Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: AVIATION INSURANCE
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to a municipal enhanced 911 surcharge on
wireless telephones."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 152
"An Act relating to brewpub licenses."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/6/01
HOUSE BILL NO. 147
"An Act amending a definition of 'wages' for purposes of Title
36 of the Alaska Statutes to include payments for travel
expenses and per diem."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/6/01
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE:911 SURCHARGE ON WIRELESS TELEPHONES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/15/01 0609 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/15/01 0609 (H) CRA, L&C
03/22/01 0684 (H) CRA RPT 4DP
03/22/01 0684 (H) DP: SCALZI, MURKOWSKI,
KERTTULA, MEYER
03/22/01 0684 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.CRA)
03/22/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/22/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/22/01 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/02/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN HAND, Staff
to Representative Andrew Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the aviation subcommittee report
on behalf of Representative Andrew Halcro.
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Section of Community Health and Emergency Medical Services
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
DANIEL YOUMANS
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
617 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98109
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186 in support of an
enhanced 911 surcharge.
TIM BIGGANE, Director
Emergency Operations
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
P.O. Box 55274
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
THERESA HILLHOUSE, Assistant Municipal Attorney
Civil Division
Municipality of Anchorage Department of Law
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
BILL GIFFORD, Lieutenant
Anchorage Police Department (APD)
4501 South Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
STEVE O'CONNOR, Chair
Kenai Peninsula Borough 911 Committee
231 South Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 186.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-45, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Murkowski, Halcro, Meyer, Kott,
Rokeberg, Crawford, and Hayes.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: AVIATION INSURANCE
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would first hear
the aviation insurance report from the subcommittee assigned by
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0081
KEVIN HAND, Staff to Representative Andrew Halcro, Alaska State
Legislature, reported that aviation insurance rates have doubled
and even tripled in recent years. Alaska air carriers are
feeling the pressure of increased rates, and those increases
will likely put some air carriers out of business. The
subcommittee met and discussed a number of options. Among the
most seriously considered options were insurance pooling and
tort reform.
MR. HAND noted that crashes are the primary reason for increased
rates in Alaska. One crash can cost insurance companies
hundreds of millions of dollars and have an effect on every air
carrier in the state.
Number 1551
MR. HAND noted that pilot inexperience is the primary
contributor to air crashes in Alaska. Because of the nationwide
shortage of pilots, many young, inexperienced pilots are eager
to take Bush-piloting jobs to gain enough flight hours for
employment with the larger airlines. Therefore, Alaska's small
air carriers typically employ younger, less experienced pilots,
flying in more challenging environments and locales. These same
pilots may also take unnecessary risks by flying in marginal
weather to gain those flight hours. But with the unforgiving
weather conditions in Alaska, even the most experienced
pilots/operators have accidents. Mr. Hand stated that air
carriers need to foster a safety culture to reduce accidents and
thus insurance rates.
MR. HAND stated that insurance pooling is one way to alleviate
some of the pressures on air carriers. Opponents argue that
there is no reason for [state] government involvement. But, he
noted, a case could be made that commercial aviation is the only
link to hospitals and other areas of the state's off-the-road
system. Therefore, government should get involved.
Number 2080
MR. HAND noted that many insurance companies argue that tort
reform is the only real solution to decreased insurance rates.
In this litigious society, with jury awards on the rise, this
would create a tangible limit [to the size of awards].
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO remarked that the state needs to be aware
of this serious issue. Some small, responsible air carriers may
have to close their businesses because of the exorbitant
insurance rates. Air transportation is Alaska's life link, and
Alaska is the only place where single air carriers are the link
to hospitals and other services. He suggested that if it
weren't for the small air carriers, the state would have to
provide air service in and out of rural communities.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that he would continue, over the
next months, looking into the different options and will
consider legislation addressing tort reform and insurance
pooling for air carriers.
TAPE 01-45, SIDE B
Number 0411
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recommended that the committee consider
the options brought forth by the subcommittee. She acknowledged
that there are no easy answers, but recognized that the state
has an obligation to look into this issue carefully.
Number 0557
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called an at-ease to transition to the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee's scheduled bills. [End
of Tape 01-45, Side B.]
HB 186-911 SURCHARGE ON WIRELESS TELEPHONES
TAPE 01-46, SIDE A
Number 0050
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would hear HOUSE
BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to a municipal enhanced 911
surcharge on wireless telephones."
Number 0136
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, speaking as the sponsor of HB 186,
explained that the enhanced 911 system provides the location and
telephone number of the person calling 911; this is useful in
case the person calling isn't able to articulate his or her
location, for whatever reason. It provides the technology,
equipment, and staff necessary for fast response, and
automatically routes the 911 call to either the police or the
fire department. Currently, wireless-telephone users make up 25
percent of the total 911 volume. Wireless phones currently
don't have the enhanced 911 capabilities, so any procedures in
place now for the landline [phones] must be handled differently
for wireless calls; hence it is much less efficient at a time
when efficiency could be a matter of life or death.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said currently with landline phones in
Anchorage, Anchorage can impose a 911 surcharge of 50 cents; all
other communities with the enhanced 911 system can impose up to
75 cents. He said he thought the committee would hear today
from some of the communities throughout the state. He added
that the surcharge currently doesn't include the wireless or
cell phones. Charging the surcharge on landline [phones] was
made possible by legislation passed in 1994 by Senator Drue
Pearce, he said, and HB 186 amends this, allowing the
municipalities with the enhanced 911 system service to impose
the same surcharge on wireless phones as for landlined phones,
if desired.
Number 0241
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that this enhanced 911 surcharge is
not unique to Alaska; many cities in the Lower 48 have charges
that are significantly higher than what [Alaska] has. He said
items contained in the committee file include: the sponsor
statement; a letter from the deputy chief of police in
Anchorage; a letter of support from George Wuerch, Mayor,
Municipality of Anchorage; a sectional analysis from Tamara
Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, who worked with attorneys in and
outside the industry within the Municipality of Anchorage; a
letter of support from the Anchorage Municipal League of Cities;
and letters of conditional support from the major carriers
including AT&T and Alaska Communications Systems (ACS). He
indicated there was verbal support from GCI as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out a suggestion made by AT&T in a
letter dated March 22, 2001, to have a uniform level of charge,
50 cents, for all municipalities. He said this makes sense
because with a lot of wireless companies, a person can take his
or her phone and roam all over the state. He asked what the
rational was for the difference between municipalities with
fewer than 100,000 people and those with more than 100,000.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that in the smaller communities,
not as many people are paying, so [companies] wanted the option
to go up to 75 cents. Many times the equipment, technology, and
staffing are just as expensive in Bethel, for example, as they
are in Anchorage, but there aren't as many people paying in; so
[companies] want to have the flexibly to charge a little more if
necessary. When asked about the process of how the money would
get from the consumer to the municipality, Representative Meyer
replied that the committee would hear more about the details
[from the companies]; however, his understanding was that the
three major carriers would collect the money via the monthly
bill, would keep up to 1 percent for administrative costs, and
then would turn over the remainder to the respective
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how the resellers account for it
because there are a lot of resellers in the wireless business.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER deferred the question to the testifiers,
but he asked for an example.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has a cell phone from a reseller
that buys time and space in bulk amounts and then sells it at a
discount in the marketplace.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said there could only be one charge; if the
billing address was in Anchorage, for example, then the person
would pay the fee in Anchorage, and if in Denver, then the
person would pay whatever the surcharge is in Denver. And he
clarified that if a person had both a landline and a wireless
phone, the surcharge would have to be paid for both of them if
the phone numbers were different.
Number 0617
MARK JOHNSON, Chief, Section of Community Health and Emergency
Medical Services, Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), said he would speak on behalf of the emergency medical
providers who [receive calls] sometimes and don't know where
they are coming from, which was the reason for putting in the
enhanced 911 system for the wire-line telephone system a few
years ago. That service provides [phone] number identification
of where the call is coming from as well as the location. There
are times when people don't know where they are, he emphasized.
MR. JOHNSON explained that in busier areas, [911 operators] get
a lot of calls at the same time, which means that they need more
capacity to respond to those because many people will see an
occurrence, for example, and call in at the same time. This is
good service and does save lives. Some states are showing up to
40 percent of calls coming from wireless communications; it is a
growing problem and this is a good solution.
Number 0729
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how many communities have the
enhanced 911 system in place.
MR. JOHNSON replied that it is more or less the larger
communities in the state, but [the section] would like to see it
statewide at some point in time. Regarding a public safety
answering point, he said most now have the 911 enhanced service;
however, there are communities that have a remote answering
[service] whereby the trooper, for example, will answer on
behalf of the community someplace else, and some of those aren't
covered at the moment. He said he would get the list for the
committee. When asked if the larger communities [that have the
enhanced service] include Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai,
and Palmer, Mr. Johnson responded that it is even down to
communities of a few thousand, although he would have to look at
that list again.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Johnson if he's seen an enhanced
system.
MR. JOHNSON replied affirmatively.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a Global Positioning System (GPS)
location would be received with the cellular system.
MR. JOHNSON replied affirmatively. He said the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) has been working on this issue
with the industry for a number of years. A couple of different
technology and telecommunication experts may be online to
testify, he said. One of the proposed solutions was a GPS
solution, he explained, and in some places a terrestrial system
can be used to triangulate, but there is a mandate now from the
FCC that the location identification be implemented by the
wireless industry.
Number 0865
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that in the letter from ACS
it says that this technology isn't even available right now. He
asked if that is correct.
MR. JOHNSON referred to the letter from the FCC and said there
are technological solutions to this problem. A number of places
across the country are doing what [Alaska] is contemplating now.
He said he believes that the technology is available, but not
fully implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked for clarification on the letter from
ACS. He said when he had previously asked about the number of
communities that have the enhanced 911 system, Mr. Johnson
responded that there were quite a few; however, the ACS letter
says the "currently unavailable technology."
MR. JOHNSON replied that what is currently available in Alaska
is for the wire-line telephones from businesses and homes. And
when asked if enhanced 911 [service] for cell phones is in place
anywhere in the state, Mr. Johnson responded in the negative.
Number 0962
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he understood that the technology is
not available yet either.
DANIEL YOUMANS, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., via
teleconference, said AT&T is a big supporter of 911 [services].
The combination of cellular phones and the 911 network has
created a new and vital communication system for customers.
[AT&T] knows from the thousands of calls made to 911 from
cellular phones every day in the United States that this has
become a valuable service. Thus AT&T supports a reasonable and
equitable surcharge on customers to defer the cost of providing
911 services.
MR. YOUMANS said in terms of this legislation, [AT&T] supports a
charge to customers of 50 cents a month maximum, which is
reasonable given the workload that wireless calls are creating
for 911 operators. [AT&T] would like the surcharge to be
equitable for all customers, which is why the 50-cent level
should apply to all municipalities. [AT&T] understands that
this would be different for landline customers where the smaller
municipalities pay a surcharge of up to 75 cents; however, the
technology and service are very different since wireless phones
are mobile and can be used in any municipality to call 911.
Therefore, [AT&T] thinks all wireless customers should pay the
same amount.
