 My name is Clay Purvis. I'm the director for telecommunications and connectivity for the Department of Public Service. I'm here to testify today on S-289, draft number six. So I think I'll begin my comments by just noting the evolution of this bill and its cousin, H-680. It includes now a waiver, which is very similar to the executive order that the administration issued on mid-February of 2018. The executive order proscribed state agencies from purchasing internet access services for state agencies from companies that do not support net neutrality principles, blocking, frottling, and paid prioritization. The executive order does allow in very limited circumstances for the Secretary of the Administration to grant a waiver. This bill appears to be something very similar. It has the same general concept in mind. It does add additional requirements to the net neutrality scheme or system of regulation in Vermont. I'm going to call your attention to section 10. The amendment is Title IX, which is a consumer protection code. And it requires internet service providers to make a disclosure as to their practices, whether or not they comply with net neutrality standards that are defined in Title III. And then it goes on to say, disclosure shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Service. And the Commissioner shall post the disclosures required by the section on a publicly available, easily accessible website maintained by the agency. The scheme that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order created transitions net neutrality regulation from the FCC, where it was held in the open internet order, to the FTC. And in that order, the FCC stated that traditional rules of consumer protection were not preempted, but that utility style regulation of how it is preempted. And this section to me, I guess, would give me concern about our ability to withstand a challenge of the preemption, given that the Department of Public Service is the state's utility regulator. I'm going to represent the public interest in front of the Public Utility Commission. And this kind of disclosure put in our shop, we would be the ones then to make decisions about the legitimacy of that disclosure and whether they've met the standards that are in Title III and in this Title IX. So I wanted to point that out as a potential issue for the committee to think about as it's crafting its decision. So there's nothing in there about regulation. It just says that you're going to figure the disclosures and you're going to post it on our website. There's nothing in there that says you have to enforce it. There's nothing in there that says you have to do anything with it and post it on our website. That is true, but you have an agency whose mandate comes under Title III, enforcing a compliance that I believe is in Title IX. Our concern is that the more it looks like utility style regulation, the more likely it is to face the preemption challenge. And traditional rules of consumer protection, especially those falling under Title IX, historically have been enforced by the Attorney General's office. So it is somewhat of an interesting choice to pick the commissioner of public service to do this. Because we do regulate the very same companies, but we regulate very different services. We regulate telecommunications services. So in my mind, you're enhancing the argument that this is a utility-style regulation of the service, even though that the enforcement manager is under Title IX. Robin? And that was my point. In Section B, there are violations of this section. It's an unfair and deceptive act to trade commerce, which is enforced by the Attorney General. Correct. So it essentially, to me, says that. Right in that spot, saying you post the list, but enforcement is the Attorney General. But it may be clear if it's just all under the Attorney General. The Attorney General hosts the disclosures. Companies would make the disclosure with the Attorney General and the Attorney General. If really all we're doing is maintaining a website of disclosures on that neutrality, consumers are more likely, if we're doing it under Title IX, consumers are more likely to know to go to the Attorney General's office for complaints regarding deceptive business practices. Other industries, for instance, that are regulated under Title IX. I was just thinking that if somebody was going to want to talk to me in case you got to me, it might be more likely to go to the Public Service Board website than the Attorney General's website. I don't see this as really jeopardizing the FCC's decision. But that's my opinion, I guess. Well, you're putting this disclosure with the public utility regulator. And so regardless of whether we're actually regulating anything, the more it looks like utility regulation, the more likely there's going to be a challenge and that those challenging the order will prevail on that order or on that challenge. Mark? Can I ask Maria a question? Are you aware of another regulatory entity in state government, although this is your specialty, that requires disclosures? Or are you? I'm probably speaking at a turn here, but the finance industry often has to make certain disclosures. I can't think of a situation. Of course, I don't know everything, but I can't think of a situation where one agency is responsible for maintaining and housing disclosure and other agencies charged with enforcing violations of that disclosure. Are you talking more specifically about disclosures on a publicly available website for consumers or disclosures for oversight of activities? Well, I'm just thinking about this argument that Clay is making where they're the regulators and we're proposing that they also be the place where public disclosure is made, even though they're not the ones that are enforcing that. But the Attorney General enforces all of our laws. We enforce the laws of Title 30. The Attorney General often represents the statement of appeals to the Vermont Supreme Court or the federal court of POC decisions. When it comes to Title IX, they do enforce everything. Robin, I have a question. You are stating that putting this in here and makes it, could make it more likely that we would face a legal challenge. And my understanding is that we face a legal challenge by virtue of acting in any way. Yes. So this would increase the likelihood of a legal challenge. It's confusing because it looks like we're regulating when we're, or it looks like we're asking you to regulate when we're really just asking you to post a website. My understanding of the Restory Internet Freedom Order is the preemption language in that order. Traditional roles of consumer protection are not