House Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications Committee, January 27, 2026 (part 2)
Video: https://vimeo.com/1159168582 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1159168582#t=<seconds>s)
Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-01-27/house-energy-utilities-and-telecommunications-part-2

This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays.
[0:03:42] UN process claims for reimbursement submitted by tier two companies. So just a, a brief history of the fund. It was created in '95 by the Telecommunications and Competition Development Act of 1995. That's a Georgia statute that was passed by this General Assembly. This was a time when the state allowed more competition in telephone service markets, but the General Assembly recognized that in rural areas where potential comp- customers are spread out more, free markets would make basic telephone service prohibitively expensive or just completely unavailable.

[0:04:15] And so it would effectively deny residents of these rural areas access to telephone service. Uh, of course, the reason is when your population density is less, you have less customers per mile of, of investment you make, and so, uh, than you would have in a densely populated area. So the act allowed these tier two companies to elect to be regulated under the act, but in exchange, the local exchange company had to commit to provide basic local exchange services upon reasonable request in all of its local calling areas, similar to the carrier of last resort concept in federal law.

[0:04:49] As part of that arrangement, the participating tier two company could also seek reimbursement from the Universal Access Fund for reasonable costs of providing that service. So the purpose of the fund is to assure the provision of reasonably priced access to basic local exchange services throughout Georgia, and that's quoting from the statute itself. So this is a fund that is not-- it, it's administered by the PSC. All landlines are assessed a charge, and those charges are paid into the fund. Charges are set by PSC, and we understand are fairly nominal.

[0:05:20] They appear to run less than five dollars per month per line on most, most of the bills we've seen. Participating tier two companies that have elected to become universal access carriers can then request reimbursement for actual and reasonable costs of providing the basic local exchange services in those areas that would not be served or would be served at a more expensive rate of service was subject solely to market forces. So this means the only costs eligible for reimbursement from the fund are cost of providing landline service effectively, not cellular or other types of products and services.

[0:05:51] The PSC determines how much is collected and what's distributed. They scrutinize requests for reimbursement. There's an actual docket entry at the PSC when these companies make-- submit their annual request for reimbursement, and sometimes PSC denies the request, and sometimes they, they, um, provide-- require additional information. There's also an audit requirement on two separate levels. First, the company requesting a reimbursement has to submit to an audit with its request or has to submit an audit, and second, the PSC has an auditor who audits eight to 12 of the participating companies each year.

[0:06:22] They also audit the companies that pay in as well. There are a number of models for this program. The federal government has a similar program, and most states have something like this, although the Georgia Fund seems to be, uh, one of the more restrictive funds and includes only telephone service, voice service. Now, the fund has grown over the years. I'm sure you've heard that. Approximately forty million was distributed in twenty twenty-four. We think the growth is a result of two primary factors. First, inflation, and then second, real growth in areas served by the universal access providers, which is primarily rural Georgia.

[0:06:56] I would, I would submit that without the fund, rural Georgia would not have access to telecommunications that it currently enjoys, and that access has had an immeasurable impact on the quality of life in these areas. Uh, I don't think we'd have seen a lot of state projects in Georgia without this kind of connectivity throughout the state. So the growth in the fund, I believe, indicates the fund is achieving its intended purpose of promoting service out in these rural areas, uh, at reasonable costs and doing so in places that would not otherwise be, um, be eligible for that service if there were simple market for- forces at play.

[0:07:30] And I think it also benefits all of Georgia because we all benefit when the telephone system is more robust and more robustly permeated throughout the state. In other words, it, it certainly benefits, benefits mom to be able to call her son in Atlanta but also benefits the son to be able to reach mama when he needs to. So, um, now why are we asking to remove the twenty-year deadline? The deadline was premised on the idea that cellular service would be everywhere in Georgia by twenty thirty. And although we've certainly made great strides since that bill was passed, there are still some areas where you can't get cell service.

[0:08:03] One, a member of the-- at least I know one member of the General Assembly, in fact, can't get cell service at his home. And most of these areas are out in rural, uh, Georgia, where there's not really the market driving cell towers and provision of cell service. So, so there's still a need for these landlines and thus a need for the fund. Um, you know, some of these folks would not otherwise be able to call nine one one if they didn't have a landline. They wouldn't be able to communicate with people by phone if they didn't have that landline. And many of our local exchange companies depend on financing.

[0:08:33] They have to get financing in order to construct and maintain lines and cover their operations. And with the sunset or the termination just four years out, some of their lenders are now starting to question them, and they're having trouble getting that financing because of that, of that sort of imminent, uh, termination. So lenders are starting to inquire about the fund, and this, this jeopardizes the provision of service to the very communities the UF-- UAF is intended to benefit. So now I, I, I think a number of folks, and I'm sure who are here today, have expressed concerns about whether the fund will continue to grow if we remove the sunset, and we're also allowing those other companies to opt in.

[0:09:09] But I, I suppose I would say we, we don't really know what's gonna happen. We don't really know that from year to year right now because companies make claims against the fund, and then the PSC can authorize those distributions or deny them. Um, so I think the PSC has some control over this, and it wouldn't spin out of control. But I, I suppose my concern is the converse. What happens if we don't make those changes and, and rural communities start to suffer because they can't-- the companies can't get the financing to maintain the lines they have, to extend lines into other areas of service, um, or, you know, service has to be discontinued in places?

[0:09:45] Uh, there's, I think, an idea implicit in a lot of comments that the fund is somehow flawed and should be allowed to die, but m- my life experience suggests to me there's always a worse alternative out there that can be realized. And, uh, the experience of some other states like Texas suggests that we should not allow this fund to expire. They, they restructured their support mechanisms for universal access recently, and that coincided with a lot of carriers exiting the carrier of last resort, uh, designation and obligations. And the, I would say, the bitter harvest of all of that was a substantial disruption in rural service availability throughout that state, and disruption in pricing, and a modification of their analog to the UAF fund, uh, which at that point became much broader and more unwieldy, and I don't think we wanna see that here.

[0:10:32] This is a fairly tightly focused statute and a tightly focused fund. So while the UAF and the program have been in effect, I'm not aware of any rural telecom companies that have shut their doors, and I'm not aware that rural customers have lost service because it was uneconomical to serve them. Now, I, I think that is nothing short of miraculous. You have a government program designed to do a certain thing, and it's done that thing, I think, fairly well. So, uh, my concern is we don't truly appreciate the benefits this program has provided to rural Georgia, and I hope we don't have to lose it in order to realize how truly beneficial it is.

[0:11:07] So for these reasons, I would ask you, recommend do pass on this very important bill, and I'm glad to answer any questions to the extent I, I can. I have s- I have some phone-a-friend, uh, resources here who might have... if you d- need to drill down more deeply into the specifics.

[0:11:23] Questions? Representative Lewis-Ward.

[0:11:28] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And thank you, Chairman Leverett, for bringing this bill. Um, isn't it true that if we did at some point in time have wonderful, robust cell phone coverage, and it did cover every square inch of our state, wouldn't it be true that this fund would just evaporate eventually?

[0:11:47] I, I, I f- I, I think that's true, and that's a good point. I, I think part of what we're trying to do is, is instead of, um, you know, precipitously or arbitrarily set a, a, uh, sort of termination date, we're trying to let the fund die a natural death based on sort of the impacts of the market and the im- effects it has. And we're doing that so we don't jeopardize service in these rural areas. But that's a very good question.

[0:12:10] Thank you. Uh, I'm gonna address everybody as a representative. We have chairman in here and so many that I'd- ... I don't wanna discriminate or anything. Representative Martin. He's here, sir. Um- Representative, or Ch- Chairman Le-

[0:12:35] Have it on, on, on, on. Like, so you don't get-

[0:12:38] Yeah. Yeah.

[0:12:39] A little bit.

[0:12:40] Sorry.

[0:12:41] Unpause. Unpause. Um.

[0:12:44] Yeah.

[0:12:47] Let's just wait until the chairman- I know you- I know, I know. I j- I'm sorry. That's just-

[0:12:51] I think, I think, uh, Representative Williams is looking for the sign-in sheet, and I, I remember you referenced it, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not sure where it is.

[0:12:58] I, I just, um, recall you, you, you mentioned when, when we did this before. Were you here then?

[0:13:03] I was not here in 2010, nor in '95.

[0:13:06] So, so in, in 2010, you said that we, we did this for, for 20 years because we thought there would be cell phone co- coverage.

[0:13:13] That's my understanding.

[0:13:14] I, I, I think if... As, as the second signer of that bill, I think in, in 2010, we almost got rid of it in, in entirety at that time because there were less landlines being served and there were more mobile, uh, towers and, and the, the, the, the balance w- wasn't there. So, so my question is this. Uh, the bill does a couple things. It gets rid of the, the sunset completely, which, um, i- isn't it true if that happens, the, the legislature never tends to look at something that doesn't have a sunset date in case it needs to change?

[0:13:47] I referenced the, the 911 fee that, that we just did this year. Um, but that, that, that concerns me. But my, I guess my question I wanna get to is, states around the country have gotten rid of this fund because the federal government is providing funding to do this. Is that not true?

[0:14:06] I, I, I'm not aware that the state, that the federal fund addresses the exact same-

[0:14:11] That in, in fact, the, uh, the federal fund, you know, o- overlaps in many states, and m- many states have gotten rid of the fund b- because of that. But, but I, I take your, your point, it, it may be needed. So my question to you is this: is, is given that we, we may have some testimony and, and get some more details on it, my question is would you not agree that there are more people that live in Georgia today than lived here in 2010?

[0:14:39] Yeah.

[0:14:39] That the providing of service in this area is probably less costly per one, one FR, one, one line, than, than it was in 2010.