Number 1185
MR. YOUMANS, speaking about cost recovery, said this would only
apply when municipalities are in a position to offer new
enhanced 911 services for wireless phones. And it has been
noted that those services are not available yet, but someday 911
operators will be able to know the [phone] number of the
wireless caller, the cell site connecting the wireless call,
and, eventually, the actual location of the caller. Since these
new technologies benefit the public at large, [AT&T] thinks
wireless carriers should have a mechanism for recovering costs.
The bill says that the cost recovery will be allowed as
specified by the FCC, and he pointed out that the legislation
cites the FCC order on the issue.
MR. YOUMANS said in terms of actual technology solutions,
especially the locator technology, [AT&T] is looking at those
that would be handset-based, such as a small chip that would go
into a wireless handset and the person could be located using a
GPS satellite system. There are also network-based-systems in
which a location can be triangulated. He said it is really up
to the wireless carrier working closely with the 911 operators
to come together on which technology solutions would work best.
Number 1221
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked: If the technology isn't currently
available, why should people be charged now?
MR. YOUMANS said since wireless phone users are creating
additional work for 911 operators, there should be some revenues
received to help defer some of those costs. And when [AT&T] is
ready to deploy these new services, wit normally works with the
911 operators and looks at the revenue available to them to see
if that would actually cover the amount needed to implement
these new technologies, which would depend on what level of
surcharge is available. In some cases, he said, that surcharge
may cover the cost of these new technologies, or [the industry]
may decide to come back to the legislature and ask for an
additional surcharge; however, "we" will have to wait and see
what those costs are going to be before doing that. For the
most basic technology, the ability to get [a person's] phone
number on the 911 screen as well as the cell site of
origination, [AT&T] has estimated that it costs about 11.8 cents
per customer, per month.
MR. YOUMANS said other companies may have a different charge,
but that is what it would be for AT&T wireless. And when asked
how transfer of the payments would work, Mr. Youmans replied
that [the company] would collect the money from the customer,
and the customer would get a line-item bill. [The surcharge]
comes to [the company] and either it is remitted to the state -
which then remits it to the municipalities, as is done in some
states - or [the company] remits it directly back to the
municipalities as a direct pass-through of those funds. And
then it is up to the 911 operators in terms of how they use
those funds; in terms of ensuring that [the money] is used for
911 services, he said is a question best asked of them.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked: Given AT&T's existing customer
base, and based on 50 cents per month, what type of revenue
would this generate from your subscribers?
Number 1401
MR. YOUMANS replied that it would be based on the number of
subscribers, and, for proprietary reasons, [AT&T] doesn't give
out the specific number by state; however, industrywide in
Alaska there are over 200,000 wireless customers. So, he said,
the math could be figured from that information.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said in the bill under the landline [phone
service], he thought it had to be remitted to the municipalities
within 60 days, and there is an administrative fee, which is
absorbed or picked up by the hardwire companies, of a maximum of
$150 or up to that amount. Representative Kott asked Mr.
Youmans about the date at which this provision is to be
incorporated, and when the technology would be available.
MR. YOUMANS explained that the FCC has said that the wireless
carriers are allowed to recover costs if a cost recovery
mechanism is put into state law. What this means, for example,
is if [the legislature] approved a surcharge, [AT&T] would be
able to come back and recover the cost of implementing these new
technologies. He said [the legislature] wouldn't be required to
reimburse [AT&T] for its costs; that is not a mandate from the
FCC, but [the FCC] is saying that it is allowed. However, it is
something [AT&T] would advocate for because this is a public
service whereby the general public benefits, so it is only fair
that costs are reimbursed.
Number 1527
MR. YOUMANS explained that the [FCC] mandate says [carriers] are
already required to provide phase 1 services for enhanced 911
that include providing the call-back number and the cell site
from which that call originated; however, [carriers] don't have
to provide that unless the 911 operator requires it, and
obviously [operators] need to be capable of receiving that
information before it can be provided for them. [AT&T] is
providing that right now in a number of states around the
country. [Carriers] were required about a year ago to provide
that technological capability, and it is done when the 911
operators request it. [Carriers] are not required to provide
the phase 2 services, the locator services, until October of
this year. At that point, [carriers] will work with the 911
operators on the technological solutions so their systems match
and everything works as it should.
MR. YOUMANS said there are also some rollout dates depending on
whether there is a handset solution or a network solution. In
October of this year, [carriers] will be required to begin
rolling out those services if requested. [AT&T] is very close,
he explained, in terms of the locator technology, although [the
company] has not announced what it is yet, and other carriers
haven't either, for the most part.
Number 1614
CHAIR MURKOWSKI sought verification of her understanding that no
community in Alaska is technologically capable of receiving
phase 1, and certainly not phase 2 at this point.
MR. YOUMANS answered, "As far as I know, and they certainly have
not requested [it] of us."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Youmans if he was referring to
those services that would be able to pinpoint someone's
location.
MR. YOUMANS replied affirmatively.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how, if he has an OnStar system in his
car, someone in Detroit could know if his airbag inflates, and
know where he is.
MR. YOUMANS replied that a GPS system is probably being used,
which works by satellite. And when asked whether, if that
service were made available, AT&T would have to recall all of
its telephones to be retrofitted with a chip, he said if [AT&T]
chose that particular solution, then a chip or device within the
phone would have to be changed. There are a number of different
ways of doing that, he said; one way is to provide it in a
battery, so a person wouldn't have to change the phone, just the
battery. He pointed out that people are changing phones quite
often these days because of the advancements, so most people's
phones don't last longer than a year anyway. He said [AT&T] is
looking for a low-cost way of providing these technologies for
customers.
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if [AT&T} offers the prepaid cellular
disposable phones.
MR. YOUMANS replied affirmatively. And when asked how [a
carrier] would go about collecting a fee, he replied that a
surcharge couldn't be collected, since [the carrier] doesn't
bill that customer.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he is interested in the $1.2
million that could be raised [through this legislation]. Will
there be any surpluses in this system, he asked, and would there
be the possibility of lowering people's rates after that influx?
