Print 🖨

Senate Transportation met on March 17 to discuss SB 507 (Nichols et al.) and SB 5 (Nichols et al.), both of which related to broadband services in certain areas.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Opening Comments

  • Nichols – Notes he intends to lay out bills and then not vote on them until a week later

 

SB 5 (Nichols et al.) (CS) – relating to the expansion of broadband services to certain areas

  • Nichols – This bill has components from Hancock, Perry, West and House sponsor is Ashby
  • Bill represents the state’s first step in bridging the digital divide; it is not a luxury anymore, but is essential
  • Creates a statewide broadband office attached to an 11 member-board in UT system
  • Directs the state broadband office to publish a map to determine areas of; mirrors FCC methodology
  • Office cannot re quire a provider to give more data than they give to the FCC
  • Directs office to establish a broadband incentive program to commercial providers (co-ops are considered commercial)
    • Awards will not be given to those who do not share data
  • Bill creates a broadband development account in the General Fund; state will be prepared for any influx of federal funds or state funds
  • Directs office to create and develop a state broadband plan with stakeholders and state agencies; Texas is one of six states who do not have a plan
  • CS changes are as follows:
    • Adds research functions to existing broadband council
    • Allows the 25/3 megabits speed to be flexible upward in
    • Makes clear the office does not have regulatory authority over broadband
    • Authorizes the office to participate in FCC actions
    • Prescribes map be populated by data under the federal data act
    • Office can contract with third parties in mapping
    • Office to take into considerations in financial awards
    • Makes recommendations on affordability to the legislature
  • West – Need to make certain we do this particular bill, want to make certain the intent of the bill is that all sectors are involved
  • West – Offers amendments to the CS; need to define “underserved areas,” existing and new board need urban representation
  • West – Need to define “urban areas” are counties 2 million or more or a city of 1 million or more and TSU and UNT should be a part of the systems involved in making appointments to the board
    • No current representation from the Valley, is needed
  • Hinojosa – Also an author of this bill; broadband development board should have the ability to coordinate federal funds send to with the cities, counties, school districts
  • Alvarado – Supports this bill, agrees with West’s amendments
  • Seliger – Texas State and Texas Tech are not mentioned here; cannot have all universities represented, but they are all a part of this
    • Nichols – UT as administration, wanted some of the larger systems; were concerned about having too large of a board
    • Nichols – Is open to flexibility
  • West – Concurs that this is too important to not include more perspectives on the board; are other systems than UT, A&M and Texas Tech
    • Nichols – Am open to looking into that
  • Hancock – Agrees it is difficult to have a large board, ERCOT is an example of a large board that can be unproductive, is a difficult balance between representation and effectiveness
  • Perry – Who is important at the table are important, but the stakeholders coming in today are important; intent of the bill is to get broadband to those who want it
  • West – Agrees with Perry, but how do we make sure legislative intent is ensured unless there is prescriptive language to do so
    • Perry – We have a lot of access to broadband in the state, but the intent it to make sure that broadband infrastructure is actually used
    • West – Is there a formal procedure to make certain legislative intent is manifested?
    • Perry – Need to make sure intent is clear
  • Seliger – Intent is to make this bill pending for some time in order to discuss it; mainly looking at the plan, what is going to make a good plan that is actionable and cost-effective

 

Judge Chris Schuchart, Medina County Judge – For

  • Medina County has recently gotten involved in economic development; broadband is a part of that since businesses/entertainment are dependent on broadband
  • The county is a “victim” of poor broadband; broadband is essential for the county to grow
  • Hinojosa – County is already working to extend broadband, are your school districts or cities currently receiving grants for broadband?
    • Not currently, county has applied for an EDA grant to build infrastructure for fiber
  • Hinojosa – What is the size of your county?
    • About 52,000 people
  • Hinojosa – Smaller counties have a difference in funding that comes down to them; reiterates coordination of funds is important
    • School districts had no funding to get kids back to school after the TEA told us to go back to school
  • Perry – Funding did get to the schools eventually, applying as a county and partnering with a provider?
    • Correct, have a local provider that provides fiber; county has a 20% match
    • Perry – There are projects happening today even without a push; reliable and quality are important in this conversation

