Category Archives: Broadband 2021

HB1457

HB1457 – Facilitating the installation of broadband facilities on limited access highways.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wiley (D; 49th District; Vancouver) (Co-Sponsors Riccelli, Kloba, Santos, Slatter, Shewmake, Ramel, and Hackney – Ds)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation; had a hearing there February 16th. Amended and passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules. Replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor and passed by the House March 8th. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 15th.
In the Senate –
Referred to the Transportation Committee. Had a hearing March 16th; replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 30th. Referred to Rules. Passed by the Senate unanimously April 10th, and returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Transportation Striker –
This authorizes the Department of Transportation to install conduit for broadband when doing highway projects if no broadband operator chooses to do it, and makes a few other minor changes which are summarized at the end of it.

House Striker –
The striker expands the Department of Transportation’s current authority to grant franchises for using state highways to construct and maintain various facilities to include fiber optics, and adds a number of items to the potential Joint Transportation Committee report.
Amendments –
The amendments broadened the study to include all highway corridors and made a couple of other very small changes.

Original bill –
Requires the Department of Transportation to proactively provide broadband facility owners with information about planned limited access highway projects to collaboratively identify opportunities for installing of broadband infrastructure during the appropriate phase of these projects when such opportunities exist.

If specific funding’s appropriated the bill would have the Joint Transportation Committee oversee a consultant’s study to recommend:
1.An effective Department of Transportation strategy, and specific limited access highway corridors, that could be used to address missing fiber connections and inadequate broadband service in underserved parts of the state;
2. The most promising planning and financing tools for installing conduit in anticipation of future fiber installation by others;
3. Opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships between
the Department and service providers to provide broadband for transportation purposes such as intelligent transportation systems, cooperative automated transportation/autonomous vehicles, transportation demand management, and highway maintenance; and,
4. Strategies for mitigating potential safety, operations, and preservation impacts related to the recommendations.

The study would also have to include an examination of any State and Federal laws and regulations that could prevent or limit the
implementation of the recommendations, as well as recommendations for modifications to the applicable State laws and regulations.

SB5439

SB5439 – Facilitating the coordinated installation of broadband along state highways.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Saldaña (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-sponsors Kuderer, Lovelett, and Nguyen – Ds)
Current status – Dead
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Transportation; had a hearing February 15th. Replaced by a substitute and voted out of Committee February 22nd. Referred to Rules. Completely replaced by a striker from the prime sponsor on the floor and passed by the Senate unanimously February 26th. (The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff at the end of it.)

In the House –
Referred to the Committee on Transportation. Had a hearing March 11th, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules April 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Floor Amendment –
Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes made by the substitute at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill requires the Department of Transportation to provide at least sixty days notice of road construction projects to personal wireless and broadband service providers within the same county or counties, by website or electronic subscriptions, to allow collaboration on the installation of their facilities during construction. (If a provider replies within 30 days, the Department may schedule a consultation meeting to review installation opportunities and may determine the feasibility and viability of a collaboration project, but isn’t under any obligation to provide for installation.)

If there isn’t a service provider ready or able to install personal wireless service facilities or broadband conduit as part of a project, the bill would authorize the Department to do that in order to reduce future traffic impacts to the public; support vehicle miles traveled reduction and congestion management by allowing for more telework; and prepare the transportation system for autonomous vehicles. It also authorizes the Department to allow nonprofit service providers to use a right-of-way for broadband infrastructure in rural and unserved areas at no cost, provided that there’s quantifiable commensurate benefit to the transportation system and users of these specified kinds from the use of the conduit.

The bill requires the Governor’s statewide broadband office, in consultation with local governments and the UTC, to create a registration system for service providers applying to install broadband infrastructure that provides automatic notice to the Department of Transportation and other broadband providers applying for installation permits in the same area so opportunities for coordination can be identified.

It requires the Department of Commerce’s regular reports on broadband infrastructure to include the locations where broadband infrastructure has been deployed in the state during the prior five years and is planned to be employed, including along state highways.

It expands the exemption from the laws governing franchises on State highways that personal wireless services currently have to include broadband infrastructure.

SB5175

SB5175 – Authorizes the Community Economic Revitalization Board to make loans and grants to local governments and tribes for constructing broadband internet infrastructure. (Dead)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Nguyen (D; 34th District; West Seattle)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Financial Services & Trade; had a hearing January 21st. Passed out of committee January 28th and referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing there February 11th; passed out of Ways and Means February 16th. Referred to Rules, and placed in the “X” file.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would authorize the Community Economic Revitalization Board to make loans and grants to local governments and tribes for constructing open access broadband internet infrastructure, if specifically appropriated funds for that were available. (No more than half the financing it approved in a biennium could go to tribes.)

The board could provide grants or loans for projects to drive job creation, promote innovation, and expand markets for local businesses; or serve the needs of local education systems, health care systems, public safety systems, industries, businesses, governmental operations, and citizens. (The Board could not provide assistance for a project if its primary purpose was facilitating or promoting gambling.)

Applications would have to be approved by the local government and supported by the local associate development organization or local workforce development council, or by the governing body of the tribe. They’d have to demonstrate that no other timely source of funding was available at costs reasonably similar to financing available from the Board, and have a responsible official present during deliberations on the proposal to provide information the Board requested.

When evaluating and prioritizing projects, the board would have to consider at least the project’s value to the community, including evidence of support from affected local businesses and government; its feasibility, using standard economic principles; the commitment of local matching resources and local participation; its inclusion in a capital facilities plan, comprehensive plan, or local economic development plan; and its readiness to proceed.

SB5110

SB5110 – B&O tax credit for 50% of the capital costs of extending internet service to unserved areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Ericksen (R; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; had a hearing January 21st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Most of the bill is about changing the current regulations on cell phone companies; I’m not summarizing those sections.

The bill would also allow a tax credit, divided over fifteen years, of up to 50% of the capital costs (including sales and use taxes) for extending broadband to an unserved area. The credit that could be claimed by a company in a reporting period would be limited to $5 million, and total credits under the bill would be limited to $50 million. Unused credits could be carried forward for up to fifteen years. The bill declares that the Legislature intends to extend the expiration date of the exemption if a review finds that the number of individuals with internet access in unserved areas has increased by ten percent in ten years.

It would also no longer require PUD’s providing wholesale or retail telecommunications services to use any revenues from them only for the costs of building and maintaining them, and no longer require them to account to separately for those revenues and expenditures.

SB5383

SB5383 – Allowing PUDs to provide retail broadband in unserved areas if existing providers don’t object and plan to provide it.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-sponsor Short-R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Substitute referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; had a hearing February 3rd, and passed out of committee February 11th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate February 26th. Concurred in the House’s changes April 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Community and Economic Development. Had a hearing March 17th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations; had hearing on April 1st; replaced the striker from the Committee on Community and Economic Development with a new striker and passed the bill out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd, amended on the floor and passed by the House April 11th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
A limited alternative to the public internet proposal in HB1336.
I think the bill would require an existing provider to have begun construction and to present a plan about how it intends to complete the expansion, not simply present a plan about how it intends to provide service, but the bill isn’t very clear. It doesn’t provide any mechanism for reviewing the adequacy of the plan, or require its approval by the broadband office. It’s unclear about what qualifies as “near”. There’s no timeline for providing notice of the absence of an objection to the PUD.

Summary –
In Appropriations –
The new striker removed the provision that only allowed expansions when using State or Federal funding for the purpose and made a couple of other small changes summarized at the end of it.