Number 1777
MR. YOUMANS remarked that [AT&T] wouldn't object to a lower
surcharge on customers, but [the company] has taken the position
that it would support up to 50 cents; however, if there were a
proposal to lower that surcharge, [AT&T] wouldn't oppose it. In
terms of whether there would be any surpluses or not, he said
that would be a question best asked of the 911 operators, taking
into account how they use funds.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he understands that different
municipalities charge different rates, from 35 up to 75 cents.
He asked for a reason for the disparity.
MR. YOUMANS said he would imagine that since it is up to each
municipality to decide on a surcharge, it becomes whatever is
felt to be appropriate to cover costs.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he understood that the money could
only be used for the 911 system; if more is raised, then
[carriers] would lower the surcharge rate for the next year.
And when asked if there would be accounting of this, he
responded that he thought [carriers] are required to do an
annual audit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that it seems ironic that most
of the costs are going to fall on the service providers. He
asked Mr. Youmans if he believes his firm would deduct or have
the right under this bill to deduct the cost of implementation,
and would then send the balance to the local area.
Number 1890
MR. YOUMANS said [AT&T] would only do that upon moving to the
enhanced 911 services; a mechanism is needed for that in
legislation. What this legislation does, he said, is express
legislative intent, which says that when the enhanced services
"roll out," [carriers] would be allowed to recover costs. What
would probably be seen, he said, would be additional legislation
that actually puts that into effect through an added surcharge
to cover those costs. There could be a determination made that
the 50 cents covers costs as well as those of the 911 operators,
and in that case, [carriers] would make arrangements to recover
costs through each municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the phase 2 locator requirement
from the FCC is what is considered the enhanced 911.
MR. YOUMANS responded that it would be part of it, and the other
part would be the caller phone number and the cell site of
origination. And when asked if there is a phase 3, he responded
in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if it is going into effect in
October of this year, then legislation is needed right now to do
it.
MR. YOUMANS said before that happens, the 911 operators would
have to be technologically capable of receiving that
information, and he imagined that most of them wouldn't be ready
by October. He said he wouldn't support a surcharge at this
point for technology that isn't ready yet.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, but said [the legislature] is
trying to pinpoint when that is because legislators don't have
the luxury of coming back until next January.
MR. YOUMANS commented that the 911 operators could be asked,
although he thought the [legislature] would have time.
Number 1998
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said in looking at the legislative findings and
information on cost recovery, "we will require the tracking as
well [as] allow for cost recovery." Isn't that really a
separate issue from the surcharge that is in place now for the
landlines, she asked, and [the legislature] is essentially
asking the wireless [users] to [contribute to that service]?
MR. YOUMANS responded affirmatively and said he thought the
intent of the existing surcharge is to pay for the workload that
is being created right now for the 911 operators. The only way
that the existing 50 cents may apply to the new services is if
when rolling out these new services, it is determined that the
50 cents will cover those new technologies, both on behalf of
the 911 operators and the carriers, and then cost recovery would
be sought from the existing 50 cents at that point.
Number 2049
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it seems that there are two different
issues here. There is the existing surcharge, with some
flexibility on the landlines regarding how much is assessed on
that surcharge; wireless is saying it will sign on to a
surcharge providing that it is just 50 cents. She said she
isn't following Mr. Youmans' point in stating that the wireless
[phones] actually contribute to the additional work because they
are mobile, so if one is going to be a cost user, then one
should be a cost payer. She said she isn't certain why one
shouldn't be subjected to the same cost as a municipality that
is charging 65 cents, and why is should be limited to just 50
cents.
MR. YOUMANS used an example. He said if there is a wireless
customer who lives in Anchorage, but is in Fairbanks and
witnesses a car accident and uses the phone to call an aid unit,
that wireless call goes to a 911 operator in Fairbanks; the same
is true of a Fairbanks customer who travels to Anchorage and
uses it there. The workload is spread around the whole state by
a variety of wireless users; however, under the current
structure, the Anchorage wireless user would pay 50 cents,
whereas the Fairbanks user could pay 75 cents, even though both
are taxing the 911 system wherever they go in the state.
Number 2153
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she disagrees philosophically that wireless
should somehow be treated differently from landline [service].
She said she appreciates the fact that a mobile instrument is
being talking about, but she doesn't understand why there should
be an exemption from that, because if a person didn't have that
wireless phone moving around, there wouldn't be the additional
usage on the system.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said this issue was raised in the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee as an
amendment to make it a flat 50 cents; however, it failed because
the smaller cities and communities wanted that flexibility.
[The members] wanted to keep it the same as for landlines, which
is up to 75 cents for a population of under 100,000; and they
wanted to have flexibility in the smaller areas where there is
less of a population paying for it.
Number 2207
TIM BIGGANE, Director, Emergency Operations, Fairbanks North
Star Borough (FNSB), via teleconference, stated that the FNSB is
100 percent in support of the bill. Part of his department's
responsibility is to maintain and operate the enhanced 911
system in five different Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)
or dispatch centers. The borough in 1997 began collecting 75
cents [per month, per customer] when the first legislation was
passed, and it was changed to 65 cents once the calculation and
bids came in. The initial cost for implementation of the
landline phone system was $1.3 million. With the 65 cents
currently charged on the system, [FNSB] built in a 10-year
replacement system based on technology, although the [FNSB] was
probably off by three years and will have to replace them in
year seven, he said.
MR. BIGGANE said he had met with ACS, and one of the things
being looked at in Fairbanks is the consolidated dispatch center
where all of the units will be brought together to incorporate
the phase 2-technology. He said he was given a bid price from
one vendor of $575,000; so, he said, there are some [reasons]
why this surcharge is needed early.