 

Luis Acuña, Texas 2036 – For

  • Broadband is essential for Texas to flourish
  • Need for digital skills and literacy is essential to function in modern society
  • Digital Texas Coalition has been created to ensure broadband connectivity
  • West – Who are some of the members?
    • Texas Rural Funders, GHP, Commit Dallas, Local Coalitions are involved, Temple Foundation, Andy Roddick Foundation, Texas PTA; will provide the list

 

Jennifer Harris, Connected Nation Texas – On

  • Broadband is essential; CNT first worked in Texas during the initial state broadband initative
  • Funded by Texas Rural Funders; doing data analysis/broadband mapping and help local communities create broadband plans
  • Best practices:
  • Broadband plans provide a framework for local planning efforts
  • State broadband offices demonstrate the state’s commitment to connectivity
  • State level funding programs are important
  • Seliger – Many of the goals and plans sound like what the bill is, why are you not testifying for the bill?
    • In our role as a 501C and on the Governor’s Broadband Council, is important to be neutral
  • Perry – Do you help in the way of small counties for financing/funding/match?
    • Do not help fund, but we help them plan
  • Perry – Are you aware RDOF money requires last mile, meaning they cannot jump over a house; federal maps are going to require that as well?
    • Correct, when data from the FCC is released, anything reported on the map will be a home to which a provider can connect to within 10 business days
    • Perry – That will take many of these households off the table?
    • Correct
  • Perry – Do you think data is available in Texas today to highlight areas not demarked without waiting for federal or other data?
    • Our maps would get us started, is important to remember maps can always be improved
    • Perry – What do you do to get public feedback?
    • In presentation, in support with Texas Rural Funders are working directly with 27 rural communities/counties across the state to gather data; notes they are working with Bastrop County
  • Perry – What did you chose for your vehicle to find out what their broadband was?
    • Working with COGs and was traveling
    • Perry – Was the COG the most effective way to communicate?
    • Is different depending on the community
    • Perry – We are going to wait to get the federal map, but even with that granularity would still need a community survey to verify?
    • Correct, is also about figuring out who wants to opt-in and at what capacity
    • Perry – Have you come across the community who does not want it?
    • Yes, has happened in your district several times
    • Perry – Need to understand some people are perfectly happy not being connected
  • Nichols – Perry, bill has a challenge process for those who do not think the map is accurate
    • Perry – From a mechanical view, is important to get those people on the front end rather than the back end
  • West – Does your organization have a listing of the federal/statewide resources to utilize for this purpose?
    • Have published statewide and federal funding guides
    • West – Is that on your website?
    • Yes
  • Alvarado – Thanks for their work, CS changed with the designation of the Census Blocks, do you want to comment on that?
    • Federal legislation is moving away from the Census Block piece and moving to more granularly gathering data

 

Rick Rhodes, Texas Rural Funders – On

  • Broadband access is an issue we have been invested in since 2013; is thankful it is a priority this session
  • 90% of disconnected Texans are in the rural areas and 800,000 did not have any access to broadband; reiterates Texas is one of six states that does not have a statewide plan
  • Broadband is essential and is a necessity; those in rural East Texas pay 400% more for less reliable broadband than other urban areas
  • Lack of broadband for first responders in rural areas could be life or death

 

