Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/14/2022 10:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB363 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 363 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 14, 2022
10:02 a.m.
10:02:20 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donny Olson
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Sponsor; Amory Lelake, Staff
to Representative Edgmon; Nils Andreassen, Executive
Director, Alaska Municipal League.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Christine O'Conner, Executive Director, Alaska Telecom
Association; Lesil McGuire, OneWeb, Anchorage; Mark
Springer, Self, Bethel; Paul Johnson, Self, Anchorage;
Brittany Woods, Alaska Public Interest Research Group,
Fairbanks; Harold Johnson, Self, Anchorage; Michael
Williams, Self, Akiak; Sean Williams, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSHB 19(EDC)
LIMITED TEACHER CERTIFICATES; LANGUAGES
CSHB 19(EDC) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 114 EDUCATION & SUPPLEMENTAL LOAN PROGRAMS
HB 114 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 127 MUNI BOND BANK: UA, LOAN AND BOND LIMITS
HB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSHB 172(FIN) am
MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES & MEDS
CSHB 172(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CSHB 265(FIN)
HEALTH CARE SERVICES BY TELEHEALTH
CSHB 265(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSHB 363(FIN)
BROADBAND: OFFICE, GRANTS, PARITY
CSHB 363(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 363(FIN)
"An Act establishing the office of broadband; creating
the broadband parity adjustment fund; establishing the
Statewide Broadband Advisory Board; and providing for
an effective date."
10:03:31 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing for
CSHB 363 (FIN). It was the committee's intention to hear a
bill introduction and sectional analysis, take invited and
public testimony, and set the bill aside.
10:04:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, SPONSOR, gave a high-level
overview of HB 363. He commented that putting high-quality,
affordable, reliable broadband into every possible corner
of the state was a transformative opportunity. The
legislation would provide the framework to the put the
Office of Broadband into place as a mechanism to receive
federal funds that would come to the state. The bill would
set up a process that would involve a lot of stakeholder
engagement, partnerships, and working relationships
necessary to bring about the changes.
Representative Edgmon detailed that the original bill that
he introduced was taken from the governors Broadband Task
Force, which had been commissioned in May of the previous
year and had finished its work in November 2021. The task
force had come forward with a set of recommendations, from
which the sponsor drew from exclusively when the bill was
drafted in February 2022. He stated he had taken no
creative license and the bill had been slightly amended in
two committees in the House. He thought the task force had
focused on mirroring federal law with broadband language,
which was very prescriptive. He noted that the bill that
emerged from the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee had
tried to achieve similar goals to the bill as originally
introduced but went in a different direction in a number of
ways that his staff would address in their testimony. He
discussed the process of changes to the bill in the
previous committee.
10:07:45 AM
AMORY LELAKE, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, discussed a
Sectional Analysis (copy on file). She explained that
Section 1 of the bill created a new uncodified section
providing legislative findings, purpose, and intent. The
section had detailed information on the states broadband
program. The section also established that the grant and
loan programs referenced in Section 2 were meant to extend
broadband infrastructure into unserved and underserved
areas, and that such programs would provide support to
private entities only under the assurance that assets and
infrastructure funded by grants and loans would be
developed and maintained for public use for at least 15
years.
Ms. Lelake continued that in the codified sections of the
bill, Section 2 added new sections. She cited that AS
44.33.910 established the Office of Broadband in the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
The office would be an essential planning body for
broadband in the state, and the section detailed the
offices purpose, powers, and duties, including
implementation of a statewide plan.
Ms. Lelake detailed that the bill proposed that the Office
of Broadband may also assist applicants for the grant and
loan program established by the bill, as they sought other
funding opportunities. The office may also accept donations
and seek out funding opportunities for which it was
eligible. She listed that AS 44.33.915 established a
Broadband Grant and Loan program. The Office of Broadband
would work with the statewide Broadband Advisory Board
established by the bill, to review applications and provide
support to applicants for planning and construction of
broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas.