preempted. Utility style regulation is preempted. So to the extent that your law walks and talks like utility regulation, it is preempted to the extent that it looks like traditional role of the Attorney General and in its Attorney General's office and its traditional role as enforcer of consumer protection laws in the Title IX, that that is not preempted. I guess I would ask that the public, I mean the ISP's telecommunication providers generally interact with the Public Service and Public Utility Commission, but not necessarily with the Attorney General. So why give them an extra level of interaction that they have to go through to say government? Because if this is a system that the legislature decides to move forward with, such a move would fall more under the Attorney General's traditional role as consumer protection. And as utility regulators, part of our job in regulating utilities, for instance, is the collection of information. We've got all kinds of information. Regardless of whether we can act on that information, we collect annual reports from companies every year that ask questions like how many lines in service, how many homes do you pass, financial data that maybe we don't necessarily have the ability to do anything with other than it informs public policy, does that kind of thing. And that is a traditional role of public utility regulation. In fact, many public utility commissions started out, we regulated the railroads. Before we regulated them, we set up very toothless railroad commissions whose job is really to collect information. And it's actually how they built the case that the railroad industry was incredibly unsafe and dangerous and needed to be regulated. So that is a, the mere collection of information is a utility style function. It's a public utility type of regulation. So I mean, I think that's the argument against this particular scheme. So I'll ask a question to anybody who might know the answer. Does the attorney general's office publish lists of anything that, you know, similar to such disclosures? If anything, I was thinking maybe a secretary of state's agency that would publish something like that. But I am sure the secretary of state does. I'm not aware of anything, but that doesn't mean they don't. Because the attorney general's office is generally concerned with litigation. Not necessarily with advertising what kind of compliance standards have to be adhered to. Post any other disclosures on your website? Do we post any other disclosures on our website? Not that I'm aware of. I'll look into that. There may be something in electricity or gas that I'm not aware of. But I've never seen a particular disclosure on our website. But I don't know the answer to that. I'll look into that if you're back to the webinar. So disclosures, that's one question. But you do post information about cell service coverage and maps and all of that. But yet, you can't regulate them under federal law. But you're posting information about them. So how is it this different than that if you're posting information about something that you can't regulate? It's not. I think it's very similar. We post all kinds of information on public services such as cell and broadband, despite the fact that we can't regulate them. We're not preempted from doing that. Arguably here, we may be preempted from doing that. So to the extent that this looks like utility regulation, collecting and providing data and making policy choices based on that data is all something that has been a traditional role of public utility commissions since before electricity. So in fact, I believe one of the first legislative reports that was ever mandated by our department was an almanac of railroad information going back prior to 1900. So that is absolutely a traditional role of public utility regulation. I have other concerns with the bill and I'm happy to look at those as well. The universal service fund, you know, says on page seven. 19. 19th. OK. School dollar. Yeah, I'm sorry. Oh, not 19, but the section that limits funding in 7511. I think this is it. This is on page 14. I just want to draw that community's attention to section on the connectivity funding. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to the contrary, funds to support broadband internet access service as defined in 3VSA 248 and a whole or apart shall be awarded under this chapter only to internet service providers who have obtained a certificate of net neutrality compliance under 3VSA. This shall apply to all awards made on or after July 1st. I think the department's concern here is the relative benefit to doing this. As you know, we have limited funds in the connectivity fund. The high cost fund is equally limited. This could cause companies who would otherwise take funding to bring broadband, and they may decide not to do it as a result of this section. That they cannot or as a company policy will not comply with the net neutrality definition in Title III. And to us, that's concerning for two reasons. First, broadband is a service that we know people in this state very much more. And much of the challenge of bringing broadband to rural Vermont has to do with the cost. The cost of building that service and the cost of maintaining that service. And in many states, public money is being put forward to develop rural broadband. So Massachusetts, New York, Washington state, Tennessee, Virginia, and the states all over the country are doing this. There's a recognition that rural broadband is important. If we limit the number of companies who can participate in these programs, our concerns that we will limit the effectiveness of the connectivity initiative and the high cost fund. But it's a policy decision that your committee should make. And I just wanted to point out to you that this may have an adverse impact on our ability to choose between various technologies, for instance, cable over DSL, fiber over DSL in some areas. Could you repeat that? For instance, I didn't get that. For instance, I'm sorry, cable over fiber or fiber, excuse me, cable over DSL or fiber over DSL in areas where it may be possible to extend multiple different services or choosing between very similar proposals, but with different technology. Laura, in the room. So I hear this argument, I hear the logic in this argument. If there was any serious investment that was happening, this would make some sense to me. I'm not sure what the difference would look like between now but then if we did this, we're almost at none. We're almost at none now. So the argument is making some sense to me, but I think we do need to keep everything kind of unreal also, which is the negative effects. The negative