House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB380 - Committee on Utilities
Short Title
Prohibiting municipalities from imposing additional requirements on video service providers for the provision of wireless services.
Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 12, 2020
Chairman Masterson opened the Hearing on SB380
Staff gave an overview of the bill. (Attachment 19)
There were no questions.
PROPONENTS
Stepehn Duerst appeared on behalf of the Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association in support of SB380. (Attachment 20) He said, like many other industries, the telecommunications industry is continuing to evolve technologically to better serve its subscribers and other third-party customers. Specifically, our member companies use micro wireless facilities, or devices about the size of a shoe box, to deliver broadband more rapidly and in a more cost-effective manner. These micro wireless facilities receive broadband signal from our hybrid fiber optic/coaxial cable network lines that have been installed in the ground. These micro wireless devices are mounted to the strand that runs from pole to pole in the right-of-way in cities across Kansas. The strand is owned by cable providers. He later stated that today, we are coming before the legislature to codify federal law as interpreted by the FCC as well. Our providers have had issues with municipalities trying to double-tax them for trying to install micro wireless facilities on the strands, and have since been ordered to halt any deployment until the issue is resolved.
Megan Bottenberg, Cox Communication stated that Cox is the largest provider of broadband services in Kansas, serving 92 communities across the state. We operate under the State Video Authorization Certificate under the Kansas Corporation Commission, which addresses our right-of-way obligations. Additionally, through that authorization we provide local units of government in Kansas more than $10 million annually in video franchise fees as outlined in KSA 12-2024. (Attachment 21)
SB380 codifies current practice and federal law-the right to offer non-cable services over our own cable system without paying an additional fee on top of video franchise fee we already pay.
She said this legislation will provide regulatory and tax certainty. Most importantly, this is about Kansas residents. Being able to deploy strand mount, we can provide better user experiences for residents, fire departments, law enforcement and municipal employees who are provided phones and tablets as part of their job tools.
There were several questions for Stephen Duerst and Megan Bottenberg. All questions were answered.
Written Only-Proponents
Andy Huckaba, Huckaba & Associates (Attachment 22)
Opponents
Whitney Damron on behalf of City of Topeka stated that as drafted, SB380 seemingly proposes to grant almost unfettered access to public infrastructure with a prohibition for a city to impose any kind of application process or pay any fee, license, tax or rent for the installation, placement, maintenance, operation or replacement of their facilities (SB380, page 4, lines 10-17) (Attachment 23)
With the absence of a fee, is it assumed there is no value to the cable telecommunications operator for placement of their equipment on infrastructure they do not own or is it now public policy to make any and all infrastructure available to the private sector for nonpublic use? And if so, why should just the cable industry be entitled to such favorable treatment?
The City of Topeka believes SB380 is an overreach int a city's management of its infrastructure and should not be passed.
Mike Taylor, Unified Government Public Relations stated that Unified Government is the steward of public right-of-way on behalf of the citizens who own that land. SB380 takes control of public right-of-way from cities and gives it to cable companies. (Attachment 24)
For cities - the proposed legislation would override a city's ability to act in the best interests of citizens by allowing cable companies to install wireless technology without any city input or oversight.
They believe that public safety could be jeopardized. Without city regulations regarding placement in the right-of-way and design of monopoles or poles supporting small cell facilities (e.g.break-away poles), serious injury is more likely.
Gary Janzen, City of Wichita said State law has historically and reasonable governed cities' right-of-ways for all utilities and service providers in a manner that balances business growth with community safety and welfare.(Attachment 25) He stated that if this bill succeeds, cities will likely face similar challenges from all other industries, existing and future, that use public right-of-way.
In conclusion, the City of Wichita currently holds franchise agreements with over 25 different utilities, many in excess of 20 years. These long-established relationships have not only created a level and consistent playing field, but provide for the protection of public safety, health and welfare, including the aesthetic environment.
Patrick Fucik, on behalf of Sprint Corporation said that SB380 is attempting to address an issue that Sprint fully supports which is allowing for the deployment of micro wireless facilities that are strung on cables between utility poles in compliance with all applicable codes.(Attachment 26) Sprint is working with several cable companies including Cox here in Kansas to deploy "strand mounted" small cells as part of our network deployment.
So why is Sprint opposed to SB380? It is not the concept we oppose but the manner in which it is being proposed. SB380 as introduced would allow for discriminatory treatment for different types of provider that deploy small cell facilities in the public ROW and favor cable providers over wireless carriers.
Erik Sartorius, League of Kansas Municipalities spoke in opposition to SB380. (Attachment 27) Local governments strive to balance the needs and values of residents with the conduct of commerce. SB380, however, goes well beyond its purported purposes of codifying federal law and addressing parity concerns.
Mr. Sartorius said this is not a bill about simply codifying federal law. This is an attempt to codify an FCC order-an order which is in its third iteration and has been rejected by the courts for first two times.
Cities, and likely committee members, have also been told that the bill has been narrowly tailored to only address the perceived issues with "strand mount" wireless equipment.
He went on to say, nor is this bill simply about parity between service providers. An example, in (f) (8) on p. 4, lines 13-15, municipalities may not "require such holder, or such holder's affiliate, to obtain any authorization or pay any fee, license or tax for the provision of wireless services." The definition of "wireless services" includes "communication service through the use of licensed or unlicensed spectrum, including wifi." "Communication services" includes "cable or video service."
Mr. Sartorius answered questions. All questions were answered.
Neutral
Leslie Kaufman, KEC appears neutral on SB380. As you know, SB380 seeks to address attachment issues associated with placing wireless facilities on lines. It is our understanding that the bill is intended to deal only with municipal attachment policies and fees. As SB380 stands before you now, we are neutral on the bill, but we do respectfully request a clarifying amendment. See attached testimony. (Attachment 28)
Written Only - Opponents
Kathleen Sexton, City of Derby (Attachment 29)
Christopher Weiner, City of Garnett (Attachment 30)
Nick Gregory, City of McPherson (Attachment 31)
Steve Horner, City of Overland Park (Attachment 32)
Jay Byers, City of Pittsburg (Attachment 33)
Colin Hansen, Kansas Municipal Utilities (Attachment 34)
Stuart Little, Northeast Johnson County cities (Attachment 35)
Jay Hall, Kansas Association of Counties (Attachment 36)
Mayor Usha Reddi, City of Manhattan (Attachment 37)
Written Only - Neutral
Molly Kocour Boyle, AT&T (Attachment 38)
The Chairman closed the hearing on SB380.
Meeting adjourned 2:40pm
