually but Karen Horne improves the anarchy there might be more efficient ways to provide other than the services that you're providing in all those different pet access stations and it's worth thinking about at least I would second that I would like to learn a little bit more about how AMO's can share resources be less anarchic and more collaborative and whether a statewide AMO could serve a function that could replace or supplant some of the functions that the 25 other AMO's are all doing separately or even as simple as sharing equipment maybe you do that already but you're welcome to jump in I really wanted to be a conversation I think it's a fair question I think that any effort to consolidate local I realize because I'm saying this who am I saying it to just a legislative you know legislative room and we've looked at school consolidation so I'm sorry to go on here but the cost of consolidating is often as much as what you would say and so because it's so uniquely local these access centers are serving these local areas it makes it very difficult to consolidate resources perhaps regionally but statewide really hard so I'm not saying we shouldn't look at it and I'm not saying we're not looking at it but I'm just I'm not convinced that the money that you save you actually save because you got a good infrastructure a management infrastructure that you didn't have before so I completely agree with you on that and consolidation might not be the answer at all but you know have we thought and I know that all the stations work on a shoestring that was quite evident this morning but are there different ways to do things if we thought about it creatively I'm completely on the same page with you with respect to school consolidation so you know combining administration doesn't always say a don but it's just I think if you're going to look at raising the revenues to fund this enterprise or these enterprises you sort of have an obligation to look at the other side I didn't know if you were I was looking at my calendar so other information that Maria Royal needs to write up a draft of a charge for research I just want to confirm that would be a draft that we can things move slowly in the legislature is that like the opportunity to share with industry partners and to look at it with respect to legal departments so that they can opine on it as well yes and we as a committee also need to decide and we don't have to do that today I think we're all pretty spent from sitting for so long but we have to decide it's not clear in the legislation whether we all need to agree on what comes out of the work group or not so to be discussed we need to do that right now but yes it will be a draft and there will be plenty of time to weigh in on that and again with the understanding that whatever we come out with from this committee is subject to further change by the jurisdiction and do we have to have a recommendation did you say by the 15th of November that is what the the act says yes so we have to meet before that exactly we don't have a schedule for meeting we don't have a date yet scheduled but I'm not ready to move on to dates I see you all pulling out your phones I'm not ready to do that yet because the other piece of this we want language in the draft that talks about the short term funding gap and if we do what does that look like you had talked to me as an aside should it be a grant program that we put in place for those specific channels that do have a gap some do not so what should it look like what do we want to if anything what language do we want the short term gap that we have and one of the suggestions was in terms of what we were just talking about that perhaps if we had an estimate about how much money would be available in the next fiscal year it shouldn't be the state administering it and deciding who gets what and how much we might have we might have to develop a formal one for legislation but one way to do it would be to appropriate it so that it could be administered by the Vermont Action Access Network I think it would be worth drafting someone with breast or someone to along those lines are there thoughts on that? well it certainly would make a little difficult for me to agree to the full report just a draft but you should tell us what your concerns are certainly this report does not preclude legislators from recommending an appropriation separately so it might be something to think about I guess I'm not opposed to a draft wonderful he's not opposed to a draft it might be worth for us to get some thought we could do it sooner rather than later whether there should be a VIT component in there that's coming up I don't know if it's sort of kitchen sinkish it might just be worth it for us to so let's put a placeholder in there for VIT we can always again decide but I would just put that on the table for the revival of the VIT or an allocation to study it to get it ready to do a proof of concept or I don't maybe face I don't know the best way to do it it might be an interesting partnership between the state and the Montex's network members that lays the groundwork for other opportunities so it's we could formulate that a little bit more clearly in the next few days alright so I think we have to now do the very messy job of trying to find a date in common we want to do the week of the fourth which is the week before the 15th the sound of town the 7th and the 8th that week morning of the 6th or the 5th I could do the 5th 4th is tough for me you cannot do the 5th 5th is not not available to me did people say the 6th was not an option for people I'm good with the 6th I am not good with the 6th though did you say you couldn't do the 6th no I can't I might be able to do the 6th if it's a morning meeting at like 9 I'm sorry Dan I can be here then how long is it going to take me to get to Middlebury from here I don't know you don't take me 2 hours from here I have to be a Middlebury at noon I could start at 8.30 and I'm coming from western Massachusetts so that's a possibility sorry 4th works for me I have a meeting unfortunately that only happens every 2 weeks that I have to be at 8th I cannot do then the 7th is no good right okay what could we do the is the 11th out of the question it's Veterans Day so that might throw some folks out it doesn't give a lot of time to make the record if people are willing to go with early on the 6th I think that's the only date that's a remote possibility let's do that 8.45 8.30 how about 8.30 to 10 30 to 10 we ought to be able to do it then we'll circulate the draft before then 8.30 to 10 on the 6th and also keep in mind the meeting will not be here at the State House so we've got about an alternative maybe the DPS the tax building might be National Life Mike will figure that out and get back to you guys certainly check to see if the board room is open let me just not let me just see more quick location TPD 8.30 to 10 that's a lot of work today any other comments before we wrap Maria do you feel like you have what you need mostly I think so I'll circulate the draft the other thing is I didn't know if you you're meeting one more time right and the draft legislation is due November 15th of course the introduction deadline is not until December so nothing will be in terms of making the request so I didn't know if you want more and maybe meet the week of the 11th understanding that you have more time to share with your departments or people to get as much input before you actually convene for one last time and I'm assuming if I'm correct in assuming that at that meeting you're going to finalize so it's not going to be you're going to recirculate you're going to actually try to finalize at your last meeting is that right or do you want to maybe I'm wrong about that maybe you want to have time to sort of do it before the 15th and I know I'm in DC almost the entire next week which doesn't mean so maybe it's helpful to have that cushion at the best of time I think we're good I think the stretch will work thank you committee thank you thank you have a good afternoon thank you