MR. BIGGANE said the surcharge currently goes for maintenance of
the equipment; the data upkeep with the landline phone company;
and funding of the long-term replacement, the capital program
which this bill will have to incorporate if this is going to
last more than a couple of years.
Number 2293
MR. BIGGANE explained that cell phones are currently 35 percent
of the call volume at the dispatch centers. This bill allows
for cell phone technology; phase 1 is already implemented in
Fairbanks through ACS, and the [phone] number is already
received from the borough's cell phones, which will be written
in a letter to AT&T. The FCC phase-2 requirement, according to
what he has been reading, has an October deadline for the phone
company to have begun enacting a system. In [Fairbanks], he
explained, there is talk of installing cell towers, and the
bidding process has begun to see if [FNSB] is going to
[contribute] technology. Until HB 186 came up, there wouldn't
have been a system to pay for it. During the last
[legislation], [telephone companies] got the 50-cent flat
charge; [AT&T] is against that and would like to see it adjusted
by the local municipality that has to provide the service in the
long run. The cost recovery needs to be identified, and the
current cost was adjusted down to 65 cents. If [FNSB] had a
surplus, then it could be adjusted up or down.
MR. BIGGANE said [FNSB] did make an impact in 2000 when $200,000
had to be spent to upgrade technology purchased in 1996 for year
[2000 computer-related changes] Y2K. There was a reason to
building this fund for capital replacement, and [FNSB] was able
to absorb that cost. The GPS technology in phase 2 will allow
[a person's location] to be pinpointed. And he explained that
the docket out on the FCC's web site is good for explaining what
this is all about, and how the difference baseline versus
(indisc.) will have to come into compliance. He asked for the
committee's support of the bill.
Number 2380
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked: Are we getting out in front of where we
need to be if we don't know what these cost recovery charges
are? If the respective municipalities implement these charges,
and later it is [discovered] that the costs are in excess of the
50 cents, then [the issue] will have to come up again and
legislation will have to be implemented.
MR. BIGGANE said he doesn't believe so. The initial cost so far
on the FNSB is going to be $550,000; there are no capital
programs going along with this, so the earlier this is in place,
[the earlier] the fund can be built. Wireless [phone users] pay
nothing right now towards 911, and the landlines telephones are
picking up the phase 1 requirement because it is the same type
of technology.
MR. BIGGANE expressed that the phone companies will have to
start selling phones with these capabilities starting October 1.
The technology will be phased in over a five-year cycle whereby
25 percent of new handsets activated in the industry will be
automatic-location-identifier-capable (ALI-capable) by December
31, 2001; 50 percent by June 30, 2002; and 95 percent by
December 31, 2005.
Number 2455
MR. BIGGANE exclaimed that it would take a couple of years to
phase in because phones won't be replaced; it will take a few
years to phase in throughout the whole market. He said he
believed there were about 20,000 to 25,000 phones in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if FNSB received any Y2K capital
money for the 911 upgrade.
MR. BIGGANE replied that Fairbanks didn't receive any Y2K
upgrade money; the replacement was taken out of the capital
fund, and [FNSB] went after the manufacturer and received about
60 percent.
TAPE 01-46, SIDE B
MR. BIGGANE explained that [FNSB] has been collecting the
surcharge since 1996, and $650,000 is currently projected at the
end of the fiscal year end. When asked to verify that the Y2K
upgrade hadn't been budgeted because it was assumed that it
would be taken care of by the vendor, Mr. Biggane replied that
it was part of the requirement of the bid that didn't come
through. Fairbanks North Star Borough had to fix it before Y2K
came, and was successful, but only 65 percent of the cost was
collected.
Number 2436
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), via teleconference, said Lieutenant Bill
Gifford and Keith with the Anchorage Police Department, and
Theresa Hillhouse with the Municipal Attorneys' office, were
online. He stated that there are two issues: first, roughly 25
percent of [MOA's] call volume comes from cellular phones,
although cell phones are not contributing anything towards the
911 system; and second, [MOA] needs to "ramp up" for phase 2,
which will provide 911 [service] for wireless systems to be
available by October.
MR. ROGERS, regarding the question of cost and the municipal
budget for 911, replied that landlines currently get around $1
million a year in 911 surcharges, and the total cost of
operating the 911 system is $2.4 million a year, not including
capital costs. Two bond issues will be before the voters, and
there is approximately $1.5 million per system in upgrades
[needed] for the 911 system. The Municipality of Anchorage is a
long way from making any surplus funds from the 911 surcharge.
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked about [cell phone time and space]
resellers.
MR. ROGERS replied that he understood that [resellers] would be
responsible for the surcharge as well.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned about having the
wireless provider receiving some reimbursement, rather than the
municipality or the 911 provider, in a relationship. He asked
how that would happen if there was a cost recovery provision in
legislation.
Number 2288
THERESA HILLHOUSE, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Civil Division,
Municipality of Anchorage Department of Law, via teleconference,
said the reason the cost recovery provision was put in the
initial section of the bill was to give notice to the
legislature that a new 911 enhanced system will be coming for
wireless phones. It will be more expensive, and as part of that
expense, she explained, the municipalities will be reimbursing
the telephone companies for assistance in being able to identify
the phone numbers and the locations of the wireless callers.
The current bill deals with recovery to the municipalities for
the additional calls to the 911 system by wireless, and to start
equipping the 911 systems to have the technologies so
interfacing can happen with the local telephone companies to be
up to speed with phase 1 and phase 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Rogers if the $2.4 million
that he had mentioned was for 911 operations or for the enhanced
911 [system], and whether there is a distinction.
