Vermont public service officials tell committee H.11 codifies existing work but raises technical, equity concerns

Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications at the Vermont Department of Public Service, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 13 that the department already receives and resolves many consumer broadband and telephone complaints and that H.11 largely "codifies work we're already doing." Thompson said the department is "not opposed" to H.11 but questioned whether the bill is necessary.

The committee heard detailed examples of the department's complaint work and technical concerns that members said will affect the bill's drafting. Thompson described consumer complaints ranging from fiber cable left across lawns to disputes over number transfers, and said the department routes complaints through its Consumer Assistance and Public Information (CAPI) division to specialists who work to resolve issues with providers.

"Our soft authority allowed us to resolve the majority of these issues," Thompson said. He explained the complaint intake methods: a hotline, a web form, referrals from the attorney general's office and referrals from the Vermont Community Broadband Board, and said CAPI aggregates complaints into a tracking system and forwards complex issues to subject-matter staff.

Why the bill matters: Committee members said H.11 would create enforceable consumer protections meant to keep Vermonters connected during emergencies and address affordability and service-quality problems. Thompson, however, raised technical objections to language in the bill that would require providers to offer broadband service "that meets or exceeds the performance characteristics offered" to every customer at their service location. He told the committee that the bill, as written, could be technologically infeasible because networks are designed with oversubscription and not sized to deliver maximum advertised speeds to every subscriber simultaneously.

Thompson illustrated the point with a numerical example: "If one provider offers a 2 gigabit solution to 10,000 people, the math says that provider would need a 20 terabit circuit to provide that level of service," which he said is not how current networks are provisioned.

Members also pressed Thompson about data caps and mobile/fixed wireless service. Thompson said data caps are typically consumption-based rather than time-based and argued the caps are not a straightforward network-management tool. "I don't believe there's a good faith argument to say that data caps are related to network performance management," he told the committee, adding concerns that data-cap restrictions could harm lower-income consumers who rely on prepaid plans.

On number porting, Thompson said the department intervened in a recent dispute between providers and reminded the committee that "number porting is not optional. This is a requirement by the FCC." He said the parties reached an agreement with a final porting date recorded in December.

Thompson described the department's internal capacity: "There are three of us full time," he said, naming a communications coordinator and a fiber-optics engineer as part of the team and noting a part-time GIS worker. He said some performance metrics are reported to the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) under incentive-rate or reporting arrangements with specific providers: examples include whether a service cover is cleared within 48 hours, calls answered within 20 seconds and timely installation appointments. Thompson said he would follow up on whether similar data are collected from wireless providers.

Committee members asked for more documentation. Chair Representative Kathleen James requested a written one-page statement of the department's position for the committee website, and members asked for public-facing complaint dashboards or reports that show counts, categories, companies named and resolution times; Thompson said CAPI maintains much of that tracking and the department would help determine how the data are published.

No formal committee action or vote on H.11 was recorded during the hearing. Members signaled they will question industry witnesses later in the process and that committee discussion would follow, including review of a letter circulated from the speaker's office about committee procedures.

The committee heard additional testimony and questions from Representatives Scott Campbell, Gary Tory, Chris Morrow and others; Legislative Counsel Maria Royal clarified the technology point, saying data caps not linked to time periods "might not correlate with any kind of network management rationale for imposing a data cap." Jonathan Wolff, present as counsel for small independent telephone companies, introduced himself at the start but did not offer substantive testimony in the transcript excerpts provided.

What happens next: Committee members asked the Department of Public Service to submit a short written statement of its position on H.11 and to provide details about complaint tracking and any public dashboards. The committee also indicated it will hear industry witnesses, including providers, on network-management and data-cap practices before further drafting or vote.