effects, the negative consequences that are possible with the almost non-existent funds that we give you every year to invest are hard to take super seriously. So no comment needed. No, I think I will comment on that. I understand the frustration of this committee in the legislature, who wants to see rural broadband expanded. And personally, I can't argue with that as my job as director for telecommunications. We are advocating for the expansion of these services. However, the places where we don't have broadband today, where we need broadband, are from the perspective of a telecom provider, the worst of the worst. They happen to be some of the most beautiful places in the state of Vermont. But they are from a business case standpoint. Oh, they are my Champlain? They are the most challenging. I thought you had good words. I was referencing the Northeast Kingdom. From a business case standpoint, they are the most challenging. And even if you give money to build broadband in a lot of these areas, the question becomes, can we support the ongoing operations? And in some cases, not to pick on the cable industry, but the cable industry is built out where they want to be in the state. And so encouraging cable development, which is frankly a very good service to expand. It provides you our state goal of 100, 100 cable can do it. 100 megs down, 100 megs up, cable can do it. Cable comes with TV. Cable comes with a telephone. The cable industry by and large provides you the service that you pay for, which is not always true with other forms of broadband, such as satellite and some DSL companies, according to FCC research, DSL companies are less likely to provide you with the service that you're paying for. Cable companies usually do. And so this is a type of service that we want to see expanded. So, Ted, would you like to finish? Yeah, why don't we let you finish? To the extent that we can do what we can to encourage cable development, I think that's a positive step. So I just want to kind of generally say definitely an ominous error of if you do X or Y or Z, there's going to be a negative consequence. So I think we need to establish that, first of all, where it's pretty hard for the situation to get worse than it is now that we've already kind of touched on. Second of all, any place that I have seen expansion, it's been, you know, and there's a number of providers that have done it who are to be applauded for working with the department. So I don't want to get in your way or in their way to be able to work mentally. I understand that. But I feel like we've got this, you know, if you do nothing, then you're going to be fine. I don't think so because actually what's coming to me is we're already not fine because of the governor's executive order. So I kind of like, and I'm sorry, this is all coming at you, but it's not at you. It's around us all, okay. So, you know, I kind of like to get away from that. You know, we're talking about what's going to incent or disincent good behavior, you know, more of the things that we want. You know, I don't love this section anyway, but you know, the whole notion of, you know, if we do this, maybe, you know, good things will happen. Good things aren't happening now. So, I mean, there's some good things that are happening right now. Yes, excuse me, you know, but, you know. Anyway, I'd like to just kind of move on. I'm trying to show it right. Did you want to respond to that or, you know, as far as I said before, you don't have to. And it's not necessarily just direct to that. You know, it's just in general, you know, there's sense of, you know, like, you know, if you do anything, it's, you know, stuff's going to get really bad. What does really bad look like? I'm not saying that this is going to make things really bad. Well, all I'm saying is that it'll diminish the number of companies that are willing to participate in the connectivity mission. Yes, I understand. And I think that no matter what we do with this bill right here, I think we already have providers that have probably made decisions based on the governor's executive order. So, even if we take that out, I think we already have a problem with providers. Well, arguably the executive order, which applies to government contracts, would apply to the connectivity initiative anyway. So if you want a connectivity initiative grant, maybe not. I don't know that that's a, the difference between a contract and a grant agreement state government is a thing that I didn't initially appreciate. But, I'd like to pull this section up. I'll just say that. I'd like to pull this section up? Yeah. Robin. I have a couple of questions. One is, we did hear testimony on whether a grant is the same as a contract for service. And we're sure that they are different. My first question is the intent of this language and the words that were highlighted, awarded, was to make a distinction between grants that have been already awarded, but the money has not been dispersed yet. Yes. To new grants. Yes. And that this would apply only to new, hopefully not to. Yes, that's how I later, okay. And this, are you having with the wording that it, that it accomplishes that? I am satisfied that the language accomplishes your intent, the committee's intent to only have this section applied to grants that are awarded after July 1st. So, if we issue an RFP in June and an award in grants, just as a purely hypothetical, in August, that we would, we would review the awards for compliance with that valid. So that is, that has made clear to me in this, in this language, I'm raising general policy considerations, high costs, supports, rural telephone. Companies that frankly lost support from the federal government through the redistribution of funds, I imagine you've heard from the independent telephone companies on that issue earlier in the session, but this, this high cost program we have in the state is in some ways to make up for that. It hardly does, but that is the intent of that program. So, you know, companies are, to the extent they're required to make disclosure under federal law, they're making those disclosures already. This adds a new, a new layer of regulation is further complicating their, frankly, small telephone companies' ability to be providing service. This is some of the state's most rural areas. I'm sorry, how does it, they have to state their business practices. Right. How does that complicate them doing business? Well, this is more than stating your, my understanding is that they have to, maybe I'm misreading this, that they're obtaining money through the VUSF, they have to be net neutrality compliant. So, not merely stating their business practice, but actually