MR. ROGERS replied that they are one and the same. The total
cost for operating the 911 system is $2.4 million. He clarified
that landline phones are all enhanced. And when asked to verify
that the $2.4 million is for all 911 services, he responded
affirmatively and added that it is for dispatch only. When
asked if the original 911 surcharge was for enhanced services,
or just for 911, Mr. Rogers responded that the original
surcharge was for the enhanced 911 system, and he confirmed that
it provides [site location information].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that [MOA] is trying to cover 40
percent of the "nut" with the surcharge.
MR. ROGERS affirmed that and said it is at the current level,
which doesn't include equipment acquisition costs.
Number 2170
CHAIR MURKOWSKI returned to the issue of cost recovery. She
said the gentleman from Fairbanks indicated that costs haven't
been identified. Mr. Youmans from AT&T, she said, indicated
that [AT&T's] cost was 11.8 cents for the enhanced service. She
said she sees Section 1 of the bill as being very separate from
this surcharge, whether at 50 cents or 75 cents. In one
section, [the bill] says that it is known that there are going
to be some additional costs associated with this service, and
cost recovery will be allowed for, without really having a
handle on what is being signed off on. But the decision is from
some general findings, she pointed out, and then the rest of the
legislation deals with the specific surcharges. She added:
saying that wireless customer should be assessed 50 cents now
for every phone number, and next year or the following year -
when phase 1 and phase 2 systems are online - the surcharge
could be 50 cents plus whatever it is that the customer's
provider has now identified to be the cost associated with this
tracking service?
Number 2088
MR. YOUMANS explained that the 11.8 cents is the cost for phase
1, and AT&T hasn't assessed what the costs will be for phase 2.
He clarified that phase 1 includes the call-back number and the
cell site of origination. He said [AT&T] wouldn't be able to
recoup costs for customers beyond what the surcharge allows by
the state. The maximum surcharge allowed would be 50 cents in
this bill for the larger municipalities, and 75 cents for the
smaller ones. The only way to recoup costs is out of that
existing surcharge; customers wouldn't be able to be charged
beyond that.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the legislative findings and Section 1
don't allow one to come back to the legislature and say that the
intent by these legislative findings is to allow recovery of
associated costs, so in addition to the 50 cents, there is a
[request] for whatever the identified costs are.
MR. ROGERS stated that this couldn't be done, and said the cost
recovery would come from the existing surcharge.
Number 2020
MS. HILLHOUSE verified that the intent language is separate
language to clarify the two types of enhanced 911 systems that
may be used by wireless systems and that will be [available] in
the future. Any cost recovery that is given to the telephone
companies, she explained, is as required by the FCC ruling in
this case. "We" will be working with the telephone companies
and all the local 911 [operators] to figure out what their costs
are. The enhanced 911 centers also have their own costs to
equip their systems to interface with the telephone company.
And when asked if she would agree that cost recovery would be
limited to this 50-cent surcharge, she responded that [AT&T]
gets an administrative fee from that 50-cent surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wants to make sure that there is
an expectation of recoupment for capital costs for the provider.
He said [the committee] has the 11.8-cent figure from Mr.
Youmans for phase 1, but then there is [the possibility] of
future legislation. And ACS brought up the issue that if there
is short payment on a monthly bill, how does one allocate
between the surcharge and the balance of the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that [it is dealt] with the same
as with landline [services].
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about the issue of
cost recovery and the expectations.
MR. YOUMANS explained that in other states, when they have
gotten to the point where the 911 operators are ready to request
the phase-1 service, they sit down with the wireless carriers
and determine what the costs are. If those are covered by the
existing surcharge, then they are fine, but if not, then they
usually come together to the legislature to ask for an
additional surcharge in order to cover costs; the same would be
true of phase 2, he said. [Wireless carriers] would sit down
and work together with the 911 operators to determine what those
costs are, to ensure that they are fair and reasonable, and if
costs aren't covered by the existing surcharge, then an increase
would be requested.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Youmans if AT&T would expect
capital cost recovery.
MR. YOUMANS responded affirmatively. He said [AT&T] needs to be
able to recover the cost of providing the service. And when
asked about the 11.8 cents also being recouped, Mr. Youmans
replied that the 11.8 cents would provide adequate remuneration
for phase 1, which is what [AT&T] is charging other
municipalities around the country for cost recovery.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked someone to direct him to the
location in the bill where it states that it is currently
allowable, other than in Section 5, which allows [a telephone
company] an administrative fee. He asked if there is recoupment
[language] under current statute.
Number 1810
MR. BIGGANE surmised that the phone companies would be
collecting their capital invested through the annual cost that
is charged to each one of the municipalities. There is an
occurring debt of maintenance cost, system maintenance cost, and
trunk-line cost that is paid in to maintain operation (indisc.).
He said he believed that is when "they" amortize out their
capital.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER concurred.
MR. BIGGANE pointed out that the 50 or 75 cents is to operate
the system, but also is used to pay the bill for the operation.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Youmans about her concerns regarding
the 50 versus the 75 cents. She asked: Recognizing that cost
recovery will be sought for phase 1, why wouldn't one want a
surcharge as high as the municipalities would be able to go, to
ensure that the cost recovery would come within that surcharge,
and that one wouldn't have to come back to the legislature for
an increase in the surcharge?
Number 1730
MR. YOUMANS replied that [AT&T] is trying to keep the charges as
low as possible, for as long as possible for customers. Given
what this surcharge will initially be used for, which is the
basic 911 operations, [AT&T] thinks 50 cents is adequate. He
said he thought there was a lot of work ahead to determine what
those costs are for the future technologies, and the work should
be done first before adding surcharges to customers. And upon
being asked when he would anticipate coming back before the
legislature seeking associated costs, Mr. Youmans stated that it
would depend on the discussions with the 911 operators and how
close they are to being able to request those services.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said [the committee] heard from Fairbanks this
afternoon that phase 1 is implemented and that [FNSB] is going
to be making notification that it is ready to go, and is now
saving up for phase 2. It sounds as if [FNSB] is pretty close,
she said, and Anchorage might be pretty close too.
Number 1679
BILL GIFFORD, Lieutenant, Anchorage Police Department (APD), via
teleconference, stated that [APD] is getting close and
anticipates sending out letters soon. [The APD] is also working
with the computer-aided dispatch center, the provider of the
system, to find out what is needed by the October deadline of
this year. He didn't know if [APD] could make it by that time,
but said it is critical. For example, he said, a year ago a
woman was being raped. She was able to hit 911 on her phone;
she was able to give some description as to where she was and
[the APD] was able to get to her and intercept that rape in
progress. Had this system been in place then, he exclaimed,
[APD] probably would have cut that time down by 10 or 15
minutes. In that kind of situation, he emphasized, 10 or 15
minutes is a lot of time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if the bill moves out of this
committee with an expectation of future adjustments, he doesn't
think one could come back next year and have another
[discussion]; therefore, [the committee] needs to make sure that
this is adequate. He asked if there is anything in the bill or
in existing law that allows for cost [recuperation].
Number 1600
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked the sponsor about Section 1 of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER deferred the question to Theresa Hillhouse,
municipal attorney.
MS. HILLHOUSE said the intent language was put in because Mr.
Youmans wanted to make sure that there was a clear
[understanding] of the difference between the existing 911
system that wireless [customers] would be using and a future 911
system that is being worked towards for implementation. Mr.
Youmans also requested notice that, in this enhanced 911 system
where [the phone companies] had helped [the municipalities] get
both the phone number and the location, that there was
recognition and some costs recovery by the phone companies.
"We" wanted to give [the legislature] a "heads up" as to where
it is at this point, as well as where it is going in the future.
Number 1538
CHAIR MURKOWKSI said there is concern about signing off on
something that needs to be revisited as early as next year. She
said there is an indefinite and uncertain expense out there that
will be coming online soon. The surcharge aspect of it needs to
be addressed right now, she exclaimed; it's just the cost
recovery component that seems to be concerning everyone.
MS. HILLHOUSE remarked that Chair Murkowski is correct in that
"we" would have liked to have brought a bill to the legislature
that could have incorporated phase 1 and phase 2, but the
capabilities aren't available right now to judge what that cost
will be, which is why this proposal was brought forward. With
the monies from the surcharge, which will go towards (indisc.),
this is bringing the 911 system up to speed so it can interface.
The numbers weren't available to be able to give [the committee]
the information and make a more accurate assessment of what will
happen in phase 1 and phase 2.
Number 1464
MR. YOUMANS stated that when the time comes to offer these new
technologies, [AT&T] would like to be able to seek cost
recovery, which is allowed by the FCC order. The language in
the bill just says that the State of Alaska will allow the new
technologies to [progress], and by allowing that, [telephone
companies] certainly have [the legislature's] support for this
surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if cost recovery is in the bill.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI answered in the negative, other than in the
legislative findings.
MS. HILLHOUSE stated that the cost recovery talked about in the
introductory section is the cost recovery for phase 1 and phase
2; Anchorage is going through phase 1 right now, she said, and
is not up to that issue yet.
Number 1387
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a recommendation that the bill be
amended to include a cost recovery provision, and allow that
[portion of the bill] to move forward. He said he seriously
doubted much headway could be made in adjusting the surcharge
numbers at this juncture, but said there should be money that
provides for it; there will be few "bites at the apple" because
a bill isn't done every year to adjust things to keep everyone
happy.
STEVE O'CONNOR, Chair, Kenai Peninsula Borough 911 Committee,
via teleconference, stated that his committee was appointed by
the borough and represents a cross-section of the public safety
users within the borough. He said [the borough's] cell phone
volume has gone from 5 percent in the last five years to around
50 percent. He reiterated that no [caller] location information
is provided currently when a cell phone is used. Many people
using cell phones don't know where they are, and they are unable
to give clear directions, so there are significant response
delays by public safety agencies.
MR. O'CONNOR stated that the [Kenai Peninsula Borough 911
Committee] has been in discussions with ACS regarding
implementing phase 1 and phase 2. [ACS] has given his committee
a cost proposal for capital in excess of $300,000 to implement
the two phases. [Kenai's situation] probably sounds similar to
Anchorage's in that the Kenai Peninsula Borough currently
collects 75 cents for the land hardwire lines, which cover about
45 percent of the 911 operation; however, this doesn't include
any capital costs. The borough is subsidizing about 55 percent
of the 911 operations, so the bill at the 75-cent level is seen
as a way to help offset and recover some of the capital expense
currently being faced for implementation. [The Kenai Peninsula
Borough 911 Committee] is moving ahead with that in the current
budget process; it has some monies allocated to start the
implementation process, he explained.
MR. O'CONNOR encouraged the House Labor and Commerce Committee
to keep the bill at 75 cents per line. As far as the cost
recovery goes, he said, he would see each municipal government
dealing with its vendors, and if there are associated costs,
then vendors are going to come to the municipal operator or to
whomever in the 911 system and negotiate that cost recovery.
The cost per line per month that is recovered by the wireless
companies should come back to the municipal governments to be
used to pay for those cost-recovery procedures. He said he
couldn't see the wireless vendors taking their cost recovery out
of that particular surcharge. The technology for phase 1 is
here, he said, and the [Kenai Peninsula Borough 911 Committee]
is moving toward this and phase 2 as soon as it is available.
Recently, he announced, the [Kenai Peninsula Borough 911
Committee] has received estimates in excess of $300,000 just to
get this implemented.
