MMA testimony to Telecommunications Committee opposing bill to change industry regulations

The Honorable John Keenan, House Chair
The Honorable Benjamin Downing, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
State House, Boston

Dear Chairman Keenan, Chairman Downing, and Members of the Committee,

On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association respectfully requests that you issue an unfavorable report to H. 2930, “An Act Modernizing Telephone Regulation and Encouraging Economic Growth.” We oppose this measure because we believe the legislation would have a negative impact on our local residents.

Several major consumer protection agencies have not yet submitted their analysis of the legislation, and we believe that it is in the public interest for these offices speak on the merits or demerits of the proposal before any further consideration is given to H. 2930. We respectfully urge the committee to request a written report from the Department of Telecommunications and Cable (DTC), the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, and the Attorney General’s Office on the impact this legislation would have on service quality and consumer protection, and that these reports be made available to all interested parties.

We understand the telecommunication industry’s interest in updating regulations and expect that agents for these companies would advocate for changes to benefit their “competitiveness.” We are deeply concerned, however, that the various state offices and agencies that oversee consumer protection in the Commonwealth have not provided either written or oral testimony on the bill.

H. 2930 would remove much of the authority that the DTC currently has over telephone providers in most municipalities of the Commonwealth. Specifically, if H. 2930 were to become law, the DTC would no longer be able to enforce consumer protections for telephone service if the telephone service provider in a municipality could certify that there is a second telephone service provider in that city or town. The legislation states: “… no regulation, order or settlement or portion thereof adopted pursuant to any such provision, shall apply to any telephone company or (carrier offering telephone service) in any municipality for which the company or carrier certifies to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation that there are at least two providers offering voice telephone service to retail residential customers in that municipality using any technology, including but not limited to wireless voice service and VoIP service” (emphasis added).

We strongly believe that this legislation must not go forward without hearing input from those agencies that are most knowledgeable on the impact of lifting these longstanding consumer protections. The agencies can provide the Committee with a history of complaints and settlements that have occurred. This information is crucial, not only to the Committee but also to municipal officials who are greatly concerned about the unintended consequences of repealing existing consumer protections.

The DTC currently serves a vital consumer protection role, compiling a service quality index that was agreed upon with the providers. In 2009, the DTC received complaints from municipal officials in western Massachusetts regarding their phone service (DTC Docket 09/1). The complaints included “repeated service outages, poor signal quality, delays in repairing or restoring service and generally in responding to troubles, and deficiencies in network maintenance and replacement of aged facilities.” These complaints were investigated and ultimately resolved. In the last year alone, the department investigated more than 200 complaints from consumers and municipal officials and responded to approximately 15,000 consumer inquiries. If the DTC has no regulatory authority, where will municipal officials go to resolve complaints?

The MMA would also like to thank the Committee and the Administration for its efforts on the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, the successful federal Broadband Technology Program Grant and the $40 million funding of the Massachusetts Broadband Incentive Fund. Your efforts are having a dramatic and positive impact on the quality of life and economy of the rural sections of the Commonwealth. We are deeply concerned that if this legislation becomes law and the “last mile” of infrastructure is finally connected to homes and businesses in western Massachusetts, two providers will then be offering voice telephone service to retail residential customers, and the phone service providers will no longer be subject to regulatory oversight.

Telecommunication technologies are advancing at a rapid rate. Regulatory experts at the Department of Telecommunications and Cable, the Attorney General’s Office and Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation could offer their insights on actions they have taken to update regulations in response to these new technologies and market conditions, and make suggestions on common-sense legislation to enhance competition and to protect consumers. H. 2930, however, would eclipse, not improve, the state’s regulatory structure.

We deeply appreciate your efforts to enhance telecommunications in the Commonwealth and look forward to working with you to continue to provide the best consumer protection laws in the nation. We urge you to issue an unfavorable report on H. 2930 and ask you to give consideration to proposals that would enhance competition while maintaining critically important consumer protections. If you have any questions regarding this important issue, please do not hesitate to have your office contact Legislative Analyst Tom Philbin of the MMA staff at any time.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA