Vermont committee hears push-pull over bill to require copper-to-fiber transition notices

MANCHESTER, Vt. — The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday took testimony and technical feedback on draft 1.2 of a committee bill that would require telecommunications providers to give formal notice to regulators and affected customers when retiring copper telephone lines and transitioning service to fiber.

Representative Kathleen James convened the session to collect input on the proposed notification requirements, which would require carriers to send written notice to customers and the Public Service Department at three trigger points (90 days, 60 days and 30 days before transition) and include specified disclosures about service changes, technical assistance and backup power options.

Why it matters: Committee members said the proposal is driven by consumer complaints about disconnected phones and difficulty reaching 9-1-1 when technology changes cause unexpected outages. The bill’s supporters argue statutory notice rules provide consistent protections across providers; opponents caution the proposal could conflict with federal FCC rules and add vague requirements that carriers cannot meet.

Company objections: Sarah Davis, a company representative for the carrier transitioning from copper to fiber, told the committee the company already provides lengthy advance notice and personalized outreach. “We notify customers four months in advance,” Davis said, adding the carrier typically sends both mailed and electronic notices and follows up by phone. She described multiple written notices and numerous phone contacts for customers and said the FCC reviews and approves the notices filed at the federal level. “This is a bill that is unnecessary,” she said, and added she believes the proposal risks federal preemption in an area the FCC regulates.

Small-telco perspective: Kimberly Gates of Franklin Telephone Company, who described long experience converting customers to fiber, said local providers routinely inform customers about battery-backup needs and offer standalone voice options over fiber. Gates urged caution about adding statutory requirements that duplicate existing processes and stressed technical realities: devices such as cordless phones and some medical alert systems will not work unless they are properly backed up and connected. “I don’t really feel like this legislation is necessary,” she told the committee.

State view and MOU work: Hunter Thompson of the Department of Public Service said the department has drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with providers to coordinate notification content and install-time procedures, and that the department’s web posts and outreach are already being used to help customers prepare. Thompson noted the department’s draft MOU contemplates an early announcement (about 120 days) on the state site and additional communication at 30 days and at install time to identify auxiliary devices and battery-backup needs.

Legal question of preemption: The legal authority for state action was debated. Maria Royal, counsel with the legislature, advised the committee that states retain consumer-protection authority over voice services and that federal preemption would require a specific conflict with federal law. “Under the Communications Act, there’s a dual system of regulation,” she said, and urged the committee to gather precise details about what the FCC requires before concluding the state is preempted.

What the committee asked for: Members requested concrete documentation: copies or links to the FCC notices the company filed, the carrier’s customer notices, the draft MOU redlines, and a written explanation from the carrier’s federal counsel about any preemption concerns. The Department of Public Service agreed to provide updated notes and reporting analysis, and carriers said they would submit written testimony tied to draft 1.2.

Next steps: The committee paused formal action and asked staff to collect the requested materials so members can review whether the statutory language should be narrowed, rely on an MOU, or combine both approaches to protect public safety without duplicating federal processes.