Number 1143
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. O'Connor when the Kenai area would be
ready to go online with phase 1.
MR. O'CONNOR stated that [Kenai] is doing some software upgrades
this week as the beginning of [phase 1], and a two-year phase
was figured into the 911 budget for the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
If monies are available through the budget July 1, he explained,
the first half of it would start this fiscal year, with the
second half next fiscal year; this is what is being recommended
to the mayor, he added.
Number 1099
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Hillhouse, as a drafter of
the legislation, if anything in statute allows for cost recovery
or if it merely [provides for] the local telephone exchanges and
the 911 service provider.
MS. HILLHOUSE responded that the FCC ruling mentioned in the
intent language [in the bill] is where the issue was raised in
the first place; [the FCC] understands that it is going to be a
much more complicated system and will require interfacing local
governments with telephone companies. She clarified that this
particular FCC case makes a ruling requiring telephone companies
to provide these services to local communities, giving the
identification number and the location on the wireless caller.
When [the FCC] dictated that telephone companies have to do
this, it also dictated that there be an understanding that there
is a cost involved and local governments are going to have to
deal with cost recovery.
MS. HILLHOUSE said how recovery of costs is handled is more on a
state-by-state basis. And when asked if that is because of the
ruling in the FCC docket, she answered affirmatively and said
that is what dictates this whole process.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the docket is provided; he asked
whether cost recovery and the mechanism [for realizing that] are
laid out there.
MS. HILLHOUSE responded that it gives options to the various
states and local governments on how it is done. There is a
variety, she explained, everything from a statewide trust fund
to local localities charging surcharges from $0.35 to $2.35.
These are some model legislations starting to appear in some of
the states.
Number 0976
CHAIR MURKOWSKI expressed that in the FCC ruling, Ms. Hillhouse
had said that it allows for various options. She asked: Are we
defining that option by the statement in the legislative
finding?
MS. HILLHOUSE responded that the legislative finding has been
made very general to just recognize that there are two types of
enhanced 911 systems, and when the enhanced 911 system comes
onboard it will give a person not only the phone number but also
the location. There is an understanding that there are going to
be more costs involved and that the local telephone companies
need to be worked with to pay for some of those costs.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she isn't sure that the legislative finding
is clearly stated, and suggested it is the committee's biggest
problem.
MS. HILLHOUSE apologized and said "we" wanted to give the
committee a preview of what was coming, so this language was a
compromise. The cost recovery, the different systems, and the
definitions were all mentioned, she said.
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it is what is to come, in
terms of the future technology, or what is coming to the
legislature.
MS. HILLHOUSE replied that it is an issue that "we" are still
trying to work out. The local governments will be able to
assess their costs and how that payment will be handled; right
now there isn't a good handle on exactly what that is going to
be. The surcharge is needed now so tracking of the whole
process can take place to figure out what the costs are.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the bill needs an effective date.
He would like to see a legal opinion about whether this finding
is adequate; he questioned whether [the issue of] cost recovery
needs to be recited in state statute, or if the FCC docket can
be relied upon. He said he just wants to make sure that it is
available so "they" don't come back to the legislature and ask
for it.
Number 0820
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER verified that Ms. Hillhouse and Ms. Tamara
Cook [drafter of the legislation from Legislative Legal and
Research Services] had worked for weeks on this paragraph. He
asked if Ms. Cook was comfortable with that language.
MS. HILLHOUSE replied that Ms. Cook was the one who had
suggested moving the legislative intent language. It was
previously under the definitions section of an enhanced 911
system, to not confuse the statute by talking about something
that was to come in the future, and Ms. Cook's suggestion was to
move it to the introductory language, as a compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said [the bill language] assumes that
one has to come to the legislature to pass another bill, which
doesn't make sense.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that if the legislative findings
just dealt with the surcharge issue, there wouldn't be a need to
come back unless the surcharge rate needed to be raised.
MS. HILLHOUSE said it would be fine, but part of this was a
compromise with AT&T and the telephone companies; there is a lot
of legislative intent in this language that explains the cost
recovery. Maybe [the telephone companies] wouldn't mind
deleting that first section.
Number 0711
MR. YOUMANS said [AT&T] would have an issue with that. [AT&T]
is looking for recognition from the legislature that when it
rolls out these new enhanced services, it will be able to
recover costs, which is basically what that section says. And
so as long as that recognition is in place and will be
available, then [AT&T] can support the surcharge proposed in
this legislation. [AT&T's] concern is that [telephone
companies] get the additional surcharge, but there is no
recognition of recovering costs, which is what [AT&T] is looking
for.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether the FCC ruling set out an
allowance for cost recovery for providers.
MR. YOUMANS said only if there is a mechanism in place in state
law that allows it.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed, but said [the committee] needs a legal
opinion on this because she isn't convinced that something
contained in legislative findings is allowing recovery by
statute or regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said "you just hung yourself on your own
petard," when saying that state authority is needed to be able
to recover costs. The findings don't give that; only statute
does, he said, which is why he was troubled. He said he would
like the committee to look into this, as the last committee of
referral.
MR. YOUMANS said if that is the case, then that is a real
concern of [AT&T's].
Number 0628
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there should be a statutory right
for cost recovery that makes it consistent with the federal
docket, and everyone is in agreement with that, he remarked,
including the 911 service providers.
MR. YOUMANS commented that [AT&T] would support a change to put
that in statute, if that is what is needed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she thinks that there is an understanding
that if cost recovery is going to be allowed for in the
legislative findings, then there is some question as to whether
or not that is sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG emphasized that it is not law.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said there would be a conversation with Ms. Cook
about this, along with the sponsor, in an attempt to get it
figured out.
[HB 186 was held over]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|