House Energy panel pushes for clearer notices after Vidium’s petition to end copper voice service

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee on Jan. 14 heard Department of Public Service testimony about Vidium/Consolidated’s petition to discontinue legacy copper voice service and agreed to pursue a committee bill to require clearer notice to regulators and consumers.

Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications at the Department of Public Service, told the committee the department supports the technological shift from copper to fiber as a way to expand telehealth and online commerce but has repeatedly flagged concerns about how companies notify affected customers. "The department is in favor of the transition from copper to fiber," Thompson said, adding that the department’s principal issue is ensuring effective communications with customers during the migration.

The department has previously commented in a related docket (case 23-4353), Thompson said, and he pledged to provide the committee with links and copies of those comments. Thompson also described Vidium’s current notification practice: an initial letter filed in the FCC petition followed by further outreach to customers who respond. He said customers who do not complete the required steps may have service suspended but that, regardless of local outages, "the ability to dial 911 still exists." (Thompson attributed that technical feature as having been confirmed to the department.)

Committee members pressed the department and staff on protections for Vermonters who rely on copper-dependent devices. Thompson said he was not aware of statewide programs to subsidize conversions but reported that many life‑safety devices—cited during testimony as Life Alert and similar services—are reported to function over fiber; some exceptionally old equipment may require a small analog converter box (Thompson cited an example costing about $90).

Members also asked about timing and scope. Thompson reported a recent petition affecting roughly 1,640 additional customers across multiple exchanges and said he received the filing concurrently with Vidium’s FCC petition. Lawmakers discussed whether the state could require earlier notice: Chair Rep. Kathleen Jenkins proposed both seeking an MOU with the company and drafting statutory language so the protections would be durable. Jenkins asked for a short, concrete committee bill to specify who must be notified (she suggested the governor’s office, the Public Utilities Commission, the Department of Public Service and the E‑911 board), how notice should be delivered (mail and email, not buried text), and a reasonable advance period (members discussed 60 days as a benchmark).

Legal and policy staff advised caution on federal preemption but said states retain consumer‑protection and public‑safety authority under the Communications Act. Committee members discussed enforcement paths, including referrals to the attorney general using consumer‑protection statutes if companies violate state requirements.

The committee concluded by instructing staff to draft a committee bill and to reconvene for further testimony—specifically inviting Vidium/Consolidated back to explain its notice practices and to compare any draft bill to the MOU the department is negotiating. "We will get a committee bill going," Chair Jenkins said, and the panel scheduled additional oversight work to refine timelines and enforcement options.

The committee recessed and announced it would hear from a wireless provider later in the afternoon.