Kevin Couch, Connect to Educate – For

  • Is a coalition a part of WISPA; were approached by ISDs at the beginning of the pandemic, where our conversation started
  • Used fixed wireless as you do not have to dig trenches for it
  • Have some school districts that are hurting due to teachers catching COVID-19
  • Will be emailing offices on a pitch to deploy fixed wireless to get 10,000 Texans online immediately
  • Perry – Is a lot of misinformation out there, is it fair to say you are still connected to a wire to wireless towers?
    • Correct
    • Perry – Is wireless a challenge to meet reliability and quality standards? Notes there have been reported speed issues
    • Has been a consideration, had to go out and fix things after the winter storm; is definitely up to the business at play what kind of equipment they deploy
  • Hinojosa – Your organization is statewide?
    • Are a part of WISPA and work across the state
    • Hinojosa – Are you a consultant to school districts?
    • Yes, notes they are working with a school district in Texoma on how to fund them
    • Hinojosa – Is difficult to coordinate
    • Is why our coalition was funded
    • Hinojosa – A lot of governmental entities are spending a lot of money on broadband without knowing what they are dealing
    • A lot of the time, they do not have the bandwidth or expertise, so we help with that
  • West – What is WISPA?
    • Wireless Internet Service Providers Association

 

John Mason, AT&T – For

  • AT&T invested over $8 billion expanding wireless; over 15 million miles of fiber line
  • A state plan is critical
  • Important to recognize the benefits; is a gap between subscribership rates and availability of broadband out there
  • Perry – Did you apply for RDOF funding?
    • No;
  • Perry – Concerned that so many do not have access, but we already meet “covered” standards; is concerned about them not taking the RDOF funding
    • Are some situations appropriate provide fixed or fiber; are many reasons why we did not get RDOF funding, believes the FCC maps will be more accurate
  • Perry – AT&T has stayed out of the regulated market, understands why they did not take RDOF monies; notes the appeals process for the FCC map could take a long time
    • Are well down the road with the FCC process
    • Perry – If the maps are not correct, that could be a 10-15 year process?
    • Do not know the timing, hopes it is faster than that
  • Perry – What if you have a service provider adjacent to you that are willing to do that, what is your opinion in allowing others to provide in your service area if you refuse?
    • Are a deregulated company, would not be opposed
  • Hinojosa – AT&T is one of the few that has statewide infrastructure; are those communities allowed to use existing infrastructure?
    • Would be best dealt with by public private partnerships
    • Hinojosa – Will not work with the communities on them using existing infrastructure?
    • Are currently paying communities, where lines are located, franchise taxes
    • Hinojosa – Have the ability to help some communities with wire that is already there; how much to acquire those lines?
    • Is case-by-case; money could be spent better in the private sector rather than a government broadband program
  • Hancock – Give me an example of one of your public private partnerships?
    • Can get that to you
    • Hancock – You cannot name one?
    • Not at the top of my head
  • West – How do you define urban areas?
    • I do not know
    • West – You could not give this committee information on how much broadband deployment in urban areas?
    • Could define as a “metropolitan area”, FCC has released data that about 97% of coverage exists
  • West – 97% is for urban areas? What speed is this?
    • No, overall; is 10 Megabits
  • West – This bill provides for 25/3 megabits, what is the difference?
    • Would be better speed and could hold more bandwidth
  • West – Support the 25/3 megabits?
    • Yes
  • Perry – Is it cost prohibitive to go back and demark existing fiber? It is doable, if the state provided a funding mechanism, would AT&T be more encouraged to bring that service to those who have not been demarked?
    • Is very expensive to lay a mile a fiber; would be a case-by-case basis
    • Can define better who is actually not served
  • Perry – To date, your maps; do you know where your demark is and where it is not?
    • We know where our facilities are
    • Perry – That does not answer the question, we cannot do this without AT&T
  • Nichols – Is one of the reasons to get this bill together, to figure out who does not have it; not trying to regulate and tell AT&T how to spend, but aim to not have redundant infrastructure
  • Hancock – Asks them to follow up on the list of public private partnerships

 

Mike Williams, President Texas Electric Cooperatives – For

  • Thanks, the committee for their efforts; broadband service has a large impact on health and education
  • Has been frustrating watching the slow pace of broadband; SB 14 last session has allowed co-ops the ability to provide that service
  • Mapping is important to determine how we get this out there as soon as possible

 

Jason Marshall, Superintendent Palestine ISD/Texas Association of School Administrators – For