complying with the prohibition on blocking, throttling, and so on. So, state their business practice and if their business practice is to not participate in blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization, then they are certified. It's the certification under title three, not the one under title nine. So, there's two certifications of the bill. So, there's this one in section 348, which I think is the one that's being referenced here. 348d1, it starts on page seven. So, subsection A of 348 says secretary of administration shall develop a process by which internet service provider may certify that it is in compliance with consumer protection and net neutrality standards established in subsection B of this section. So, then the secretary of administration would provide a certificate, but they are in compliance. And then subsection D of this section, which is on the following page, this is page nine actually, defines Maria. Am I right on this? I think so, there's the certification process that the secretary of administration establishes and it's the certified compliance with essentially five net neutrality rules, no blocking, et cetera. That certification is necessary under this bill or state contract for internet service or an award under the universal service fund. Then there's a disclosure requirement in section of the unit's time at this bill about whether or not you engage in net neutrality practices. So, you don't need to get certified for that. You don't have to get certified, you just have to make a disclosure about your practices, whether they would comply with the net neutrality rules or not, and that's just a disclosure and that's on a publicly available website, whether it's the AGs or the departments. Does that make sense? Is that not part of the compliance, that disclosure? That isn't that what the compliance certificate is based on, that disclosure? There's a disclosure, and maybe as Clay was talking about, that's part of the net neutrality rules, the federal rules that were incorporated in your bill, there's a degree of compliance, you're required to make a disclosure to consumers about your network management practices, right? So, you are prohibited from certain conduct and then there's a required disclosure that you need to make to the consumers. That's all part of net neutrality in general, as it's been defined under the 2015 order, right? You abide by those, you know, the rules and you make the disclosure, the transparency. But the certificate of compliance is based on making the disclosure that you are compliant. Making the disclosure of what your network management practices are in general. You're not to be compliant. They, I believe, in order to take money under the USF or to get a state contract that you have to be, as a ISP, you have to be, you have to certify to the Secretary of Administration that you're not blocking, you're not throttling, and you're not engaging in paying prioritization practices other than the network management, reasonable network management practices that are allowed. So it's very separate from, very separate from the mandatory disclosure because you don't have to be net neutrality compliant under the title of compliance disclosure. Okay, so the way I'm reading this bill is, yeah, you can disclose anything. You can disclose that you're not net neutrality compliant. That you're not abiding by that neutrality. So that doesn't get you a certificate of compliance. Correct. The Secretary can only issue a certificate of compliance if you would say that you are abiding by the provisions of net neutrality, right? It's a little bit different of a disclosure requirement. So if you think of it this way, think of five rules under the 2015 order, the net neutrality rules, and the so-called neutrality rules under the open internet order. This is what all companies have to comply with now for as long as the rules are in effect until 23rd, I think. You can't block, you can't throttle, you can't engage in paid prioritization, you can't, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, no unreasonable interference and disclosure of your network management practices. That's not that you are net neutral, that's what are your practices? What are the speeds that you provide? What are the charges for the speeds and the service? This is all to inform the consumer of what your practices are. You already can't block, you can't throttle, you can't do paid prioritization, that's required under the existing 2015 order. But there's an additional requirement that you keep your consumers, your subscribers informed of all of your practices. Once a reasonable network management practices, what are the speeds of your service and how much are you charging? That's just a disclosure that you need to make as part of being consistent. As part of getting the certification by the sector, right? And just like under the 2015 order, this proposed bill has the same requirements to get certified that you're in compliance with net neutrality standards. You don't engage in certain practices, you make the requisite disclosure to your consumers about general practices. So, and the only companies that need to get certified under this proposal are companies that want state contracts or they want state dollars in the form of the grant. So keep those separate. Then there's an additional requirement just in general. Your provider, ISP, doing business in the state of Vermont, you need to live in a department. No, in general, whether you comply with the net neutrality standards or not, you're not required to do one or the other, you just have to make that disclosure so that people can go to a website, look at the various companies, your determination maybe about who they want to do business with and what the options are. Does that make it? Yes, but with regard to these USF funds, they require the certificate of compliance with net neutrality standards in order to be awarded. Yes, state grants, yes, and state dollars under the Vermont Unions of the Presidential Service Fund to get an award, state dollars, you have to certify compliance with net neutrality just like you do to get a state contract for internet service. What? Those companies, yes. So if we take this out. If you take Rich out. The section about USF funds. Then you no longer need to be prepped. And basically we've removed the last baby tooth we've got in this thing, because we have the waiver in there, we've already removed most of the teeth. We've got one little baby tooth left and that's this. But the question that I asked originally is how is this a burden? You said this would be a potential burden on some small providers. To the