Ms. Lelake continued that AS 44.33.920 created a Broadband
Advisory Board, which would work with community engagement
task forces also established by the legislation and would
examine challenges and opportunities relating to regional
connectivity. The board would be composed of eight members
appointed by the governor for three-year terms. Members
would have experience in telecommunications, various
engineering disciplines and broadband technologies. One of
the members would serve as the technology-neutral
consultant, which would be entitled to a monthly salary at
range 27. All other advisory board members would receive
compensation of $307 per day while attending board
meetings, as well as authorized travel and per diem
expenses.
Ms. Lelake cited that Section 44.33.930 created Community
Engagement Task Forces. The number of task forces was not
established in the bill, and the director of the Office of
Broadband would appoint state residents to serve on the
task forces. The groups would include members who represent
tribes, health care providers, search and rescue
organizations, social service providers, the transportation
industry, and regional development organizations. The task
forces would also include state and local public government
officials and tribal or state government employees with
access to judicial records. The task force members would
receive compensation of $307 per day while attending task
force meetings, as well as authorized travel and per diem
expenses. Section 44.33.930 was definitions, Section 3
sunset the bill on June 30, 2030, and Section 4 established
an immediate effective date.
10:11:21 AM
Senator von Imhof asked if there was a difference between
the bill that left the House and the bill that passed out
of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee with regard to
parity. She thought parity was an issue that people had
been focusing on, and she thought the original bill had
addressed the issue.
Representative Edgmon stated that the original bill had
parity adjustment, which had been a recommendation of the
governors Broadband Task Force, and the CS being
considered by the committee did not. He noted that the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) had $65
billion set aside for broadband, with the funds separated
into different buckets. He thought one bucket addressed the
affordability of reliable and high-speed broadband. He
thought members of the Broadband Task Force members would
testify on the subject. He thought the task force was
cognizant about setting up a fund that would not only be a
repository and pass-through location for federal funds, but
also considered funds that might be available for
equalizing the cost of broadband.
Representative Edgmon discussed the expense of broadband,
which increased the further the location was from the
internet source. He thought the parity or equalization
would come into play after other work was done to do
mapping, planning, relationship building, and determining
the unserved and underserved parts of the state.
Representative Edgmon continued to address Senator von
Imhof's question. He reminded that the program was also new
in the federal government. He clarified that the new
version of the bill did not address the parity adjustment
fund.
10:13:50 AM
Senator von Imhof thought Representative Edgmon gave a good
example. She had been to a couple of meetings with the
Broadband Task Force and staff from DCCED, who had
discussed work that had been done in the previous years.
She thought that the bill that left the House had followed
the IJJA parameters very closely, including parity and the
tremendous work the Broadband Task Force had done. She
wanted to ensure it was on the record that the version that
left the House was the result of significant work by the
task force, and followed the most recent set of guidelines
from IIJA.
Representative Edgmon affirmed that Senator von Imhof's
statements were accurate. He reminded that the deadline for
personal legislation was February 18, and there had been a
short amount of time to put the bill together. He noted
that the task force came before the House Finance Committee
on February 1, after which it had seemed integral that the
legislature should be involved in putting forward
parameters for the task force groups and any fund that
might be created. He commented that there was no section of
law that addressed the subject, and the bill was drawn
exclusively from the task force.
10:16:11 AM
Senator Hoffman mentioned that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
was reviewing $6 billion worth of requests in an area that
only had $1 billion. He asked how the sponsor would address
unserved and underserved areas, and thought the topic was
being discussed at the national level in order to have
criteria for awarding the limited funds that were
available. He wondered how the sponsor saw the task force
addressing the issue and interfacing with the funds and all
of the proposals that could overlap. He wondered how
underserved and unserved areas were defined in the state.
Representative Edgmon thought Senator Hoffman had touched
on an important point, with reference to how the mapping
would occur to delineate undeserved and underserved areas.