  • ISD did not have the bandwidth to provide everyone with an online curriculum; used pencil and paper for the most part
  • Many students and parents were able to get online, but bandwidth was lacking; highlights the need for this bill
  • Nichols – Telephone co-op outbid local provider for a trunk system; this partnership allows locals to have a percentage of the revenues
  • Nichols – Those partnerships work
  • Hinojosa – Asks what their title was; superintendents had such a challenge during the pandemic
    • Provides a personal anecdote of how their children’s lack of interest/being overwhelmed at online classes
  • Seliger – What would you need most if you had to go back online again?
    • Local taxpayers have provided us with resources and CARES Act have gotten us enough devices; larges issues are bandwidth and internet capabilities
    • Hotspots are not sufficient

 

Daniel Gibson, TSTCI – For

  • Are a statewide association representing telephone cooperatives and other rural independent telephone exchanges in Texas
  • Areas we serve are getting good access from providers; different requirements have been put upon us to upgrade
  • Receive funding from the federal level and state level to help rural areas get service; have areas that are not served, the plan the bill proposes help for that
  • Perry – Notes provider networks in rural areas; if it were not for co-op systems, what would that look like on a broadband map?
    • When all small and rural coops, is about half the landscape of the state
  • Perry – Federal, state, and consumer pay for this?
    • Correct, is a delicate balance; have regulations that need to be met
    • Appreciates the CS that allows flexibility to change the speed obligations
  • Perry – In existing network is what average speed?
    • Varies, but certain territories have 30 symmetrical
    • Perry – The unregulated companies do not provide because they would lose monies, this is a regulated service
    • Fiber opens up a new world of possibilities; service can be watered down
  • Seliger – What are you talking about for this 30?
    • 30 Megabits is the standard
    • Seliger – That is fast, bill is at 25/3; how long will 25/3 be the standard?
    • Yes; is hard to say, right now 25/3 is reasonable for education services
    • Once people get other services like streaming, it eats up capacity
  • West – In terms of upgrades, how expensive/difficult is it for the entire state to do so?
    • It depends company to company
    • West – As we put networks in, would it be logical to view it that they are likely to be upgraded?
    • Will need to be taken into consideration; some systems cannot upgrade; and for co-ops it is cheaper to put in fiber over copper
    • Should try to put in networks that can grow
  • West – What is the difference between 10/1 to 25/3 megabits?
    • Difference is the speed and flow; 10 will be slower
  • West – Would 10 serve several individuals at one time?
    • Limits the amount of content that comes across at the same time; speed is not competitive
  • Nichols – Bill is technology neutral; fiber optic has the ability to carry far more than it can be initially put in for
    • Distance you can take fiber is limited; will at some point need to be replaced

 

Blake Hudson, AARP – For

  • Important for the older population: telehealth, mental health, entertainment, etc.
  • Fully supports the grant program in the bill to support innovation
  • Heard a lot of frustration about mapping; need to improve the accuracy of maps
  • Hope we can overcome some of the “no”s we received when initially speaking the legislature

 

Dan Finch, Texas Medical Association – For

  • Telemedicine has expanded ten-fold within the last year; has become an important tool for physicians to support their patients and expanded coverage
  • Expansion of broadband will allow extension of primary care and specialty consultations

 

Nora Belcher, ED Texas E-Health Alliance/Digital Texas – For

  • The Senate has driven strong legislation last three sessions to expand telehealth, and from this session like Buckingham’s SB 412
  • Is essential to expand broadband services to all especially those on Medicaid
  • 1 in 5 visits in the future will be virtual; this demands robust broadband

 