extent that they can't or it's not in their business to be compliant with net neutrality as defined here, the value of a high cost fund is, it is tied to broadband, but it's also tied to telephone service. These are traditional telephone companies providing traditional telephone service in areas where, frankly, they have a history of being subsidized because the business model is so challenging in these areas. And this fund isn't very important for that continued support. So to the extent that we're going to have another criteria that they have to be in a neutral. And I'm sure many, I don't only speak to the telephone companies, but I think some of them will certify some won't. But you may be eliminating a valuable funding source for companies that either can't in their best interest to be compliant under Title III. Do you expect that some ISPs or phone companies will not seek certification? I don't know. Proclaim. I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. I think it's very likely that some companies will choose not to certify it for whatever reason. In terms of public support, that's their selling point. That's what they would want to proclaim. You may want to talk to the independent phone companies about this particular provision and see what their, I don't want to speak for their group on this issue, but as far as the connectivity initiative goes, many of the companies who could actually extend the best service in our state may choose, they're setting national policies about it, and they may choose not to participate in a small grant program in Vermont. It may not be that valuable to a large natural company, but it is incredibly valuable to us as a state to have that service expanded. So I'm not sure how much of an incentive this is going to be for, on the grant side, for companies to participate in that program before. One more comment. So in terms of broadband getting the highlights, I would think that if a company doesn't, for whatever reason, chooses that it's not in their interest to being that neutral, then I think that gives incentive to the Union Telecommunications District, sort of the EC-Fiber model, to build networks that are, much rather see our money go to support those than a company that is not a neutral comment. Yeah, and I just think the rebuttal to that, and of course we've granted money to EC-Fiber, I think it's probably the second largest grantee that we have in EC-Fiber, it's a great model. It's in 27 towns, it's 24, thank you, a bunch. But not in all 270 towns that we have, and that's an estimate of the towns that have it. There are a lot of places in the state where the obvious choice is a cable company or a telephone company, and the question is whether, with this additional restriction on the funds, well, it's still enough of this incentive to take the grant funding and build, but frankly, they're not obligated to build. So I think that's the question, the concern that I have for this particular group. So I was just, Robin stated pretty much when I was gonna state, but I would say that the smaller providers are probably the least likely to not be. Yeah, that might be the case, but you never know. Don't know where they would have incentive to throttle or not. I imagine even for the large companies, it comes down to what reasons for network management is. It's about managing your network. So just in conclusion, I would say three things about this bill, one, it doesn't model the executive order, which we already have in effect. So it doesn't, many of the same things that we do already, and then it adds the connectivity portion, which we have concerns about. And the last section, the automatic disclosure that looks a lot like public utility, style regulation, I think raises concerns about preemption. So then you don't support it right now. Thank you, Craig. All right, thank you very much. I have one more. Oh, sure. So just to make sure that I'm clear, and I don't know if this is for you when I see Secretary Quinn is here also, with regards to the underlying bill here and the executive order, I just wanna ensure that what would be the consequences of, we drafted, so our poll, I'm trying to catch up to where I was, not poll, our weaver piece that we had in here is different than the weaver piece that's in the executive order, yes. So that was my question. So what is the difference between the two weaver pieces? So the governor's executive order waiver and then the waiver that's in the Senate. Sorry, I believe there was no waiver in the Senate. Yeah. Correct. Okay. Senator Brock, though, had a proposed and a lower amendment which took me into account. This is my back, yes. Is the Brock language in this draft? Thank you. I can't interpret my own. Okay. It is, yep. We haven't reviewed it, but it's in the latest draft. So. Based on last week's presentation. That was, what pages, is it the highlighted intent here or the waiver? Okay. We know the executive order. Yeah, so highlighted poll page. Yeah, starting in section B. Here we go. Yep. Still forward, forward, yes. And another picture is almost everything. The executive order says waivers to these procedures may be granted by the secretary only upon receipt of a written justification from a state agency and a finding by the secretary that a waiver would serve a legitimate and significant interest of the state. The department of public service shall resolve any disputes over the definition of terminology used in the executive order. This waiver says notwithstanding certification requirement in A, the secretary may waive such a requirement if he or she determines that a waiver is the sole option available to mitigate his imminent threat to the continuity of critical government operations that the waiver is in the best interest of the state and that the waiver is first approved by the emergency board. Um, so this waiver provides additional requirements from the secretary of administration's role under the executive order. So Senate Brox is more expansive than... Well, more restrictive of the secretary's ability to grant a waiver. And then you have this intent language underneath the C that... Senate Brox, was that considered by the administration for the executive order? I'm just wondering if there was a choice made to go to this. I would look to Secretary Quinn for the administration's position at the particular waiver. I don't remember. May I? Yes. So with regards, can we see... John, at some point, if I don't find yourself... For the record, John Quinn, in terms of individual services? Yes, you're next. So with regard to Senator Brox, amendment that he had proposed that was then defeated. And then we had the executive order, which