Brief (1)
HB 2984 would require fiber-optic cable owners to submit to the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Chief Information Technology Architect (currently, the Director of the Division of Information Systems and Communications) information identifying the location, maximum capacity, ownership, quantity of "dark fiber" (unconditioned fiber), and other characteristics of fiber-optic cable considered relevant in planning for a statewide fiber-optic cable network. This information would have to be submitted on or before September 1, 2000, and every six months thereafter. Information need not be reported on fiber-optic cable placed within local telephone company exchange areas, with a point of presence in Kansas. However, all businesses, including businesses not under the Kansas Corporation Commission's jurisdiction, must report the requested information (other than the information specifically excluded from reporting requirements), if they place and operate fiber-optic systems in Kansas which provide telephone, data transmission, or video transmission services. The requested information would enable the Commission to produce a consolidated map depicting the location of fiber-optic cable in Kansas. The map itself would not be considered confidential but the other information submitted to the Commission and the Chief Information Technology Architect that would be used to produce the map may be designated as confidential. Noncompliance with the information submittal requirements could result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day.
Background
HB 2984 was drafted in response to a legislative concern raised before the Select Committee on Information Management with respect to policymakers' inability to access information about the specific location of fiber-optic cable throughout the state. It was argued that the lack of such information makes it difficult to estimate costs of certain broadband network projects, such as the statewide technology-based education network (KAN-ED) which is currently under consideration.
Mike Murray, Sprint; Mike Reecht, AT&T; and Doug Lawrence, Southwestern Bell, expressed concern about the sensitivity of the information that would be disclosed given the competitive nature of the telecommunications industry. Mr. Reecht's and Mr. Lawrence's testimony also raised issues of security if such information were disclosed. Finally, Mr. Reecht asked whether the requested information would even be relevant. He argued that the presence of deployed fiber optics does not mean that such deployment would be made available for the state's use. Moreover, a company that has not deployed fiber optics may deploy it in response to a Request for Proposal.
The House Committee amended the bill to address the telecommunications companies' concerns about protecting their security and competitive interests. To that end, the Committee added language that allowed the Commission to designate submitted information as confidential. The Committee also deleted many characteristics of the fiber-optic cable that would have been depicted in the consolidated map.
The Division of the Budget's fiscal note on the introduced version of the bill indicated estimated FY 2001 expenditures of $164,607 for 3.0 FTE positions and operating costs. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html