Richard Lawson, Verizon – On

  • Are a major investor in the private sector; invest $1 billion a year in Texas
  • Supports efforts of SB 5 to move forward in a neutral manner
  • Testifying on because we have not seen the final version, but once we do, will be in full support
  • State mapping language has improved in terms of aligning state data with the FCC; supports additional data provided is voluntary
  • Would like to see closer linkage to the FCC mapping process
  • Prohibiting tax payers over private investment would also be helpful in the bill language
  • Perry – You have bypassed certain households/consumers, what is it going to take for companies like yourself to come back into that market?
    • Are primarily wireless now after selling a lot of their wire to Frontier; do not usually skip houses unless
    • Perry – That is a hard question to answer, but as a state we will now go out and lay fiber
    • When you talked about data improvements, it is to add wireless to that data
    • Perry – If there is an existing provider, then no one will build on top; however, there are issues when they refuse service
    • Perry – Have concerns with giving certain areas a pass for the 80/20 goal; my intention to define an eligibility area would be those who have it, but is not the conversation today
  • Nichols – Although is starting at 80/20, has the ability to change after the maps are created
  • Nichols – Intention is to not change the language at this point, any changes will likely be made in an amendment; not asking to adopt CS today

 

Walt Baum, Texas Cable Association – On

  • Support the office and the plan; appreciate the collaborative process on this bill
  • Suggest broadband funding program should focus on underserved areas first
  • Are going to be providing shape-file maps that go down to the address level, would be helpful in identifying those areas; will not need duplicative services
  • Have been working with the TEA to find those underserved areas
  • West – Asks about the shape-file maps?
    • Is mentioned in the bill is the process members will be providing under the FCC mapping process in order to provide more granular data
    • West – Your organization will be able to provide granularity?
    • Correct, will be able to see if they are served at a 23 level or above
  • Hinojosa – Important to identify those spots that should be a priority; bill aims to focus on those in need
  • Perry – You were awarded a service contract under RDOF to cross through other non-obtained service areas; could be bypassing those who do not have a provider
  • Perry – If legislation allowed you to bid on that service area which is not on; would you be interested in that? Like a state RDOF?
    • Members would be very interested in any other programs in this bill
    • Perry – Notes he is focused on those who are being bypassed; should be addressed in the next round of RDOF?
    • Should be about $11 billion left; more granular mapping will allow us to see those areas and hopefully have a funding process that works for that

 

Scott Stringer, Lumitech/Texas Telephone Association – For

  • State’s broadband deployment is reliant upon a statewide plan; supports the bill and the program will support economic growth of rural communities
  • Supports the creation of the broadband office; will see this bill through to implementation

 

Glenn Hamer, President & CEO Texas Association of Business – For

  • Represents over 2,000 Texas businesses and numerous chambers of commerce; top priority is to provide broadband access to all Texans
  • High speed internet has become like a utility
  • Nichols – Has been a years-long bill with multiple authors

 

Russell Schaffner, Assistant County Administrator Tarrant County – For

  • Commissioner’s Court strongly supports this bill; will work with the legislature to see this bill through

 

Suzie Kennan, President Texas PTA – For

  • This bill will allow for equitable access to education; heard from countless individuals the connection/bandwidth issues
  • Need to invest in statewide connectivity to ensure access

 

Jeffrey DeCoux, Autonomy Institute – For

  • Broadband is vital to the nation; invites the opportunity to discuss funding opportunities for critical need for edge infrastructure

 

Melissa Shannon, Bexar County Commissioners Court – For

  • A lot of the community suffer from poverty and therefore lack the access to broadband

 

J.J McGrath, Tech Wave/ Wireless Internet Coalition– For

  • Supports the bill as it lays a good foundation for innovation

 

Seliger – Received many cards for those who do not wish to testify, a majority of which are in favor of the bill

SB 5 is left pending

 

SB 507 (Nichols et al.) (CS) – relating to an accommodation process authorizing the use of state highway rights-of-way by broadband-only providers

  • Nichols – Directs TxDOT to create rules to authorize broadband-only providers to use state highway rights-of-way for:
    • New broadband facility installations, additions to or maintenance of existing broadband infrastructure, adjust or relocate broadband facilities, or for existing in facilities in the rights-of-way
  • CS makes clear broadband service is defined as having specific internet speeds and makes explicit the rules would be technology neutral
  • Seliger – Received many cards for those who do not wish to testify, a majority of which are in favor of the bill

SB 507 is left pending