He detailed that there were technical definitions that were
written into the original bill as well as the federal act.
He mentioned that one the first steps the Office of
Broadband would take would be to work in concert with the
FCC and other entities (such as telecom providers that had
done some mapping) to put together a comprehensive detailed
map of the state to pinpoint the different internet service
levels. He qualified that the thrust of the broadband
program in federal law was to address areas in a priority
ranking, starting with those at the lowest levels of
service or no internet at all. He mentioned areas of the
state that experienced spotty internet connection.
10:18:50 AM
Senator Hoffman thought it would be a daunting task to get
internet in the first place, and thought the larger
question was how individual households would be able to
afford the internet on a long-term basis. He recognized
that many areas in the state were struggling with the high
cost of energy and food. He questioned how certain people
would be able to afford broadband internet if access was
accomplished.
Representative Edgmon thought Senator Hoffman made an
excellent point, which dovetailed with Senator von Imhof's
point about the parity adjustment fund. He reiterated that
the bill was drawn up using the task force recommendations,
which had been as technology neutral as possible. The House
Finance Committee had added an additional reference to
technology neutral, because there were some areas that
would not be able to receive fiber optic cable immediately
or possibly ever. He described other technologies such as
satellites and microwave transmission, which he thought
should be deployed as well. He affirmed that cost would be
an issue. He thought that it was apparent from reading the
federal language that United States Senator Lisa Murkowski
and others had written a lot of the language with Alaska in
mind. He asserted that funding should not be the primary
impediment and mentioned other issues that could slow down
the delivery of good internet at affordable rates.
Senator von Imhof referenced a section in the Senate Labor
and Commerce Committee version of the bill that iterated
such programs would provide support to private entities.
She thought it odd that the language was so prescriptive
and wondered about non-profits and public entities. She
asked if the House version of the bill had something that
specifically stated that grant and loan programs would only
be given to private entities, or if the version of the bill
was more open-ended.
Representative Edgmon acknowledged that he was not involved
in the drafting of the Labor and Commerce Committee version
of the bill. He reiterated that the House version followed
the Broadband Task Forces recommendations, and he tried to
make it the least prescriptive as possible. He reminded
that there would be three different federal agencies that
would be involved and working with compliance issues. He
thought the original version of the bill was less
prescriptive and more open-ended.
10:22:40 AM
Co-Chair Bishop commented that whatever happened to the
bill, he could almost guarantee the bill would be added to
the following year since the federal government was still
writing guidance and things would evolve.
Senator von Imhof asked if it was necessary to have it in
statute to require communities to create local task forces.
She asked if communities could organically and
independently establish task forces as they wished, in
order to apply for grants and attract the task force and
technical advisory group to visit the area and make a plan.
She wondered if people were incentivized to do so because
of the opportunity.
Representative Edgmon thought Co-Chair Bishop had "hit the
nail on the head," and that the bill would be an iterative
process. He commented on the new section of law and
unanticipated developments that would come forward. He
explained that the bill had left open-ended enough so that
the Office of Broadband or technical group could come up
with a relationship with local regional areas. He
emphasized the need for engagement with local entities
during the mapping process. He mentioned anchor
institutions like health clinics, schools, hospitals, and
others. He thought the mapping would need to involve many
parties and be similar to acquiring census data. He thought
a regional area would be well-served to be involved. He
noted that the original bill did not preclude what Senator
von Imhof mentioned from happening.
Co-Chair Bishop emphasized that redundancy was important,
whether via a satellite or landline.
10:26:43 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, shared that he had been a member of the governor's
Broadband Task Force. He explained that he would speak to
two aspects of the task force work that he thought were
very important. He mentioned the advisory board recommended
by the task force, which was there to set the vision and
goals for the Office of Broadband. He understood that at an
agency level, staff would be fulfilling obligations under
statute under federal guidelines, while an advisory board
would be in place to consider the economic, social,
community, cultural, environmental, and other
considerations across the state that would inform statewide
planning efforts.