looks similar. We've gone back and put in... We're trying to figure out how to incorporate, you know, what the differences are here, what the pieces are. So... Is there something wrong of what the executive order outlines for a waiver process. So I think we felt that it was too expansive. And so what we wanted to understand is what the concern is of the administration of making sure that it was a little wider than what Senator Brock, and maybe you didn't consider Senator Brock's, but if you did. I don't recall whether we talked specifically about Senator Brock's, like, actually that he had. OK, great. I think as far as C goes, that the Secretary of Administration would only grant the waiver if all other unions are training and servicing payouts. Is this one, I mean, there needs to be more cause, not just like, well, we're just looking at the grant. So it sounds like we have no position on that. You all haven't had a chance to review that. We'll take a look. Is this the first you guys have seen this thing? No, I saw it. Yeah, it's been in the bill since, I think, Friday, so. I think it's word for word, Maria, right? Word for word, the same as the thing. Let me check Senator Brock off on the side of a different version. The 11th, the 6th. The 10th, the 6th. There's draft that came out on Friday, 12th, 12th. So there's like an earlier in the morning draft that's a little different, right? Offer no other questions for me, thank you very much. Well, I guess I just wanted to ask that at some point, if you could tell us how you feel about the point you said, would there be a position on it in some administration? Absolutely, thank you. Thank you very much. So we've had Maria in this discussion somewhat. Does the committee want to have to walk through? There was one more question we had for Maria, too. So why don't we have Maria come up? And, John, did you want to test this point out, because you were on the list. That's right, so I don't need to. Clay did a good job with the administration's position, but I do have to go testify downstairs. So if you have any questions for me, ask the time, or I can come back later. That was it for me, I guess. Does anybody have any questions for the secretary that the commissioner wasn't able to answer, or his answer wasn't, I don't think so. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Maria? Maria? Yes. So with regard to lawsuit dollars, next, Maria Royal with Legislative Council, you would ask last Friday if there were other examples where the General Assembly was concerned about litigation regarding a specific act, and if they ever set aside any money. The GMO discussion. Two examples, yes. The GMO labeling law did, is part of that act establish a genetically engineered food labeling special fund. And that fund was to pay the costs or liabilities incurred by the attorney general, or the state in implementation and administration of the program. What program was that? The labeling program. So any litigation is probably the GMO. Yep, GMO labeling. And in terms of the amount of money in the fund, it could accept private gifts, be it grants, et cetera, then accept for those recoveries that by law are appropriated for other uses up to $1.5 million of settlement monies collected by the office of the attorney general, that as determined by the AG after consultation with the joint fiscal office, exceed the estimated amounts of settlement proceeds July of 2014, the nutshell of that. And then the only other one that somebody mentioned to me, there was back in 2013, some anticipated litigation with respect to a grand list of appeals involving trans-Canada hydroelectric property. And so money was set aside to hold municipalities that were going to be engaged. And the amount there was set aside of $50,000, which was transferred to the attorney general, and then could be dispersed to the municipalities. OK, Maria, if we could just take us through your highlighted short parts in the future, and anybody have any questions about other language, go ahead. But in the meantime, let's just look at the changes from this latest draft. I'd be happy to do that, yes. For the record, we're a Royal Legislative Council. Sorry for not saying that sooner. You did, right? Did I? Honestly, I can't keep track of anything you think. I think you kind of went through the first one, which is the waiver provision with respect to state contracts. And that is identical to Senator Brock's language. So it's pretty restrictive about what constitutes the waiver consistent with this provision. Do you want to go through it? Can you tell again? I have a couple of political questions about it. Do you know what the vote was? Was there a roll call? Was it a voice vote? And do you call it the reason that the committee opposed it? As a whole, I don't know. I mean, Senator Brock is on the finance committee. So obviously, he did not oppose it. As far as the other members, I don't know how they voted. I'll talk to him. We may have an answer. In the meantime, let's go. And so do you want to go through this language in detail? We had a good discussion the other day. Is anybody? Laura? This section, I wouldn't mind to run through it. And then I have a number of questions. Sure. OK. So as you can see, this pertains to state contracts. This is a provision that requires the Secretary of Administration to amend the procurement bulletin 3.5, requiring that all ISPs comply with net neutrality to get that certification. So then subsection B, notwithstanding the certification requirement in subsection A, the Secretary may waive such requirement if he or she determines that a waiver is the sole option available to mitigate an imminent threat to the continuity of critical government operations, but the waiver is in the best interest of the state and that the waiver is first approved by the emergency board. And then a statement of intent, it is the internal assembly that the Secretary will not seek a waiver under subsection B until after he or she has made all reasonable efforts to enter into a contract consistent with the terms and conditions specified in subsection A and has determined that without a waiver, the critical functions of government will be at risk. And then I don't think we've really talked about the publication section last week. And so you may want to consider it here in this context. The Secretary shall disclose on a publicly available website the names of all ISPs awarded government contracts under this section and whether their provider is in compliance with the consumer protection and net neutrality standards. If a provider is granted a waiver under subsection B, the Secretary shall provide the reasons for granting