[0:14:51] I, I would say I don't know if that's true everywhere in Georgia. That's the whole point.

[0:14:54] I mean, there are more people in Georgia, so by, by definition, even, even if you have to go a long way out in the country somewhere, you, you are m- more apt to run by two houses today than you were in 2010, are you not?

[0:15:06] I, I've... I, I mean, I can't speak to everywhere in Georgia, but I would know in, in my district that's not necessarily true. We've actually had our populate- our population now has gone down from what it was in 1920. So I mean, you've, you've got some areas in Georgia that just haven't seen the kind of growth that you've seen in a lot of the more heavily populated areas. But I, I, I, I understand your point, but I just don't know that that's always valid in every square inch of Georgia.

[0:15:30] I understand that there may be few- fewer people that live there, but the, the lines... I, I guess what I'm trying to get at is there's less new lines having to be built on, on an ongoing basis in 2025 than, than there were in 2010 and than there were in 1995 when this originally happened. Would you agree with that?

[0:15:48] I, I, I don't know that, but it would seem intuitively to me that's the case.

[0:15:52] So, so my, my question, and we'll get here, I'm, I'm... I, I did just wanna break this down because I w- I did happen to be here in 2010 when the, the original legislation, uh, was passed. I w- I was not, in fact, in, in, uh, 1995. But the concern I have is the landlines are what pays for this. There's getting to be fewer of them. And so we're, we're adding more cost 'cause you're opening the bill up to have more companies to opt in to get the money.

[0:16:23] But the people that pay in, there's, there's b- being l- less of them. So while we might sit here, and I think you said it's only $5 a month per line, that's $60 a year per line in a, in an area when we're talking about affordability. I think it does matter to do this. So I, I would like the, the, to ask, you know, to throw this out before the committee, is I would like us to, and we may get testimony, to look at the overlap of the federal, uh, monies in this. Because in specific, my research, it says the reason states got rid of this is because taxpayers were paying for it twice.

[0:16:58] That's, thanks. Good question. Um, and we're gonna have some people from industry come up to speak too. So, um, you know, not expecting the chairman to have all the, all the questions. This is his bill and I appreciate you. I'm not, but I'm, I would say as the chair, I'm, I'm sure that there will be less people paying into it because it's not just landlines. I mean, as you know, it's not just landline companies that pay into it, it's the, uh, landlines and VoIP, I believe. Well, only that, but that, that's- Yeah. Okay. I'm not contradicting- It's kind of noble, but not noble. Not contradicting what you're saying.

[0:17:28] Uh- So VoIP- Then, uh, Representative Flournoy, do you have a question? Hi. She's from, uh... Beg your pardon? I, I have stolen the microphone. Okay. Pardon me. Mine, mine isn't lighting up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this on? Is this thing on? It's on, yeah. All right, then. I'm on then. Thank you. Al's like, "I hear you." Thank you, Al. Um, Representative Leverett, thank you so much for the bill, and thank you. I'm sorry that I didn't get to reach out to you, um- No problem ... reach back out to you to ask my, my question. I'm just, I'm always concerned about how things look on the ground, how they land at people's doorstep.

[0:18:03] So what changes does this bring, uh, in the average customer's bill? Like, what are they gonna see differently? What's going to be different? Well, I, I don't believe there's gonna be any appreciable change. You're, you're talking in the bill of the people who pay into the fund? Both. The bill, the people who pay in and the people who would be receiving services. Well, I, I, I suppose we can't have really scientific certainty about what's going to happen because we are asking to let some additional companies opt in- Mm-hmm ... if they desire to do so.

[0:18:33] And if they do or don't, it will impact, uh, could potentially impact distributions from the fund. Okay. Of course, keep in mind the PSC controls and administers that. And, and, and we don't know what other companies will do next year. They may, they may have lower requests so that overall distributions out of the fund don't increase. I mean, that's a possibility. I can't obviously o- offer that assurance or guarantee, but that is a possibility. Mm-hmm. Um, and o- of course, in its current iteration, the fund will be around for a few more years. But I'm, I'm, I'm just concerned that the companies that actually are out there providing the service in these communities are gonna be impacted even if we do nothing because they're having trouble already right now four years out with financing.

[0:19:16] And so I, I'm concerned that it would impact, um, the service that those people receive and potentially would adversely impact the cost that they pay. That they pay. And of course, the, the idea here is these, these companies as part of the sort of the, the bargain, if you will, they make to get into this program and utilize the fund, is they have to agree to keep their rates, uh, sort of capped at certain levels. Okay. And so, um, I'm just, I'm worried that you'll have people opt out and, and, and costs in rural Georgia could go up as well. Okay. Um, we, we don't feel that the cost to the people paying in is gonna be that, uh, significant, if, if anything at all.

[0:19:52] But of course, that is somewhat speculation on our part. Is that 5% ch- charge, is that movable? Uh, um, meaning is there gonna be a reevaluation of that surcharge, um, at any point to be like, "Okay, we're not getting enough money into this fund-" Well, I, I- "... with the surcharge"? I think it, well, like it was recently reevaluated several years ago when one of the, one of the payers, um, had, was not paying in e- exactly based on the formula they were supposed to. And so there was a, a, a proceeding in the PSC and an assessment made.

[0:20:23] So, um, yeah, I think they, in '23, I think they did increase the rate. So I think that can be done. It doesn't have to be done here. It can be done across the- Okay. That's, that's a PSC ... three division level PSC. Okay. A- and, and that, you know, yeah, and I'm, I think everyone here understands that's a proceeding that we're, that has frankly a little more structure and due process to it than we do here. Right. Um, you know, you, you, you have deadlines, you file motions, you have hearings, you argue the motions. There's legal arguments and, and testimony and that sort of thing. So, um, uh, but there, there is a possibility for that, but we're hoping that wouldn't happen.

[0:20:55] Okay. Well, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. We're going, we're going with some questions, but do, do keep in mind we're gonna have, uh, testimony from industry here. And, uh, and also I would say too that I think the PSC is here and there, there might be some questions relating to the fund and how the thing's administered that, uh, at some point we'll ask the PSC to kind of weigh in on some of those things 'cause that's what the, that's what they've been assigned to do by the legislation, by the current legislation. Um, Representative Okoye, where are you?

[0:21:27] I'm right here.

[0:21:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chairman Leverett? Yes, sir. I, I think given today's, uh, the trajectory of technology, uh, it's a given that at some point landlines will become a relic. In the meantime, we are allowing tier one companies to opt into the fund. Have you looked at the stress that will distribute to the fund? I, I don't believe a tier one company can opt into the fund.

[0:22:03] It's only tier two companies.

[0:22:05] We're allowing, there's, there's about three tiered companies that qualify as tier two companies that don't participate in the fund right now and we're just opening up a window to allow them to opt in.

[0:22:14] Good.

[0:22:15] But not tier one.

[0:22:16] Okay, so you-

[0:22:17] Something like over two million lines, I believe so

[0:22:19] Okay, so even at that, we are adding more to the funds and, um, as agreed, at some point it's gonna go down. Um, ha- ha- have you balanced it out to see how that's gonna work?

[0:22:35] Well, I think it's, it's difficult to do that for the same reason I, I feel like the, the current sort of sunset or, or termination date, if you will, you're, is somewhat arbitrary. You don't exactly know what the future holds. You don't know how, what new technology will be developed, you don't know how it'll be applied and you don't know how prevalent it'll become. So w- we're, we're sort of trying to let the fund have more of an organic existence and an organic demise by taking that deadline off, um... You know, when the, when the act was initially approved in '95, it didn't have, uh, a termination or a sunset date.

[0:23:10] This was added in 2010. Which is all fine and good but we just... W- w- my understanding, not to, to dispute the chairman 'cause he was there, I was not, but that part of the concern or part of the reason at least a lot of the industry folks agreed to this is they felt like we would have, w- we would need this until such time as we had pretty much universal cell service available. But until that time, you still need the fund to provide the landline access. As, as archaic and backward as it may seem, there are some parts of Georgia where that's about all you got.

[0:23:44] And so that's, that's kind of the areas we're trying to protect here.

[0:23:49] Appreciate it.

[0:23:50] Cool.

[0:23:50] Thank you. We got a couple more people signed up, or not signed up, but asked us, asked the, uh, chairman questions. When these are, uh, when I get down through these we're gonna have to move on or no- or nobody else is gonna be able to testify. Um, Representative Lewis-Ward. If you have a follow-up question, I ask the chair, we may have to limit the follow-up questions.

[0:24:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for bringing the bill. Um, many of us who represent and grew up in, um, metro areas, um, have no idea what's going on in the rural communities, so we appreciate you bringing this to light. Um, you spoke about the impact on the companies. Um, can you talk to us a little bit about the burden that if we keep the sunset will have on the low income, um, residents in the rural areas?

[0:24:36] Well, I, I, I mean, again, that, that sort of gets to the heart of the bill, right? It, it's, it's about providing service to areas that might not be able to get it if economic forces can play, you know, without any kind of restriction. Um, our concern is that low income areas and even, um, you know, just, just re- more remote areas, um, might not be able, that are still awaiting service might not be able to get it or areas that already have it might see the quality of the service, uh, degrade because w- we, we don't have this, this mechanism.

[0:25:11] I mean, to be sure, I think the intention of the bill, uh, of the initial act I should say, was an acknowledgement that if, if you l- if you just completely let competition drive the provision of service in a lot of areas, you're not gonna see service in a lot of areas. It's, it's sort of the, the typical problem you, you try to address with regulation of utility. You know, the, it... I, I don't have a Publix in Elberton. I don't have a, you know, a, a movie theater in El- well, we have the local one screen that the city runs but other than that we didn't have a movie theater.

[0:25:44] I don't even have a dry cleaner in Elberton.