Mr. Andreassen thought the advisory board activities would
be very different than a grant review committee or a
technical committee, for which the department could work
closely with technical consultants and others. He
summarized the importance of having a separate body to set
visions and goals in a way that was meaningful, that could
drive the work of the Office of Broadband. He thought the
idea was accomplished within the task forces efforts,
which was reflected in the version of the bill that passed
the House.
Mr. Andreassen added that the version of the bill that had
passed the House was broad enough to incorporate a lot of
what might be coming from the federal government, setting
the stage for opportunity without being prescriptive. He
thought the Parity Adjustment Fund was an important element
that came from the task force. He emphasized that every
Broadband Task Force report had included something like a
subsidy to help with broadband and communications. He
listed laudable aspects of the version of the bill that
passed the House: it did not commit to resourcing the fund,
it did not produce a methodology, and it did not have
numbers in it. He emphasized that it was not possible to
know what the numbers would be.
Mr. Andreassen continued to discuss the original version of
the bill, which he thought set up the state to be prepared
for what might come from the federal government to lower
broadband costs. He noted that the parity adjustment was
not long-term and reasoned that the work would take time
before underserved and unserved communities were served. He
discussed the use of a parity fund and mentioned the
possibility of a sunset date or timeline. He thought the
parity adjustment would not be long term. He emphasized the
need for having everything in place at a state level for
planning, deployment, and support in relation to the
federal government and the states priorities to implement
broadband effectively.
10:31:12 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked Mr. Andreassen to provide any written
testimony to his office to pass on to members.
Senator Wielechowski was curious to hear about Mr.
Andreassen's specific concerns with the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committees version of the bill.
Mr. Andreassen offered to follow up in writing. He noted
that the two items he mentioned were very different or not
present in the CS, which were a different composition of
the statewide Broadband Advisory Board and the lack of the
Parity Adjustment Fund.
10:32:19 AM
CHRISTINE O'CONNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA TELECOM
ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
House version of the bill. She noted that the bill was
created in alignment with the Broadband Task Force, and
also aligned with IIJA. She detailed that recently the
notice of funding opportunity (including the rules for the
large amount of broadband funding) was released. She
relayed that an initial look over the rules showed that the
House version of bill was aligned. She underscored that the
House version of the bill created a strong Office of
Broadband that would have the assistance and support of a
multi-stakeholder board. She stressed that IIJA came with
requirements for extensive stakeholder engagement. She
emphasized the importance of the multi-stakeholder board in
implementing the priorities of the task force.
Ms. O'Connor asserted that the House version of the bill
had strong priorities, such as to serve all unserved areas
without 25-megabit service. She mentioned the importance of
provision in the House version of the bill that grant
funding would be open to all interested parties including
non-profits, tribes, other native organizations, or anyone
interested to deploy and provide broadband service. She
explained that the Alaska Telecomm Association represented
15 telecommunication companies and broadband providers
which unanimously supported the bill. She thought the bill
was a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. O'Connor would oppose the
Senate version of the bill.
Ms. O'Connor shared that ATA had significant concerns with
the Senate version of the bill. Specifically, she listed
that the new proposed structure of the board as being not
suited to the consultation obligations. She mentioned
references to dated federal planning and policy that was
not tied directly to the new federal law with IIJA.
Co-Chair Bishop thought he heard Ms. O'Connor comment that
the House version mirrored the most recent guidance issued
from the federal office of NTIA, as recently as a day
previously.
Ms. OConnor relayed that the notice of funding opportunity
from NTIA, the administrator for the vast majority of the
broadband funds, had released their rules the previous day.
The rules equaled about 98 pages in length. In her initial
read, the rules aligned very well with the House version of
the bill.