the waiver. So now we've got two websites. We have to get that conceivable. You could do both. You could combine them. I think that's a policy choice. I would say if we're doing either or both, let's try it. Let's try and actually not make a scheme of a behemoth. Instead of giving it to the Department of Public Service, put it all under the Secretary of the Administration. Maybe the Administration will have an agency of digital services. It's not there. It's not there. I mean, it's really the AG or TVS. You had asked about other disclosures. So I just sitting over there. I just quickly tried to find some good examples to find three. There's a law that requires drug companies to disclose gifts that they make to health care providers. That law specifies that the Attorney General shall make all the disclosures, all the disclosed data publicly available and searchable through an internet website. And two of the two others that I came up with, one had to do with unsafe children's products. The other had to do with unsafe chemicals in children's products. And that information is posted by the Department of Health. So the manufacturers disclose the information to the Department of Health, they put it on the website. So those are just sitting there for three, I think, right. Well, I like this language. I think it's pretty high in the cloud. Can I just follow up on that, what she was just saying? In terms of regulatory, so the Department of Health. That's the right hand. So my question is going to the bottom of page seven, on the top of page eight, where we talk about net neutrality compliance. Sorry, bottom of page seven. So line 19 does not engage in any following practices. OK. The first one's blocking. A is blocking B is throttling. And C is paid prioritization. But that has an exemption in it. Yeah, that's in subjection C. And I'm wondering if that is how that intersects with the new waiver language, or if it's necessary. There may be some overlap, but this waiver is specific only to paid prioritization. And do you know why we had to bet? This waiver, this is consistent with the 2015 order, the open internet order. The FCC has a similar waiver provision. And I believe it's been a while since I've looked at the order and some of the background information. I think their concern here had to do with public safety emergency systems. So for example, FirstNet is going to have prioritization of calls. We wanted to make sure that they could continue that. And to the extent that there were other areas, whether it's health care, that this is just one waiver provision. The other waiver provision that we looked at, which is much broader in that you might not have to get certification at all, I think, was intended to address a situation where there isn't a provider in the lower area that's not well-compliant. And critical government services are at risk. Where is that? And that's the one that we just went through this, right? So is this a language drive? OK. I think so. Oh. I'm just still trying to figure out how that paid prioritization, right? That one referred to two-piece overlays, the waiver or an emergency person. I wouldn't contradict this, because they're not the same. They're not the same. So the paid prioritization, it's similar to an extent, but it's only a waiver for paid prioritization. And only if the ISP demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the internet in Vermont. Under the other provision, the government may be looking for a contract in a particular municipality. And there may only be one provider, and that provider does not want to be net neutral, compliant. Going back to the paid prioritization waiver. So the first net or emergency communications, which it seems would not be a paid prioritization waiver but an emergency public safety waiver, I'm just worried about creep here. Well, there's always a check that it's the secretary has to make the finding. But I think for a first net, it is a paid prioritization. I think the first drivers pay a fee. It's a nominal fee. And you do get your calls will take priority over other calls. It's my understanding. So it falls within the definition of paid prioritization, but it's for a public purpose. It's not for a community area. But would that same prioritization extend to emergency personnel on a different carrier? It would be any carrier that provides a service. A first net is just the one that I'm familiar with. So that any other provider. Can you help me walk me through that? Yeah. So the first net system is operated by AT&T. So for first net, would all emergency responders if their contract is not with AT&T but Verizon and there's poor interoperability, is that paid prioritization for Verizon customers? Or is that just to emergency public safety prioritization? I'm not sure I understand your question. I think it's both. So any first responder that has a service and they want prioritization of that service, they could get a waiver. The company that provides a service could say, look, we are prioritizing and we're prioritizing for these subscribers. For this purpose, is that OK? And the secretary can say, in that instance, that serves a public interest benefit and it does not harm the open nature of the internet. I guess the part of my question is about the purpose of first net is a, and I don't want to get hung up on first net, but it's the purpose of first net is to enable emergency responder communications and there shouldn't be any paid prioritization involved in that it should be emergency communications or prioritized. You can double check, but I think the service that they provide is a paid service. That's my understanding. We have to double check that, but I think the first responders pay for the service might be a nominal amount, like a dollar or a month. I know that was an issue, that they wanted to attract as much business and in fact they have to have a certain number of subscribers within a certain period of time, but it's a paid service. And if it's not a paid service, then it's not prohibited. So you don't need a waiver, you just do it. So this captures that instance where it is a paid service making sure that's going to be exempt. If it isn't a paid service, it is. It is a paid service. Yes, I believe it is a paid service. We paid a subscription fee to, a retail subscription fee to have the service. Do you remember the testimony, Robin, that's how they're going to start competition? That's what we're trying to do. Anything to answer? So in the larger question, this is different than the waiver. The other waivers are more general. For a state contract, you don't have to be that neutral. That's conceivable under this provision. If under