In the House committee –
The striker makes the bill contingent on the passage of HB1336 (the Public Broadband Act), and makes this bill expire June 30th 2023. It defines “unserved areas” as those in which households and businesses lack access to broadband service providing at least 100 megabits/second download and 20 megabits/second upload. (The previous version was at least 25 Mbs/sec download and 3 Mbs/sec upload, or a higher level set by the Broadband Office.) It removes the provisions allowing existing broadband providers to object to ports and PUDs providing retail service in unserved areas. It also only allows the ports and PUDs to do that with State or Federal funding for that purpose, allows them to provide retail service to up to 20% of the residences in a served area if expanding through that to reach an unserved area, and makes some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. Amendments removed the restriction about State or Federal funding, removed the 20% limit, and authorized a PUD that doesn’t provide electrical service to provide wholesale telecommunication service in an adjacent county if there isn’t a PUD providing electrical or telecommunications services headquartered in that county. (I don’t know what quirky situation that provision is designed for…)

Substitutes –
The substitute merely corrects a typo. The 2nd Substitute makes quite a few adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would allow a PUD to provide retail internet service in any unserved area of the state if no company objected and said they were doing it. The PUD would be required to notify the Governor’s broadband office of its intent and post a notice of that on its website. Any existing broadband provider “near the area” to which the PUD wanted to provide service could file an objection within 30 days, demonstrating that it currently provides, or has begun construction to provide, retail broadband with speeds of at least 150 megabits a second in the area. It would also have to submit a broadband service plan about how it “intends” to provide service to the area, showing that it currently provides minimum download speeds “at or near” 25 megabits a second and minimum upload speeds “at or near” 3 megabits a second to end users near the PUD’s proposed area, and “an outline” of how it intends to provide service of at least 150 megabits a second in the unserved area. If the broadband office notified the PUD that no objection has been filed, it would be able to go ahead and provide service in the area.

By December 31, 2023, the broadband office would be required to submit a report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature evaluating the effectiveness of the bill, including the number of PUDs providing retail services in an unserved area, an analysis of the effectiveness of the required broadband service plans, and any recommendations on improving the provision of retail services in unserved areas.

SB5357

SB5357 – Appropriations for matching grants from the Federal broadband infrastructure program to increase broadband access in rural and distressed areas.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Honeyford (R; 15th District; Eastern Yakima County)
Current status – Dead
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means; had a hearing, February 11th; replaced by a substitute removing the specified appropriation and voted out of committee February 16th. Referred to Rules February 18th, amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 5th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on the Capital Budget. Had a hearing March 16th.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Senate Floor Amendment –
The amendment requires the Statewide Broadband Office to develop a process for evaluating projects that supports coordination with the Public Works Board and the Community Economic Revitalization Board to maximize opportunities to leverage federal funding and ensure efficient state investments in broadband infrastructure; however, those other agencies would no longer be part of spending the funds for administering the program.

Substitute –
The substitute removed the specified $200 million appropriation.

Original Bill –
The bill would establish a competitive grant program to increase broadband access in rural and distressed areas of the state, funding it from the state building construction account this biennium with as much of $200 million as was needed to provide the matching required for grants from the Federal broadband infrastructure program. (3% of the money could also be used for administrative expenses.) Grants would be open to a range of public and private entities.

HB1336

HB1336 – Grants unrestricted authority to public entities to provide retail telecommunications services (aka the Public Broadband Act).
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hansen (D; 23rd District; Kitsap County) (Co-sponsor Ybarra-R)
Current status –
In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Community & Economic Development January 26th. Substitute passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor and passed by the House February 23rd. House concurred in the Senate’s changes April 23rd.
In the Senate – Passed
Referred to the Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology. Had a hearing March 11th, amended and passed out of committee March 25th. Referred to Rules, and passed by the Senate April 11th. Returned to the House for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
SB5383 is now proposing a more limited approach to the problem.

Summary –

Senate Committee Amendment –
This would allow jurisdictions to receive financial assistance for expanding broadband even if they had not adopted a comprehensive plan and taken various other planning steps.

Substitute –
There’s a summary of the changes by committee counsel at the beginning of the substitute; the main change is removing the authority of first class cities and code cities to provide internet service.

Original bill –
PUDs are currently authorized to provide wholesale telecommunications facilities within their districts, and within other PUD districts by contract. The bill, to be known as the Public Broadband Act, expands that to include the authority to provide retail service, and to provide service by contract to tribes and to any political subdivision of the state authorized to provide retail telecommunications services in the state.

It then authorizes cities, towns, code cities, and counties to provide those. It expands the current authority of ports to provide wholesale telecommunications services in or outside their districts to include retail services.