10:36:59 AM
Senator Wielechowski was trying to understand the
difference with the Parity Adjustment Board and its
importance versus what was put into the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committees version of the bill.
Ms. O'Connor explained that the House version of the bills
statewide Broadband Advisory Board was based on the
Broadband Task Forces recommendation and was a group of
stakeholders representing user groups. She listed
education, healthcare, and commerce as a description of
user groups. The Senate version listed engineers and
technical experts rather than stakeholders she thought of
as uber users of broadband technology. She continued that
the House version of the bill had the advisory board with
user groups, but also adopted a technical subgroup to
advise the Broadband Advisory Board on the important
technical issues but would not be tasked with doing broad
engagement.
Senator Wielechowski clarified that his question was with
regard to the Parity Adjustment Board. He interpreted that
there was a replacement of the Broadband Parity Adjustment
Fund with the Broadband Grant and Loan Program.
Ms. O'Connor affirmed that in the House version, there was
a Broadband Parity Adjustment Fund, which allowed for the
establishment of a fund to support the offset to consumer
costs if there were funds identified. There was no board
directly tasked with the Broadband Parity Adjustment. In
the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee version of the bill
there was no Broadband Parity Adjustment.
Senator Wielechowski wanted greater understanding regarding
parity adjustment. He wondered who parity adjustment
helped. He noted that he represented low-income Alaskans in
East Anchorage, and he wanted to know which bill version
would help his constituents to get low-cost internet.
Ms. O'Connor emphasized that the House version of the bill
would allow for what Senator Wielechowski described. She
continued that the broadband parity adjustment was modelled
after a federal program called the Lifeline Program, as
well as after a program in IIJA called the Affordable
Connectivity Program. The program simply meant that if a
consumer had income at or lower than 200 percent of the
poverty level, they would qualify for a credit on their
broadband bill. She cited that under the Affordable
Connectivity Program there was a $75 credit.
Senator von Imhof thought one of the differences was on
page 4, line 15, "the Broadband Grant and Loan Program is a
competitive grant and loan program to award funding to
eligible applicants to award funding to eligible applicants
to promote access to broadband. She thought the language
indicated that Senator Wielechowski's constituents would be
competing against other constituents, and perhaps whoever
had the best application would receive the funds. She
thought a competitive grant program came down to whomever
could write the best grant.
Ms. O'Connor stated that the way the House version was
structured allowed for the parity adjustment, which was not
competitive but based on low-income qualification. The bill
also allowed for a grant program for deployment activities,
which would reach unserved locations. She noted that the
grant program was required for federal funding. The House
version of the bill had both, while the Senate version
dropped the broadband parity adjustment opportunity.
10:41:56 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:42:10 AM
LESIL MCGUIRE, ONEWEB, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She noted that she was a
lifelong Alaskan that had served the state alongside many
of the members in the room. She thought the sponsor should
be commended. She emphasized that Alaska was the least
connected state in the nation for a variety of reasons,
including lack of competition, new providers, and
acceptance of new technologies. She thought the bill should
be a combination of the two versions that had been
discussed. She agreed with Co-Chair Bishop's comment that
there would be change associated with further emerging IJJA
regulations. She lauded the findings section in the Senate
version of the bill.
Ms. McGuire continued her testimony. She thought the board
process outlined in the House version of the bill was
problematic. She stated that her organization was in the
emerging technology area of broadband and were doing work
outside the mainstream of the industry. She mentioned
OneWebs work with satellites. She explained that broadband
members were not allowed to be part of the Alaska Telecom
Association (ATA). She emphasized that OneWeb served the
unserved and underserved. She advocated adopting a version
of the bill with either no industry representative, or two
industry representatives. She thought the Senate version
had a creative way of involving community members. She
summarized that she hoped for the creation of an advisory
board that was more inclusive.