the centerbrock language, in these very limited circumstances. Don't move on for now, just to look at the other. Is our goal just to go through the changes? Yes. And we're not voting. Does the committee want to vary the vote on that? The chair would like to wait until he's here. So the only changes with respect to the Universal Service Fund awards, you remember the language last week was disbursements, I think, and that suggested that the same civilian made was to clarify that it's, these are awards. So that's the only change there. So it's a kind of shout-out to all awards made on or after July 1st, 2018. Oh, and this is just highlighted this because I think you wanted to add on the language that was in H581, which passed the House. It's now in Senate Finance. You're taking it up again this Thursday. I think you requested that provision, which is just under the Connectivity Initiative, a specification that the money's only for capital improvements, not for operating and maintenance expenses. So that's the same as what was in H581. And then I think the other request was to add a severability provision to this bill. So we put the 581 into this? So this now has 581? Everything? Not 582, 581, yeah. Right, but everything in 581? Yeah, it was, it's just that language you see on page 20, that's two through four with respect to Connectivity Initiative grants. That's all 581 had? Yep, 582 was the increase, 0.5% increase. So if the Senate does pass 581 as we sent it over, what happens to the language, it's worked out in the end. Yeah, we'll reconcile it all in the end, but right now they're perfectly consistent, so. But at this end, we've done it to see word for word that one of that was dropped by these guys. So anything else? Just making sure it's been a while since I really skipped over something, I don't think so. So the two open issues for me now are the administration's position on Senator Brock's amendment, what their position is on that, and then the piece with the grants. So. Well, I don't know if that's what you guys wanted in. Yep, yep, okay. Well, I'd like to say that I think the waiver, what it's worth, I think it's really good language, I think it allows for waivers, but it spells out that it's not to be easily done. I'll get back to you from an answer on that. Did you write that, Maria? I wrote it with Senator Brock. Yeah, very good. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And in that waiver. That's just my opinion. Okay, it's impressive, I think for you and Clark. Approval by the emergency board. So there's another set of eyes and it can happen year round. Yeah, it's just a number of checks on it. You got the clerk. Yes, it would be the emergency board comprised of the governor and I believe the four money chairs. So it has to be, there's only a waiver if it's pretty clear it makes that happen. I mean, what are the waiver like? And I'll play, I'd suggest hearing maybe from small phone companies. No, the waiver though. No, no, this was on the grant eligibility. High cost, yeah. And so that would be the, there's an association of the, I'd like to say half. Yeah, yeah. I'd like to hear from them regarding the grant eligibility. All right. Mike, so we have nothing scheduled for the week, right? We have one testimony tomorrow with Bart Neal and update from the E911 board. Otherwise our week is fluid until Friday afternoon on our site visit. We have a Thursday, right? Right. Oh, we have a Thursday at 10.30, right? Oh, I think we'll see you. Yes, correct. That is correct. That's right. That's right now. Quebec is Wednesday. That's the same as it. Is it here on the bag? It's on the trial. It's to department of... On that channel, right? It's across the street. Quebec folks will come tomorrow, right? We're supposed to meet then. But I'm trying to... Yeah, it is this week, but I don't know what day it is. Back in your sports day. I haven't been meeting all of you guys. I don't know what you... I don't know anything about you. Yeah, I think it's a joint thing. I'm not sure resources... Yeah. What's Thursday at 10.30 down stairs. We have some students coming in. It's tomorrow, but I didn't make the time. Client, people from Quebec, join the committee. I have one Thursday. Yeah. There's a lot of news to be... Okay. And just to say, because I'm sitting here and I just looked it up, the waiver provision. There was a roll call. On the block thing? Yeah. I've got it right here. There was a roll call. It was disagreed to a roll call. Oh, it was on the... Yeah, it was on the bill itself. On the bill itself. So the bill... Five negative. Yeah, 23 to five. So... But that's the bill. On the bill. Yeah. So on his amendment, there's a first vote. Just agreed to. Yeah. Thank you. I'm gonna start there. Disagrees were brought. Yeah. Benning. All right, so when do you think we could... I don't think we're reaching the last vote. You know what I mean? You want to try to get these people... Client, when could you give us testimony on the waiver, do you think, tomorrow? And then we... Robin, what do you want to hear from me? It's the... The particular town. What's the... Tell them as soon as you get them on. Subway. Subway. Subway. Of course, we're quite happy to get them. Ron, there's the same... Amy is the obvious. Roger, me, she's... So they have somebody hand over the bill. Yeah. So what do you think tomorrow morning? Usually, what, nine o'clock? Try to get these two things. Because I know... Cory with I think it... I don't know about the chairman. Okay, we'll meet at nine o'clock tomorrow? Sounds good to me. Okay, I might have a question for Cory. Cory, the larger providers, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, how much have they taken advantage of the U.S. sub funds for the... Comcast has. Subway's awarded grants in the past to Comcast. But if Comcast and Charter have any proposals, frankly, I'd like to see that continue. AT&T, our AT&T mobility and Verizon wireless have traditionally not taken funding through the U.S.F. Any other? So we're a representative of Comcast? Or what is your... I'm not sure. What... Did I state it in a position? Comcast is the Creston. Creston. I imagine... Starr. Chuck Starr was AT&T, Nick Creston is Comcast, and Leonine, again, is for NECDA, which is the Cable Association. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that they are in opposition to this bill. Yeah. They're in opposition to this bill. Let me take the guess away from my question. So, Robin, I don't like this person or... So, before Maria leaves, too... Let me just get the schedule. So, who's the... Jamie... Jamie, who? Who's the... He's here. Who represents the small ones? Depends. Depends. Okay.