Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to recognize satellite as alternative voice service; small providers warn of unintended NUSF consequences
Summary
Assembly Bill 174 would add satellite technology to Nevada's definition of alternative voice service. Supporters say it improves coverage especially in rural areas; small rural providers and the Public Utilities Commission raised concerns that the change could affect Nevada Universal Service Fund distributions if not carefully limited.
The Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure heard testimony on Assembly Bill 174, which would update Nevada's telecommunications statutes to recognize satellite technology as an alternative voice service.
Assemblymember Elaine Marzola introduced AB 174 and said the change would modernize NRS 704.68886 and help eliminate dead zones in remote parts of Nevada by treating satellite as a legitimate option for voice service. "AB 174 will help ensure that all Nevadans are prepared for a future that provides reliable connectivity in all parts of our state," Omar Salcedo of AT&T told the committee.
Supporters — including law-enforcement, chambers of commerce, retailers and major carriers — said satellite recognition would expand options for first responders, businesses and residents in rural and hard-to-reach areas. Ellen Marquez, speaking on her own behalf as a parent of a person who uses American Sign Language, told the committee satellite-enabled video services could improve access to remote ASL interpreters during emergencies.
Opponents among small, rural incumbent telephone companies said the bill's language, as written, could be used in future regulatory proceedings to reduce or eliminate support from the Nevada Universal Service Fund (NUSF). On the phone, Patrick Rothwell of BRB Law, representing a coalition of small providers, said commissioners in a PUC workshop had already linked the statutory definition to possible reductions in support and that, "it is possible...the commission will use this language to say that every location where there is a satellite, that location is no longer supportable by the NUSF." The coalition includes Beehive Telephone, Lincoln County Telephone, Moapa Valley Telephone, E4 Connect and Rural Telephone Company.
Garrett Weir, general counsel for the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, told the committee the commission uses a broader definition of telecommunications service when considering NUSF disbursements and that the provision in AB 174 as written is limited to the provider-of-last-resort chapter and may not change NUSF calculations. Weir said introducing the change in this section could create confusion, and he recommended clarifying language if the bill moves forward.
Committee members asked whether the bill would affect existing rural buildout programs and whether first-responder and emergency communications would improve under the change; proponents said the bill targets competitive suppliers and not the small providers regulated under the provider-of-last-resort statutes.
The committee closed the hearing after receiving in-person and remote testimony; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