10:45:41 AM
AT EASE
10:47:20 AM
RECONVENED
MARK SPRINGER, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He was a consultant for tribal
broadband, working with the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Tribal
Broadband Consortium (YKDTBC) which consisted of 17
federally recognized tribes. He expanded that YKDTBC had an
application with NTIA for a multi-purpose broadband system
and were currently testing OneWeb in Bethel and Akiak. He
mentioned a tribal recognition bill recently voted on by
the legislature. He thought it was important that the
committee recognize that the first funding coming in from
NTIA for broadband in Alaska would be directed towards
tribes. He supported Version D of the bill by the Senate
Labor and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Springer expressed concerns about the parity
adjustment, which he thought could be looked at as an
industry subsidy. He thought there was no evidence in rural
Alaska that subsidies reduced cost. He echoed the comments
of Ms. McGuire regarding less-than-equal representation by
industry segments in the planning process within the House
version of the bill. He commented that he had lived in
rural Alaska for over 40 years. He supported the Senate
version of the bill, which he thought created somewhat of a
"brain trust," with the inclusion of engineers and local
advisory groups. He reminded that the Broadband Office
would be developing a set of regulations to run the
process. He thought the office should be trusted with its
regulatory responsibility.
10:50:07 AM
PAUL JOHNSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He worked in telecom. He
had grown up in rural Alaska and worked in Yakutat doing
broadband consultation. He wanted to commend the governor
on his task force membership selection. He thought the
previous commenter was correct in that the first funding
coming for broadband would be for tribes. He thought it was
important to keep people in rural Alaska in mind. He
expressed concern about public money being used to build
the assets of privately held companies that could be sold.
Mr. Johnson continued his remarks. He understood the demand
for fiber-optic technology. He remarked on the importance
of timing and permitting issues in capital projects. He
wanted there to be a focus on immediacy and using tribes as
a conduit. He discussed parity adjustment and was concerned
that there would be no economic forces to contain costs if
fiber-optic cable was used as the final mile to homes. He
asserted that there would not be multiple fiber-optic
operators going to a community. He supported provisions
related to community engagement.
10:52:48 AM
HAROLD JOHNSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported the bill. He was president of Alaska Tribal
Broadband, which was a 30 tribal member consortium. He
cited that 29 of the tribes did not have access to fiber
optic technology and would not for many years, and the
tribes were using satellite via OneWeb. He stated that the
tribes were putting in fixed wireless networks, which could
be interfaced with fiber when it arrived. He supported the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committees version of the bill.
He thought the bill version alleviated many concerns. He
thought it was untrue that the tribes could not put in
telephone networks. He mentioned lobbying from the telecom
industry and suggested that the telecom industry did not
want competition. He echoed the comments of the previous
testifier. He stressed that there were opportunities for
telecom companies to work with tribes. He shared that he
was attending a conference with a newly formed tribal
telecom council. He wanted tribes to have a voice.
10:55:03 AM
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, SELF, AKIAK (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He worked with the Yukon Kuskokwim
Tribal Broadband Consortium. He relayed that there was
OneWeb service to Akiak. He noted that there were 17 tribes
looking to NTIA grants to make sure the tribes were
connected. He relayed that there were plans for fiber optic
cable in the future. He cited that 98 homes in Akiak were
connected, and there was a lot of difference in the
community. He echoed the comments of Ms. McGuire and Mr.
Springer that were advocating for providers to be
represented equally.
Mr. Williams continued his testimony. He wanted to promote
competition by allowing all technologies and broadband
providers access to funds. He did not support
deprioritizing tribes. He emphasized compensating technical
experts for their time. He supported the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committees version of the bill.
10:57:16 AM
BRITTANY WOODS, ALASKA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
Senate CS. She thought the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committees version of the bill improved community
engagement, promoted competition, and supported tribes
owning their own network.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Ms. Woods to provide any additional
testimony in writing.
10:58:15 AM
AT EASE
10:58:23 AM
RECONVENED
SEAN WILLIAMS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee CS.
He was Vice President of Government Affairs and Strategy at
Pacific Dataport. He noted that Pacific Dataport launched
two satellites over Anchorage to provide connections for
110,000 rural Alaskans with broadband. He clarified that
the ATA did not represent internet service providers,
middle-mile providers, or satellite providers. It had not
participated in the writing the original version of the
bill. He supported the Senate CS for the bill, which had
several important changes. He asserted that the proposed
parity fund was nonsensical. He listed the term in state
which would require the use of incumbent telecoms to get
funding.
Mr. Williams asserted that the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committees CS did not deprioritize tribes in the award
process, it compensated technical experts for their time,
promoted competition, and was perfectly in line with IIJA
rules. He discussed the proposed parity fund and reasoned
that the fund would need to be started with $168 billion to
achieve true parity.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Mr. Williams to provide additional
testimony in writing.
11:01:37 AM
AT EASE
11:02:28 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Senator von Imhof referenced public testimony and discussed
the version of the bill that passed the House in contrast
with the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee version. She
thought public testimony had indicated the membership of
the advisory board was one of the differences between the
versions. She listed members from stakeholder groups. The
House version of the bill iterated that the Broadband
Advisory Board shall establish a Broadband Technical
Working Group to provide technical recommendations to the
advisory board. She thought the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committees version appeared to propose that the advisory
board itself was the technical working group. She listed
technical experts that would be part of the technical
working group, including engineers and experts in fiber
optics, telecommunications, and satellite and microwave
technology. She asked if the House version had more
geographical and stakeholder representation, versus the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee version that had more
technical representation. She wondered how to blend the two
groups to have a balance.
Ms. O'Connor thought Senator von Imhof had described the
differences in the two board structures proposed in the two
bills. She continued that in the House version of the bill,
the two concepts were already blended. She commented that
the categories of those listed for membership on the
advisory board were high level positions in commerce,
education, healthcare, and other categories. She thought
the stakeholders would bring vision and guidance on policy.
She noted that the task force had developed a similar broad
stakeholder group with the addition of technical expertise.
She believed the House version melded the concepts by
having a stakeholder group provide vision with the support
of technical expertise in the working group.
11:05:44 AM
Senator von Imhof noted that the House version of the bill
mentioned a technical working group who collectively had
expertise in different technologies. She wondered about
using language from the Senate CS to provide a more
detailed description of membership. She thought there was
concern about different industries in the state making sure
they have a seat at the table. She thought there seemed to
be specific reference to compensation in the Senate CS. She
referenced public testimony that supported paying technical
experts and noted that the House version of the bill had
proposed that members of the advisory board were not
entitled to compensation.
Ms. O'Connor thought it would be simple to define some of
the various technical experts. She pointed out that all of
the telecom providers in the state were broadband
providers, and they used all the varying technologies. She
addressed Senator von Imhof's question regarding
compensation. She thought the House version of the bill
appeared to model what the task force had accomplished,
which was done without compensation. She remarked on the
diverse representation on the task force and noted there
were extensive hearings in which many of the current
testifiers offered remarks. She pointed out that the task
force meetings were open to anyone that wanted to present,
and every meeting was public. The task force was able to
accomplish a strong report based on a volunteer effort of
the stakeholders, which she thought was a valuable way to
move forward. She thought the legislature should weigh in
about compensation.
Co-Chair Bishop observed that there were many engineers
listed to be on the board as proposed in the Senate version
of the bill but did not observe any clients. He recounted
that many school districts had visited during the
legislative session and commented on the price of internet
connectivity. He thought there was more work to be done on
the bill. He thought a non-engineer, either rural or urban,
needed to be included.
Co-Chair Bishop set the bill aside.
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
11:10:32 AM
AT EASE
11:10:52 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that the amendment deadline was the
following day at noon.
CSHB 363(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
11:11:07 AM
RECESSED
[The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.]
ADJOURNMENT
4:42:07 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|