[0:25:46] Mm-hmm.

[0:25:47] Um, and that's okay. I'm not asking y'all to, to i- interfere with that market. I understand I gotta, you know, I gotta drive. I just gotta drive if I wanna get really nice deli, uh, goods and that sort of thing. But phone service is different.

[0:26:00] Mm-hmm.

[0:26:00] You know? Uh, other, you know, power and those kinds of things are different, so I think we've recognized that those are, th- th- those need some help in order to provide service to people. And by giving that help, we actually strengthen the system because we in- you know, include more people in it. I mean, you can, you, you can reach more people because of this fund-

[0:26:19] Mm-hmm

[0:26:19] ... by, by telephone and they can reach out to you as well. So I'm, I'm concerned if this goes away with that sunset. Um, a- and even if, if, um, well if we leave the sunset in place it's gonna start impacting service now, and certainly in 2030 it's gonna be devastating. So that, that's, that's the reason for the bill. And I, you know, I, I understand the concerns folks have. I do appreciate them. But I just, again, I, while I'm worried about that I'm really worried about the alternatives.

[0:26:49] Right, and I think we all can agree that phone service is really important today. If we can remember last year, I think everyone's phones went out for about four hours.

[0:26:58] Mm-hmm.

[0:26:58] And-

[0:26:59] Just a couple weeks ago.

[0:27:00] Yeah. And, and we had no idea what to do. Thank you very much for the bill.

[0:27:04] Thank you so much.

[0:27:04] Good question. Uh, Representative Romman.

[0:27:07] Yeah. Um, thank you and thank you for your work on this bill and I'm, and this might just have to be for those who are gonna be testifying for later, but in order for us to make an educated decision on a bill like this one, I think we should know, for example, how many people have been using landlines and what is the trend of that over time. And secondly, how much are we paying per landline because at the end of the day if we are in the middle of an affordability crisis, this is a fee that we could save for other people and there's already an existing federal fund that does cover this.

[0:27:37] Wouldn't it make more sense for us to actually have the exact math to be able to make a decision on this? And secondly, depending on what that math looks like, maybe we just alternate the sunset deadline instead of completely eliminating it and pushing it that far down. Like if it's a difference of a couple years and they need to be able to take on those loans and it's a couple year difference, I think we should be looking at that. But having multiple funds for the same corporations kind of seems a little, a little different to me, so I'd like to get-

[0:28:04] You're making a statement instead of a question.

[0:28:06] That's, my question is like can we have a, like can we figure out what those are?

[0:28:09] Forgive us, Chairman.

[0:28:10] If you have those numbers I'd love them.

[0:28:11] I, I, I don't have them right now but I've, uh, certainly any information you feel like you need to make a decision I'm glad to come up with. I just, I would suggest to you, I don't, I don't believe it's truly duplicative and I also think in terms of affordability- Um, the real affordability crisis is gonna be when the fund goes away and costs just skyrocket in rural Georgia because you're providing service in areas where you don't have the same economies of scale you have, say, in Atlanta or Macon or Athens. Um, and so I, I, I appreciate, you know, if I were paying in, I would probably resent that $5 charge or $8 charge, but that's, that's...

[0:28:49] I, I, I view that as a cost I pay, 'cause I've, I've had a landline, um, in, in order to try to ensure the robustness of the, of the system. And if the, if the fund goes away, a lot of people who enjoy the service right now at, at reasonable rates are gonna see those rates, um, they're gonna become very unaffordable, and they're gonna have to either terminate their service or it's not gonna be provided to them. So that's, that's the flip side of that coin.

[0:29:15] Yeah.

[0:29:15] So I understand your need for that information, but I would just, um-

[0:29:19] Just make that-

[0:29:19] Okay.

[0:29:20] Yeah.

[0:29:20] Which, good points, but I was thinking questions instead of making points, trying to make points. Okay.

[0:29:24] I was, I was trying to give context to my question.

[0:29:26] Uh-

[0:29:27] So..

[0:29:27] ... Representative Mary Frances Williams, I see you have a telephone bill in your hand there, so thank you. Please, please, please make your-

[0:29:34] It's the data you were asking for

[0:29:35] ... please make your questions related to this bill, not your telephone bill.

[0:29:39] I'm one of those fools who still has a landline. And, uh, I just thought I'd share with you... Well, okay. I, I don't, uh, I'll make a brief statement, and then I do wanna ask a question. Um, so in, uh, I pay, uh, I pay 70... My, my bill, my upcoming bill is $73.46 for one month of a landline. And, um, I pay over $20 in, um, company fees and surcharges, and then government fees and taxes. And I want you to know out of that $20 plus, the federal universal service charge is $2.44.

[0:30:15] So I, I, uh, I think maybe we're exaggerating a little bit about how much this is actually is, and it's not the part of the fees and surcharges that bothers me personally. So I wanna thank you for bringing this bill because I, um, I really do worry about people in, uh, parts of rural Georgia that are hard to get to. Um, and, uh, I think those folks need a telephone, and I know that they are not, you know, these are the kind of folks that are not, um, um, probably attractive to some of the larger companies.

[0:30:46] But my, I... Is it not, uh, what my question is, is it not sort of disingenuous to talk about landlines when almost every landline that I'm aware of, except for me, has, has switched to a VoIP, and the VoIP people are paying this fee? So, um, and I think VoIP is a lot cheaper than a landline. But, um, I, but most pe- so I, I wonder if somebody could give us, um, some kind of a, a statement about the number of VoIP customers, because I would think that they would keep this bill, keep this fund healthy for a while.

[0:31:24] Do we, do we know anything about the true numbers for VoIP lines?

[0:31:28] I, I, I don't, but that's something we can try to g- get for you. And some of the, the folks testifying, they may be able to answer that.

[0:31:34] Thank you. Thank you.

[0:31:35] Mr. Chair.

[0:31:35] Mr. Chair.

[0:31:36] I think we probably get... Those are good, good questions. Thank you. Those are good questions. I appreciate that. Um-

[0:31:41] Sure

[0:31:41] ... that's a good use- Representative Romman, I, you, that, maybe I didn't understand that you were asking a question. Okay. All right. We got one more question to the, uh, presenter. Representative Moore.

[0:31:53] When I came in late, you were saying that we should just let this die out. What did you mean by that?

[0:32:01] Well, so right now it would conclude in 2030 because there's a 20-year span in the statute. And, um, uh, one concern that a lot of folks have expressed is, well, you're, you're, you know, you're doing away with this, how, how long is this fund gonna be needed, or how long is it gonna last? And, and I, I suppose my response to that is I truly don't know for sure. But I think that at some point as we get more and more cell service available out in, in rural areas and areas that, that, that this fund is designed to provide service to, um, the need for it will diminish, and the funding for it will diminish, and you, it'll, it'll sort of die a natural death.

[0:32:38] W- we're not trying to keep this fund out there necessarily forever. We're just trying to remove an arbitrary deadline that right now is making it difficult for the companies to get financing and to operate, and that we think is gonna result in, um, degradation of service in those areas that the ACT is designed to provide service to.

[0:32:56] W- w- what does, I mean, but really, what does die out mean? Do we wait, or do you want us to wait?

[0:33:02] Well, I, I-

[0:33:03] Nothing to wait

[0:33:03] ... I want you to pass my bill, Representative.

[0:33:07] I understand that part.

[0:33:08] I, I'm hoping you will see the righteousness-

[0:33:10] I, I-

[0:33:10] ... of the position and pass it

[0:33:11] ... I've traveled this whole state-

[0:33:13] But, but, but-

[0:33:14] ... twice, and I know that there-

[0:33:15] But, but-

[0:33:15] ... are a lot of people who need landlines.

[0:33:17] Yes, ma'am.

[0:33:18] Uh-

[0:33:18] But I think that-

[0:33:19] ... Representative Al Williams is the oldest legislator in history, and he's gotta have one. He's, he knows the history of all of Georgia, and I'm sure he has a landline that he depends on. Say no.

[0:33:32] All right, let's move on now. Thank you. It was a good question.

[0:33:35] Appreciate that. So I, I, I'm, I'm just trying to, to let it happen naturally rather than arbitrarily with a date.

[0:33:40] Okay.

[0:33:40] Thank you for that very thorough presentation.

[0:33:43] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[0:33:44] I don't know if you can stick around till later or not, but if you can-

[0:33:47] Oh, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm here for the duration, Mr. Chairman.

[0:33:48] Okay. All right.

[0:33:49] I'm with you, man.

[0:33:50] I'm gonna have to leave.

[0:33:52] We're gonna move on to the f- folks who've signed up. Rhonda Chatham.

[0:33:58] Ah. Can we swap seats?

[0:34:00] Okay.

[0:34:01] No question.

[0:34:04] Here, babe, come, come sit here.

[0:34:08] Sorry.

[0:34:08] No, that's all right. Stand. No, get over here.

[0:34:13] Is this on? Is this still on? Okay.

[0:34:17] Good afternoon. I'm Rhonda Chatham, and I'm the executive director of the GTBA. And I have also with me Dustin Darden with Pineland Communications and David Stevens with Darien Telephone. Uh, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we wanna thank y'all so much for the work that you do in Georgia, but also for allowing us to be able to be here today to talk about an important issue to my members, which is rural connectivity. Um, we support this bill because rural providers do need stable and predictable funding to continue providing service to their customers, and especially things like essential services like 911.

[0:34:51] And for many people like me, rural is not just a talking point. It's home. It's, it's where farmers work long hours and where you live far from town. And, uh, you know, neighbors really do help each other, though, in rural areas. But in rural Georgia, there is a real concern about when the power goes out in the middle of the night or you need help, whether when you make that call, somebody's actually going to come and, and help you. Um, you know, until you've lived that, it's really hard to explain to other people, and I know many of you can relate to that.

[0:35:26] But our utility providers, they're not just utility providers, they're part of their communities. They, their customers are their neighbors. And I remember growing up that, you know, um, my dad, when we would hear about an ice storm, very much like we just heard this week, he would go to the phone company and stay. And he did that not because he was worried about outages or fines or things like that. He did that because he wanted to make sure that his customers, who were his neighbors, if they had ser- if they didn't have service, that he could try to fix the outage so they could call.

[0:35:59] And that mindset amongst our members has not changed. That is, that is the same. And more recently, during Hurricane Helene, we heard about a lot of communication outages, and a lot of that was due to power outages, but a lot of that, um, you know, was just, just various things. But our members, a lot of their customers still had, uh, reliable connections because we had backup power on our gener- on our networks, and they had a reliable connection to their home. And, um, you know,

[0:36:34] much of that infrastructure was buried, and y- you know, you, you, there's various ways to do infrastructure, and much of theirs was buried. But that is part of our responsibility as u- utility providers, I believe, is to try to reduce the risk so that when people need their service, then the, it's, it's accountable and it's useful for them. And, um, this bill does that. It protects that investment, it protects the commitment. It's not about changing oversight of the PSC. It's, it's not about creating a forever subsidy.

[0:37:05] It's about continuing a program that's been in existence for many years, and it has been a real solution to, uh, an age-old problem of providing service in rural Georgia. And, you know, it's about, you know, Le- Chairman Leverett talked about the arbitrary sunset. It is about, uh, avoiding that arbitrary sunset because that's things that our rural providers can't control. You know, it, technology changes, or when is reliable service gonna come into their markets? And sometimes just, to be honest, the sheer fact of that there's not a business case for things in rural Georgia.

[0:37:40] Um, and we have seen a vast improvement over wireless and satellite. I love all technologies. If you've talked to me for more than five minutes, you know I love to talk this stuff. There, there has been a vast improvement, and I know coverage maps say the, the entire state is, is covered. But the reality is if you drive around Georgia long enough, you're gonna find out that there are gaps in cell coverage right now. And this fund allows those networks time to do that. And so none of those factors, though, change the fact that our providers have a commitment and they have an obligation to serve their customers.

[0:38:18] None of, none of that also changes the cost that it takes for them to upkeep their networks. Um, and talking about cost, financing is a huge part of all businesses, but it's a major, um, it's a major part of small businesses. And predictions, they're, they're crucial. And so we're at that five-year window when we need to know whether, you know, we're in limbo, our communities are in limbo. Do we need to invest? Do we need to plan? Do we need to build? Or do we need to raise rates for our customers?

[0:38:48] Or do we not, you know, or do we need to not provide service to some of them? And so that's, you know, that's, that's a big thing. And uncertainty is not good for consumers, but it's also, it doesn't improve service. Um, speaking of the PSC, I know Chairman Leverett talked a lot about the oversight of the PSC. The PSC has been, uh, they, they've been reviewing this and they've had oversight since 1995. They, there is extensive audits that they do every year, and there have been times when they denied it and our companies had to come in and refile an application.

[0:39:21] Matter of fact, just of last year and the year before, that happened. So the, the PSC to me is doing their job. I'm sure other people may not think that they are. But that, that is the way that we see this fund, is the PSC oversees it, and they have the opportunity to balance what Chairman Leverett said, which is, is balancing competition, but also balancing the, the reasonable rates in rural Georgia. And that's the purpose of the fund. And so we would ask you to move this bill forward because we feel like that it does its job.

[0:39:54] It protects the funding for our members, and then it also continues a program that balances rural Georgia. So thank you so much, and we'll answer any questions. And I, and I do have one statement from a question that was asked, if the chairman would Okay. Okay. Um, there's been some talk about the federal fund. The federal fund is actually parallel to the state fund. It does not overlap. There is no, um, double-dipping of the fund. The PSC goes through a pretty rigorous, um, process and, and they're...

[0:40:26] I'm happy to have them talk about it if they would prefer, but it's called separation. They follow the FCC rules on that, and they separate out cost. It's intrastate and interstate. And all of the intrastate is what the state fund, uh, s- oversees. And so the federal fund does not do that. Um, this is just intrastate for Georgia.

[0:40:50] Uh, yeah.

[0:40:51] Any questions?

[0:40:52] Looks like you might have some questions.

[0:40:53] Sure.

[0:40:53] You can answer them.

[0:40:54] Sure.

[0:40:54] I, I think to go, I mean, I might as well go back to chairman. I mean, I can't.

[0:40:59] It's-

[0:40:59] I have to go f- I have to go before these people on m- my own bill sometimes.

[0:41:02] Sure.

[0:41:02] I don't.

[0:41:04] Sure, you might as well go ahead and let me have it. I-

[0:41:05] I want this one, so.

[0:41:07] I-

[0:41:07] Chair- Chairman Martin.

[0:41:08] Yeah. I, I wa- I wanna try to be in it. And I thank you for y- you coming to talk to me about th- this. You, you, you did leave out the part where you were trying to get rid of the, the date. You said extend the date. So, we, we, we-

[0:41:20] Okay.

[0:41:20] We, we talked about that afterwards.

[0:41:21] Oh.

[0:41:21] I mean, I, I mean, you weren't dishonest, but we, we talked about that. But I, I just wanna be clear here when you're talking about the rates go up in rural Georgia. If, if this rate, if, if this fund is not extended, the rates go down everywhere else. It's a zero-sum game, is it not?

[0:41:34] Actually, actually, and I don't... Just like Chairman Leverett said, we cannot do exact numbers because we don't-

[0:41:39] But, but-

[0:41:40] Things do what-

[0:41:40] I don't expect you to do that, and I'm just, just out of answering. Well, listen, let me ... I'm, I don't want you... I'm not gonna ask you to do the exact numbers, but the money comes from rate payers and goes to companies to keep rates lower.

[0:41:52] Mm-hmm.

[0:41:52] We don't have to know exactly what it is.

[0:41:53] This would be-

[0:41:54] It doesn't come out of the sky.

[0:41:55] This would be my response to that. In urban areas, they would pay about $1.34 less, and in urban ar- I mean, in, in rural areas, it would go up about 25 times.

[0:42:05] We... And, and respectfully, we, we don't know that to be the case. You just said you don't have the numbers.

[0:42:09] But my statement-

[0:42:10] All I want, all I wanna do is make the point the money doesn't come out of the sky. We, we don't-

[0:42:15] No, it absolutely does.

[0:42:16] Okay. That's fair enough.

[0:42:17] It-

[0:42:17] 'Cause when you say the rate-

[0:42:18] Absolutely

[0:42:18] ... rates go up. Uh, you, you mentioned interstate and intrastate. Remember, I mean, I can't recall, Rhonda. May I call you Rhonda?

[0:42:25] Absolutely.

[0:42:25] I, uh, I can't remember, Rhonda, if you were here in 2010 or not.

[0:42:28] Yeah.

[0:42:28] And I don't think you were. But-

[0:42:30] Yeah. Let's, let's n- not call people by their first name.

[0:42:34] Okay. Okay. I'm, I'm sorry. Well, she's just-

[0:42:37] Ms. Chatham.

[0:42:38] M- Ms. Chatham, I, I apologize for that. I mean, we... You've, you've been a friend-

[0:42:41] Nope

[0:42:41] ... friend to me, and I, I enjoy doing that. You may call me, uh, which- whatever you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.

[0:42:47] Okay.

[0:42:47] Um, no, uh, seriously, but when we were d- when we had this discussion before, you mentioned intrastate and interstate. Which part of the problem at that point, and I think we corrected it in the, the 2010 legislation.

[0:42:58] Yes.

[0:42:58] Is it not true that inter- intrastate connection rates were, like, seven and a half cents a minute? That, that companies in Metro Atlanta were paying tier two companies to connect to calls in, in their areas, right?

[0:43:10] Yeah.

[0:43:10] And they were using that money to pay for getting the calls out.

[0:43:16] Yes. And so-

[0:43:16] And, and the federal rates were, I think, .75 or 1.5 cents. So that's the... We took that away, and the, the, the tier two companies agreed to go to the intrastate rate, correct?

[0:43:28] Yeah.

[0:43:28] Or, or go, go approximate that.

[0:43:31] Y- yes.

[0:43:32] Okay. And that, that's what the, the, our access fund was to make up for over that 20-year period.

[0:43:41] Y- not to make up for, for the 20-year period. I, I, I disagree.

[0:43:44] Okay. Th- that's fair enough. I, I w- was here for that. I don't know if we have it taped back in, but I mean, that, that was one of the trade-offs. 'Cause we had the discussion in, in 2009, and it completely changed in, in 2010. You probably know why. Um, so I'm just trying to get to the point here of at what point do we have to sustain ourselves in, in, in the business? And that's, that's what I would like to see. I would like to see the real numbers of this, because when we had it before, there was some f- pretty large bottom line profits going on at the, at the tier two CLECs.

[0:44:22] And they were being paid, those were being made in place by the U- UAF. And, and can, can you show us numbers about that without getting into private companies', um, P&Ls?

[0:44:34] So, so obviously a lot of that is trade secret, but if I could answer-

[0:44:38] Gotcha.

[0:44:38] Okay. Um, so as far as the, uh, access line that you referred to being about, um, the, I think, I don't remember the number, but it was quite a bit higher in rural areas that y'all did, that the 2010 statute actually took, uh, took care of. Those switched access rates, what was happening is when a call originates or was terminated into a rural area, the rural provider was able to then turn around and bill some of the price cap carriers, the bigger, uh, carriers. And at that time in 2010, the price was more, because in our, in our viewpoint, which I'm sure was not their viewpoint, but our viewpoint, it costs more to do those in rural areas.

[0:45:18] So in 2010, what the new statute that's in existence today did is it took that away, and it brought those rates down to where ours was comparable with the rest of the federal policy. And then in turn, they were to recover some of that money from the UAF that you, that you-

[0:45:37] Right

[0:45:37] ... you talked about. And those charges now, though, are what we call a bill to bill. They're de minimis now. The ac- the, the, you know, the access charges now, that particular piece of the fund has gone away at sunset in 20, uh, 2020. And since they are no longer charging us a de minimis rate, and we're charging them a de minimis rate, there's not that back and forth on the actual access pieces between the, the companies. But that was money that was changing between the companies, not necessarily the money that was changing on the customer bill.

[0:46:12] This particular high cost fund is more about the customer and the end user, how much the end user would pay versus how much the company actually was getting or not getting by the access. Those were two separate things from the way I read the bill.

[0:46:29] No, I understand. I just, but the, the, the The additional money that the, the CLECs, local CLECs were getting from the- CLECs, this is all ILEC

[0:46:37] Well, I, I was calling them IL- yeah, ILECs. The, the CLECs were paying the ILECs, the tier two companies. The additional money w- it was brought to us that, you know, we were use- we need that because we're using that-

[0:46:47] Mm-hmm

[0:46:47] ... to, to subsidize the high cost. If you take that away, we need the UF, um, Fund to continue. We need this fund to continue, and that's why the fund continued for 20 years at that time.

[0:46:57] Mm-hmm.

[0:46:59] And Chairman Martin, I think she's answered. I think she's-

[0:47:00] Yes, I, I do too. I, I was just agreeing with her.

[0:47:02] Yep, we can answer it. I-

[0:47:03] No, I agree

[0:47:04] ... I, I-

[0:47:04] Okay. We have-

[0:47:05] You answered my copy.

[0:47:06] We have a few more questions for you if you'll take them.

[0:47:08] Yep.

[0:47:08] Uh, if, you know, we want to get to the other presenters because there are other people have, may perhaps have different, uh, views than the current presenters. So, you know, take it and we want to hear everything. Uh, so if you'll make your question as, uh, concise as possible, and if the presenter can answer back as- ... pointedly as Representative Flournoy.

[0:47:28] I'll do better.

[0:47:30] Mr. Chairman, um-

[0:47:32] Hi

[0:47:32] ... thank you for the presentation. So, quick question. Um, as a provider I'm, I'm interested in the impact that not having access to the fund, uh, would have as far as, you know, infrastructure and things like that on companies, um, you know, providers. And just kind of give me some insight as far as what the impact would look like.

[0:47:54] So, I think at that point, their focus... So, so right now, if I look at our companies, and, you know, I grew up in this i- industry, just, you know, I kind of made that clear in here. But if I look at our companies, they're not necessarily, their focus is not exactly like a true for-profit company, like a, a business pro- you know, they, they do try to make a mon- you know, make money. I'm not saying that they don't, but that's not their focus. But if the fund goes away, then obviously they've got to make decisions. They can't lose money on providing service.

[0:48:25] They can't lose that if they're not making that up. So then they have choices, in my view, to make, and there's multitude of different ways that you would be able to accomplish that. A, you could charge the customer more. B, you could not continue to upgrade that, uh, those, that infrastructure that it's existing. So like, for example, let's say you have a pedestal get hit and the customer is out. You would not go out and repair that anymore, um, because those are costs that if you go out and you repair that, that there's no way the customer could then repay you unless you have billed them quite a bit to do that.

[0:49:00] So it's more of then it becomes a business model rather than a balance of competitiveness and the rural component of no business model.

[0:49:11] Okay, thank you. Uh, thank you for the question. Representative Romman, you have a question?

[0:49:15] Hi. Okay, so I wanted to give you context. Um, do you have the sort of cost per line out of this fund, or is there a way to estimate that?

[0:49:22] There, there's really not, and the reason it is is there's 19 different companies that actually get, you know, get money out of it. Um, you know, we could estimate and do all of those things, but it varies based on what is going on in that area. So I'll give you an example. There are some areas that are growing and they have to build. Um, uh, you know, y- y- you know, they have new people coming in for maybe a manufacturing company or something like that, and they request a p- a phone, so they've got to build. So that particular year when they submit their request, it would be more than an area that maybe is like Chairman Leverett's where there's no growth.

[0:50:01] That particular company might only have upkeep. So there's no way to, to actually ever, in my opinion, come up with that true number. I could at that moment, like draw a line in the sand and say right then, but it would change.

[0:50:14] And then, you know, we don't know what's going to happen in five years, 10 years.

[0:50:18] Mm-hmm.

[0:50:18] We know landlines are sort of becoming less prevalent. Instead of completely ending the sunset, is there, for example, an amount of years of an extension you need to sort of stabilize the industry as we continue to see how this sector changes over time?

[0:50:33] Well, and I guess the way I would answer that is, is similar to how Chairman Leverett answered it. Obviously, we, we're at the pleasure of the, of the General Assembly. Whatever the General Assembly feels like is the best thing for this program, obviously, you know, that would, that would be the case. However, we do believe that common sense, rational thought is how many people are going to be really willing to pay for a landline phone, especially low income people, pay for a landline phone and a cellular phone if that cellular phone does what it's supposed to do for them at their house.

[0:51:07] And so if that landline goes away, then there is, there, there is no need for that. And then there's an, a, a shift, uh, for our companies that they, that they're no longer having to provide that service and they're no longer feeling b- you know, they're, like I said, it's their, their customers. There's been some discussion like, "Well, why don't you just get rid of your carrier of last resort status?" My response to that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with people. We see those people in the grocery store. Can you imagine how they would feel if someone wasn't able to call 911 and that's their neighbor, you know?

[0:51:40] So that, it, it's just a different mentality.

[0:51:43] Thank you. Uh, Chairman Anderson, do you have a question?

[0:51:47] Uh, yeah, real quickly please. Uh, there's 19 members in the organization that you represent.

[0:51:52] Well, 18, but 19 receive that much funding.

[0:51:54] Gotcha. Okay, okay. Uh, uh, do we know, and I, I realize every member is different, but do we know approximately, in 2024 I heard the number 40 million, looked at the 2025 submissions for 43.8 million. What percentage of the total operating revenue is that? And the only reason I'm asking that question is, uh, you know, if it ends on that date, uh, there's a lot more that go into the calculation, but that's a simple minimal level of increase you'd be looking at if you just pass the entire cost through

[0:52:23] To the customer base?

[0:52:24] 'Cause, yes, yes. So the way that there's, there's not really... When you say total revenue for the company, you're meaning like every-

[0:52:30] I'm, I'm talking about the aggregate. I'm looking for an average, okay? Is it, is it, is, does 40 million represent 10%? Does it represent-

[0:52:36] And there's-

[0:52:37] ... 8%? There's-

[0:52:38] And I don't ha- I, I-

[0:52:39] Okay

[0:52:39] ... I don't have the, I... Each company would be different. Um, I would say that there, again, like the federal fund, there is separation. So like, you know, not to get too in the weeds, but just in case someone's wondering, you know, if a, if a company provides internet, voice, and, and video, the PSC does a reduction on the, um, expenditure because you're using that one line to provide all three services, and this particular fund does not reimburse for broadband or for video.

[0:53:11] So the PSC does another calculation where they strip that down, those expenses down. So I don't, I don't, I don't know. I mean, I apologize.

[0:53:20] No, no problem. Thank you. You know, we've got to move on to other presenters. Um, Representative Moore, I know you wanted to ask another que- if you can ask it really quickly. Okay. All right. I, that's, um...

[0:53:36] Representative Mary Frances Williams, if it's real quick. I'm not trying to hold, I just wanna make sure we get other questions answered, too.

[0:53:41] Yes. Um, are the companies audited by the PSC?

[0:53:46] Yes.

[0:53:49] Oh. Yes.

[0:53:53] Representative Williams, ask your question again in the mic so it can be on the recording.

[0:53:59] Oh. Um, can you tell me if the companies that receive funding through this fund are audited by the PSC?

[0:54:06] Yes, they are yearly.

[0:54:08] Thank you.

[0:54:08] Okay. Good question. Thank you, Mrs. Tatum. I think that's all the questions, at le- at least for now. So and I think-

[0:54:15] Okay

[0:54:15] ... I think-

[0:54:16] Happy to answer any more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman-

[0:54:18] Thank you

[0:54:18] ... and members of the committee.

[0:54:19] Uh, we have, uh, Elizabeth Reynolds.

[0:54:32] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, appreciate the opportunity very much to speak to y'all today. My name is Elizabeth Reynolds. I'm the senior director of government affairs for AT&T in Georgia. House Bill 998, as you've heard, addresses the Georgia Universal Access Fund that is administered by the PSC. And you've also heard that the current structure of the fund and the framework that we are existing under today was established through legislation in 2010. The 2010 legislation was the result of a very carefully, thoughtfully, and my understanding, I was not here in 2010 either, uh, but my understanding was a very, at times, contentiously negotiated compromise deal.

[0:55:11] All the impacted parties were involved in creating the current framework, including the high cost portion of the fund that we're talking about that's due to sunset in 2030. I know many of you have been hearing about this issue over the last year, but as one of the largest contributors to the fund, and as one of the parties that helped broker the current framework, we were not approached about this issue until earlier this month. We did not see a copy of the bill until a week before it was introduced. As the bill is currently written, we do have concerns, and it has raised a lot of questions for us.

[0:55:44] You're approaching the sunset date for the UAF, and we believe it only makes sense for the legislature to do a thorough review of the program and to make a policy decision about whether the fund is still needed and in what capacity. This is what the citizens of Georgia that pay into the fund, as well as those who are served by it, deserve. I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Leverett and have shared these questions and concerns with him. Likewise, I've also told our friends at the Georgia Broadband and Telecom Association that we are open to a path forward and that we have raised these concerns with them as well.

[0:56:17] I think, okay, I'm gonna say you can see up here on the screen, just, um, for everyone's awareness, this is a map, and I believe for committee members it would be in your packet as well. This is a map of, um, AT&T's traditional footprint for providing basic local exchange service. So you can see the shade of blue that we are serving a number of communities around the state, including rural communities. The basic local exchange technology that the Georgia UAF continues to subsidize is quickly becoming an obsolete technology, and this is driven by consumer behavior.

[0:56:50] Nationally, more than 95% of households with access to AT&T's copper network do not subscribe to it. And since 2012, our landline customers in Georgia have declined by an incredible 94%. As a communications company, our purpose at AT&T is connecting more people to greater possibility. We care about connectivity for all Georgians, and we recognize the role that the UAF has played over time in providing basic phone service.

[0:57:20] And let me be clear, we do not want anyone to lose access to connectivity. And if you would go to the next map for me really quickly. Um, so the next map that you're gonna see on the screen is a map of our wireless coverage. Um, and again, committee members, you should have this in your packet. But, um, looking at 2010 versus today, and you can see that it has come a long way. The map on the left is showing coverage at the end of 2010. Thank you. It's just those two.

[0:57:51] Um, coverage at the end of 2010, with the dark orange showing 3G, which at the time was, you know, really cutting-edge technology. Medium orange showing 2G, and then the light peach color was partner coverage where we were roaming on another network. Fast-forward to the end of 2025 and the map on the right, the dark blue is 5G+ coverage, the teal is 5G, and the orange is our 4G LTE. 100% of Georgia's population is covered by our LTE network, and 94% of Georgia's population is covered by our 5G network.

[0:58:26] And look, I understand, you know- I'm not gonna sit here and say that I've never dropped a call or that coverage does not need to continue improving, but I think it's very clear here that significant strides have been made and we continue to invest to meet consumer demands. Just last week, we announced the addition of more than forty-five new cell sites that we built in Georgia in twenty twenty-five alone, and that does not account for the upgrades that we made last year to existing cell sites. With the changes in technology and consumer preferences, citizens in virtually every part of Georgia are now able to connect and communicate in a variety of ways via host of different providers that may not have been available to them in twenty ten.

[0:59:07] Wireless and satellite also continue to expand the options for serving customers that are costly to serve using wireline technology. The proponents of this bill argue that there are still isolated areas where some consumers would not have reliable service without subsidies. And as the legislature considers extending the fund beyond twenty thirty, in those instances, we agree that utilizing subsidies may still be appropriate. However, the UAF should function as a backstop and deployed in those instances where there is clear evidence that other reliable service is not available.

[0:59:41] We believe that the legislature and the citizens who are responsible for paying the subsidy need to have a clear understanding of where the problem currently exists. Put another way, how many people today, if they did not have traditional copper landline, would not have access to reliable wireless coverage or to a VoIP phone? Defining that universe of people helps ensure that any continuation of the fund continues to serve its purpose of providing basic connectivity to those that are truly in need.

[1:00:14] House Bill nine ninety-eight is not just extending a sunset. The legislation proposes eliminating a sunset. And we've heard the argument that the fund will sunset itself, but respectfully, I have to disagree with that assessment. In the last decade, the high cost portion of the UAF has grown from just under twenty million to just over forty-three million in disbursements as of twenty twenty-five. And we know as well as anyone how expensive maintaining a communications network is. But as has already been established, landline usage is declining, and yet the fund continues to go up, more than doubling in the last decade.

[1:00:47] As the bill is currently written, what certainty do we have that the fund will not continue to grow? The legislation also allows for the PSE to open back up the window for rate of return regulation. And again, looking at the historical trend line, if you are adding more subsidy recipients, it stands to reason that the fund would continue to go up. As the legislature considers this policy decision, we think it's important to understand by just how much this impacts the fund's growth and the con- commensurate impact on citizens that pay the subsidies. To summarize, we recognize the importance of connectivity for all Georgians.

[1:01:19] But given that the fund is not due to sunset for four years and that this is a significant departure from the status quo, we believe there should be a thorough review of the impacts of the bill to strike the right balance that serves all Georgians. So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Really appreciate the opportunity and happy to answer any questions as best I can.

[1:01:40] So we're looking for passenger airplanes

[1:01:47] still trying to get the information that you need to, to know about this bill. And with that, uh, who's next up? Chairman Camp, is that right? Nope. No? Representative Romman. So I just wanna clarify. You mentioned that the consumer base has dropped by ninety-four percent, but based on this, it says from the moment the fund was established, it's essentially quadrupled in revenue requests or in terms of requests. So landline, our landline customers have gone down by ninety-four percent in Georgia, and I focused on that statistic because that's the sub-- or that's the service that is being subsidized.

[1:02:23] Mm-hmm. But it's both landline and VoIP that pay into the fund, but only traditional landline that is subsidized. And do we know why it's increased by four times from the initial sort of... Like, 'cause this says t- twenty twenty-five requests, it's not just how much is in it, it's just how much has been requested- Correct ... is four times what was first requested in twenty ten, even as the consumer base is dropping. You would assume that that would actually just follow the same trajectory. Is it because increase in costs in the, in the industry itself, or is- I think that's a question that we're asking that we'd love to find the information to as well.

[1:02:55] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh, chair has a question. Uh, listening to your testimony and your presentation, I'm not sure, and I'm not, not sure if the members do or not, maybe they, they do, but I'm not sure if you're supporting the bill. Are you supporting this bill? No, sir. What I would say is that we have concerns with it as written, but we are open to, you know, finding a path forward. Can you tell us, and this, uh, uh, I think this'll be my only question to you, but can you tell us anything...

[1:03:25] It's not a very long bill. Uh, can you tell m- tell us anything that, uh, you would be comfortable with if, if it were changed? I mean, short of getting the bill. I think that, you know, certainly looking at a sunset date as opposed to removing the sunset is a big one. But to really know what makes sense or what we're, you know, what we're negotiating on, I think we need more data, um, to be able to really answer that question. So, well, I guess I will ask you another question. How would you, how would you get that data?

[1:03:57] Where, where would you go to? How do you think you would get that data you're talking about? The, the questions that I posed, a lot of those are questions that, um, Rhonda and I talked about last week. Okay. All right. We do have another... I shouldn't have said anything. I got two questions here now. Chairman Camp, I think you were first. Thank you. Um, I guess my question is, um, how much does it cost to bui-- Well, I have a lot of questions, but, you know, building out in rural Georgia, um, Chairman Leverett talked about his county actually was declining.

[1:04:27] Based on the AJC last fall, they said ninety-nine percent of the, or ninety-nine counties of the state actually have more deaths than births, meaning they're getting smaller. Mm-hmm. So the people who do move there who are trying to keep that area going, um, you know-

[1:04:43] Very likely might live somewhere that does not have a phone line to start with. How much does it cost per foot on AT&T to put a phone line in?

[1:04:53] I couldn't answer that question 'cause it's very specific depending on what our infrastructure is there already and how, whether you're extending existing infrastructure or, you know, building out in a new area. But be happy to talk to you about that offline.

[1:05:06] All right. Short follow-up?

[1:05:08] Short follow-up.

[1:05:08] Short follow-up. So you talked about with the existing infrastructure. So if you're in rural Georgia and you're a small telephone carrier, uh, down there, um, it is possible that it could be an exorbitant cost to put a phone line in. Correct?

[1:05:24] It certainly could.

[1:05:25] And, and I'm guessing when AT&T negotiated this years ago, that's one reason why the Public Service Commission was put in charge, correct? So they could only allow these funds to be used for authorized purposes to putting phone lines in, correct?

[1:05:39] Correct.

[1:05:40] All right. Thank you.

[1:05:41] If I could, Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that?

[1:05:43] Of course.

[1:05:43] Um, what I would say is when we're looking at the networks that have been built out over time, 'cause very much understand, um, Representative Camp's point, but how many new landline customers are these regulated telecom seeing? Because I think that's, when you're talking about maintaining networks, certainly acknowledge that there are maintenance costs involved with that. But how much are we building out and expanding the network because new landline customers are signing up today? So that would be my kind of counter to that.

[1:06:14] I guess that'd be the Public Service Commission, wouldn't it?

[1:06:16] We have the, um, we have somebody from PSC here. In fact, we'll, I'll ask them, after the last pre- presenter, I'll ask the PSC. We do have somebody here.

[1:06:24] Good.

[1:06:25] I'll ask him if he can, uh, make any comments that's relevant to any of the questions that's been asked. Okay. Uh, Representative Moore.

[1:06:34] Well, you know I'm into technology.

[1:06:37] Yes, ma'am.

[1:06:38] But I've got one foot in the old school and one foot in the new school. So I've got... He got me back. I'll accept that. But now, he threw me off there with the age thing. Um, so this map here, is this the current map right now?

[1:06:59] That is our traditional landline footprint map. So without going into the history of-

[1:07:05] No, I don't wanna go into all that

[1:07:06] ... the telecoms-

[1:07:07] But is this the current map right now?

[1:07:08] The current map of our tr- our, our landline footprint.

[1:07:12] Okay.

[1:07:12] Where we are the incumbent local exchange carrier.

[1:07:14] And we're in 2026.

[1:07:15] Not our fiber broadband footprint.

[1:07:18] Okay. So we're in 2026, and we're only talking four years. This is the end of a legislative session. So if we don't make a decision now, um, could this be, could this be in jeopardy in the next legislative session if it gets hung up in committee?

[1:07:39] Well, I think, I just wanna clarify.

[1:07:41] Do, do what?

[1:07:41] The map that we're talking about is our traditional landline footprint map, which is separate from the question-

[1:07:47] Yes

[1:07:47] ... that, that you're asking about.

[1:07:48] Yes.

[1:07:49] But I guess what I would say to that is we still feel like there's time to do a deep dive to make sure that the legislature has all the information that they have to make a policy decision about what and if the funds can be allocated to-

[1:08:04] In this legislative session or maybe the next 27, 28

[1:08:08] Yeah, so it depends on how long it takes to get the information.

[1:08:11] Okay. And so you all are AT&T.

[1:08:14] Yes, ma'am.

[1:08:14] You're the big boys. You all don't have that information today? You came to the gunfight.

[1:08:22] I think if we're, we're asking for that information from the rural providers that are serving those communities to share that.

[1:08:28] And just one quick question.

[1:08:29] Yes, ma'am.

[1:08:30] And I'm not trying to be ugly, but

[1:08:36] according to this map-

[1:08:37] Mm-hmm

[1:08:37] ... if anyone in Charleston County had a baby

[1:08:45] or someone had a heart attack or your mother's lying on the floor and they didn't have some way to contact, because not all places have wireless service. My dad in Virginia, I wouldn't stay more than 24 hours with him. I couldn't get service on my phone, but I was roaming. That was in 2010. I couldn't do that today. So I'm a little afraid to follow behind the big boys when the little boys down in Clayton, uh, Charleston County and Church and all those other places, even if one person were to die, I would, would be in jeopardy.

[1:09:26] I would feel bad.

[1:09:28] Okay.

[1:09:28] But we all should take ‒

[1:09:29] Ma'am

[1:09:29] ... that stuff just as

[1:09:30] Good questions. You'll have, at some point, you'll have an opportunity, you'll have an opportunity to vote on the bill based on how you feel about those very questions you just asked. Uh, the, uh, Governor's Floor Leader Seabaugh. Bar your mic? Yes, you may. Thank you. Is there any data on how many service areas do not have an alternative service provider?

[1:09:51] That's what we would love to find out. I, I'd love to have the answer to that question, 'cause I think that would help shape the committee's decision and purpose on, on where funds are still needed.

[1:10:05] Representative Flournoy, you have a question? Representative, Chairman Yearta.

[1:10:11] Yes, Chair. Thank you, Mr.

[1:10:13] Thank

[1:10:17] you.

[1:10:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I live in one of those districts where there are areas that are fairly large populations that have a lot of service, but there are certain areas of my district that have very, very sparse populations, especially the northern part of Worth County, and I know that area, uh, quite well, and I know there's not good cell phone service up there and, uh- This is really an important thing that, that, that provides those folks a service that they can for emergencies and other things, like other people have said.

[1:10:53] But my question is, uh, are you required to serve everyone, like the rural providers, uh...?

[1:11:02] Um, so yes, sir. I think you're referring to the carrier of last resort obligation. In 2012, the Georgia Legislature addressed that and removed the carrier of last resort obligation if you are not a regulated entity or if you are not drawing funds from the UAF fund. So no, we do not have that same carrier of, of last resort obligation. Um, what I would say is, for those that do not draw down from the fund, or if the fund were to go away, that obligation also does go away.

[1:11:36] Good point.

[1:11:39] Thanks.

[1:11:39] Burchett, do you have a question?

[1:11:41] So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, um, thank you for that question, uh, Representative Yearta. That was m- about hitting where I was at. I, I've got a few folks in my district. And, and listen, we're, we're all friends in here 'cause I've got AT&T, and I've got VoIP in my office, and I've got, uh, rural broadband. I've got it, I've got it all. I've got a landline. There are still people in my district that w- don't have cell phones, and they utilize these, um, uh, landlines. Uh, in fact, I made a phone call the other day, and I got a, what I'm pretty sure was an old tape recording, um, um, answering machine.

[1:12:17] And, um, so my question is, if... Do you, do you know, uh, these, these, um, h- you said 90% or 95% of your folks have moved away from landline, is that right?

[1:12:29] In Georgia, 90... We've seen a 94% decline in our landline customer usage. Nationally, 95% of our copper network sits unused.

[1:12:39] Well, do you know what the cost was in 2010 to run per foot or per mile?

[1:12:45] I do not know that, but I'd be happy to look into that and get back with you.

[1:12:48] To maintain per foot, per mile, huh?

[1:12:50] I, I don't have those numbers.

[1:12:52] You testified that it was, um, what, four times or five times s- the, the amount that they've subscribed to now or, or applied for?

[1:13:01] Um, the fund has grown over the last-

[1:13:03] Still

[1:13:03] ... decade from just under 20 million to 43 million today.

[1:13:07] My... Do you know what the state budget was in tw- ... that long ago?

[1:13:12] I'm gonna embarrass myself. 2010, I was graduating college- ... so no, I do not know.

[1:13:17] Um, well, um, the... Do you think it is, uh, reasonable to assume that the cost of business has increased significantly from then to now?

[1:13:25] Sure.

[1:13:26] Uh, and the maintenance on these lines could likely be, um... You know, these lines, I don't know how long. What's the life line of a copper line in, in the ground or in the air?

[1:13:35] I mean, it's like, they're, they're around for 50-plus years. They've been around for a long time, but maintenance costs are-

[1:13:42] Yeah

[1:13:42] ... pretty.

[1:13:43] Right. So my, m- m- the other thing, the only point I'm making is, do we know also how many, uh, these folks that they're serving and that are not tier ones, do you know how m- how many folks have moved away from the copper, uh, landlines?

[1:13:58] That's another question that we would love to find out more of the-

[1:14:01] Okay

[1:14:01] ... with where your head is out there, but I just don't know the answer to that.

[1:14:04] Very good. Well, pretty much appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

[1:14:07] Thank you.

[1:14:07] Good questions. Our Representative Mary Frances Williams, I think you have the last question to this presenter.

[1:14:13] Hi. So, um, yes, I am a, a happy AT&T customer.

[1:14:19] Thank you for your patronage.

[1:14:21] So, um, yeah, um, um, so first question. Um, who, who produced this? Is this an AT&T chart?

[1:14:30] No.

[1:14:32] Can you tell me who produced this chart?

[1:14:33] I cannot. I don't know who did them.

[1:14:35] Well, I mean, it's, it's making the point that the surcharge amount is going and that it's the sky's the limit. So I, I'd like to know. It's, since we all have it in front of us, I'd like to know.

[1:14:46] Chair, this pa- hang, hold up.

[1:14:48] As I say, I think they're the association-

[1:14:49] He's, he's the next presenter

[1:14:50] ... chart right there.

[1:14:51] Okay, this is... Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:14:52] Hunter Hopkins is the next presenter.

[1:14:54] Okay. So my other question is, would, do you think it would be fair, um, since your customers are paying this fee right now, for this to be considered a, a pass-through fee for AT&T and therefore not really a financial burden on AT&T?

[1:15:11] I think what I would say to that is, yes, our customers do pay for that, but our customers are citizens of Georgia, and they, they are voters across Georgia, you, yourself. But I think we're looking at the larger picture here. This was a framework that all of the impacted parties worked on together in 2010. We've all lived under this regime, and-

[1:15:33] I just, it-

[1:15:34] Go ahead.

[1:15:35] Well, I know. I, I just asked a simple question. Is it, it's a pass, it's a pass-through fee?

[1:15:42] Yes, ma'am.

[1:15:42] And so it's not negatively impacting your bottom line?

[1:15:47] What I would say is, is as we look at beyond 2030-

[1:15:52] You've gotta know if it is or it isn't. I mean, y'all are doing... Okay.

[1:15:56] The chair's gonna interject here, if you don't mind.

[1:15:58] Okay.

[1:15:59] It is a pass-through. The, uh, and then a year or two after we passed the bill that set up basically the current language, we changed the, we changed the, the legislation, we changed the law so that the companies, I believe, we, they have to put it on their bill. They have to put it on the bill that it is, that, that you're paying it. But, um, in other words, putting it on there so that you'll know that they're probably raising their, your, your bill that much. But y- you, but the company pays the bill, but it's a pass-through back to you, and it's, it's on the bill to let you know how much it is.

[1:16:33] Yes, ma'am.

[1:16:33] Well, you, you, it's a pass-through, so you do pay it. I mean, you eventually pay it. It's like a tariff, but I'm not gonna get into that.

[1:16:42] Oh no, it's a permanent one that-

[1:16:45] But yes, it's a pass-through to answer you, and I think that's what the presenter was saying, yes Yeah. Well, thank you. That's the last question I see for you. Thank you very much.

[1:16:53] Thank you.

[1:16:53] I'm sorry that you had to come out on a very, very cold day.

[1:16:56] Oh, well I, I'm running hot at this point with my pregnancy- ... so it's okay. I don't mind.

[1:17:04] One side, I'm not-

[1:17:05] Yeah. It, it-

[1:17:06] All right, Hunter Hopkins, I know you're here, and you were just, uh, called out for putting something out, so.

[1:17:12] Like the same thing.

[1:17:20] Good afternoon.

[1:17:20] Good afternoon.

[1:17:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Hunter Hopkins. I'm the executive director of the Georgia Cable Association. Uh, we represent the major cable providers here in the state, cover, uh, areas all over the state, and we offer not only high-speed broadband, uh, video services, VoIP phone services, and cable service to a little over, uh, we have two plus million accounts across the state. But I know we've heard from a lot of people today, and I've actually got somebody here to join me.

[1:17:57] This is, uh, Sean Davis. Some of y'all might know him. Sean, uh, does some regulatory work for us across the street at the Public Service Commission. He was actually... used to be on staff for the PSC. He's been working for us for the past 20 years and was involved with this House Bill 168 in 2010, uh, and kind of tracks it all for us across the street. But, uh, I have h- I have him here to kind of answer some of the questions and kind of run through this chart, uh, that we produced. But, uh, a lot of the issues that we have, uh, with this, with this House Bill 998 have already been raised.

[1:18:33] Uh, you know, we have, uh, a lot of questions regarding the data. Uh, you know, the, uh, how many landlines, the traditional copper landlines there are still out there and being used. We totally support having every Georgia citizen connected, whether it be, uh, you know, VoIP, la- uh, copper landline, whatever it might be, and we understand how important it is for those folks to especially be connected to emergency services or their family, and we totally support that. Support what the Universal Access Fund has done during its past, uh, 35 years since it started, uh, and totally support that.

[1:19:10] We just have some concerns removing the sunset and just kind of letting this thing go into perpetuity. So, uh, I'm gonna let Sean, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, touch on, uh, this chart.

[1:19:20] It's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for having me. Uh, I did wanna speak a little bit to the sustainability of the fund. That was your question, Representative Williamson. I live right down the street from you, by the way, um, in, in Devan Seabaugh's district, however. And, uh, and then I'm gonna offer to, to talk about some safeguards. Um, I, I know that there were some questions earlier whether there could be some of those looked at. Um, and that this is a chart that we prepared. We did run the data by the PSC staff to make certain we were correct on the, on the data. Um, it, it was asked earlier what's happening with the growth of the fund.

[1:19:53] And as you see, um, by the steady, solid line, that is the, the disbursements on an annual basis from the commission. It, it was at nine something million before the legislation passed, and this continues to climb. The last time that that surcharge was changed, as you see, is in 2023. That was at $4 million less than the fund's paying out now annually. Um, so that, that's likely due for an adjustment before you've even considered any other, uh, legislation. The reason that it keeps climbing, that's just a linear trend line dropped in from Excel. Um, no economist put that together.

[1:20:24] That's just Excel telling you what, at, at that rate, that's what the fund looks like. So we're talking, um, another, um, 50%, uh, in growth, even if you carry this to 2034. That takes it out to 60 something million dollars. Um, and the concern, of course, that, that, that we have is, is, is that sustainable? Because when you, when you consider that even if the fund grows at that rate, what's not in there is the other 15 recipients, there's a list of them on there.

[1:20:55] There's another 15 tier two ILECs that are not in the fund yet, that this legislation would allow to get into the fund. That's not considered here. So that could grow the fund by another 50% of, of the recipients, and that too would cause the line to spike more north. Another reason we think it will also spike, the revenue losses that are being experienced right now, and that was, that was asked earlier. Our experience with this fund is that the fund is growing at the rate that it is for two reasons. Number one, you heard some testimony.

[1:21:25] It is plant and service has increased. If you look at their books, their plant and service, that's growth. That's, uh, their facility growth, um, for sure. Um, the second reason is that the operational losses are very high. The reason that they're high, in 1995 when this first started, 95% of Georgians had a li- had a landline. When 168 passed in 2010, that number dropped to 70%. Today, 20% of Georgians consider themselves to be landline mostly adults. I'm not saying those are the numbers in the, in the rural telcos.

[1:21:56] I'm saying that that's statewide in Georgia. Those aren't national numbers. And so that's what you're seeing as to why the, the, the fund has grown at the rate that it has. Um, so why would, why do we think it's gonna continue to spike? The revenue losses from customer drops are occurring not just for the independent local exchange companies, but also for the 300 plus telecoms that are contributing into the fund. They too are losing those landline customers. So you have a shrinking contributor revenue base in which to pay these subsidies to the very people we're trying to help.

[1:22:30] And of course, the higher the tax, the more people will drop the service. We know that, uh, just in basic economics. So it's a self-defeating cycle. And, and I only say this to you to say maybe we need to slow down a little bit and take a look at what are some things that other states are doing. What are some ways that we can protect the fund, protect the solvency of the fund, make certain that the people who truly need that service in rural Georgia is getting it, but at the same time make sure that, uh, everyone else is paying it is, is, is, is, it's going towards the intention.

[1:23:00] Um, there was a study, the last one I know of, 2019, was the National Regulatory Resource, Research Institute 22 states still had a high-cost support fund. None of our surrounding states have one except South Carolina. Uh, since then, many have canceled their funds, was noted earlier. Some of them have moved them to another means. Um, some of them have capped their funds. Alaska, their surcharge rate was bouncing around where ours was or and is now. It spiked to 19%. They canceled their fund. They now have moved towards other, uh, options.

[1:23:33] Uh, some states have looked at landline support, which is where you're basically just giving discounts to means-based people who need the service at lower rates, and that's how they've a- addressed the issue. Um, lastly, I just wanna mention one other point, and that is we've talked a lot about copper lines. One of the questions raised earlier, how many of these customers served by these, by these 19, uh, independent telephone c- uh, incumbent, excuse me, incumbent telephone companies, how many are offering service through copper versus broadband?

[1:24:04] Quick check, and that's, I'd love to have that answered, but a, but a quick check just yesterday, 19 of these companies are offering high-speed broadband right now. 13 of those 20 are offering high-speed video entertainment subscription-based services. Several others are offering alarm-based services, um, whole home monitoring services, other things where you can turn on the lights and do all the fancy stuff you can do today on broadband. I only mention that to say that, um, when the, when, when the revenue is considered in terms of looking at the operational losses of these companies, you're only looking at the revenue of the basic telephone service.

[1:24:41] You're not looking at the revenue of all these other ancillary support businesses, and maybe that's something that we need to look at as well. In other words, there's, there's certainly other revenue there to support that last mile, that most expensive part that's running from the local exchange office out to the customer premise. So those are just some of the things to think about. Um, we stand ready to serve, Mr. Chairman, as a resource to you in hopes of finding a long-term solution. You might have a question, but I wanted to ask you, uh,

[1:25:09] uh, you have, uh, both of you spoken on the bill. Uh, I'm still not clear, do you support the bill? We were involved in 2010 as one of the parties that were compromised in deter- The compromise bill, House Bill 178, we were involved in. As the bill is written right now, we have these major concerns and would love to sit down at the table with all the interested parties and see if we can work on another compromise to, you know, to see what the future holds. Okay. Well, you're, you're at the table here with, with the committee.

[1:25:43] Um, so if you will tell us what, if there's anything in the bill as it's written currently, as it's, as before. So is there anything in the bill that, uh, you could suggest, uh, that, that would make it something that you would be in support of?

[1:26:02] I would have to, I'd have to go back to my membership. Chairman Parsons, uh, in all honesty, I know, I know just removing the sunset and having this thing run in per- perpetuity is a major, uh, major issue. I don't know if, uh, you know, depending, I don't know if, uh, if, uh, extending the sunset a little bit further, that might give us more opportunity to look into some of these questions and find out some of these facts and figures and data points that, uh, we, that have been discussed today, uh, you know, could possibly help us out. But as of right now, I can't answer that question.

[1:26:32] Okay. Thank you. Good, good answer. I appreciate that. Um,

[1:26:39] we have a couple more people signed up. I did wanna ask the, uh, public service commissioner, somebody here from the pu- public service commission who deals with telecommunication. My understanding was plus he's left. Yeah. Where? Y'all have him with? Still on the line. Okay. I'd like to meet him. If you have any, if you have anything to present to us, or if you would ex- take questions, e- either or both. No, we just here, um, to answer any questions, um, you might have. Um, they've gone over pretty much what we do and how we administer the fund.

[1:27:10] Okay. And we're here to answer any questions. We got Tom- Is there any... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Is there anything that has been asked, uh, or said that you feel like you need to give more clarification to, that's already been said or asks? Okay. All right. Well, if you'll take, if you'll take some questions then. Yes. I don't know who... Well, I've got a, I've got a list here. I'm gonna go by the list. Uh, Chairman Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I want to just ask this from the American. I was gonna ask the gentleman, but I'll, I'll, I'll ask all involved if they, uh, have, have numbers on this.

[1:27:42] I'm a numbers guy, and, and so earlier in the testimony was, it was said that this cost about a $1.50. Is that right for a Tier 1 company? Is that what the, or a $1.20-something? Is that right, guys? Is that what's added to the bills? Um, we don't know what is added. I mean, th- but, but a clo- I mean, between a dollar and two dollars. Yeah, whatever. Close. Let me just tell you how we, how we do it. We take, um, from the 20 companies, we, they file what they file. No, I'm talking about paying in. Okay. Yes, sir. This is what I'm gonna get to. Okay. And at that time, we figure out what the deed is based on that, and then from their gross revenues, that's when we say, "Okay, from the gross revenues, we need whatever percentage it is," and that's what we use to pay out.

[1:28:25] And then we come up with 5.25%, and then we levy 5.25%, and then whatever they put on their bill to collect that, that's what it is. So, so fair, fair enough. So if my bill was $50, it'd be about $250. Yeah. Whatever that 5.25. Okay. That, that's what I thought I heard. I, I actually thought the representative from, from Cobb earlier said it was something about a dollar something, but, but whatever the case. So, and, and then the, the, Ms. Chatham said, you know, "But, but if we did it, it's 25 times that." So I, I, hold on, I'm gonna get to the question here because I'm a numbers guy.

[1:28:55] So if, if, if it's a dollar and it's gonna cost her, you know, if it goes away, if it's gonna cost the people that are in rural Georgia that are paying for it 25 times that, that's $25 a month. That's $300 a year. We're spending $40 million a year. That's 111,000 customers. Can somebody tell me an estimated number of these 19 companies, how many people that is? 'Cause I would think it would be more than 111,000 customers.

[1:29:22] Does anybody f- I mean, I don't know if we have it. I'm just trying to get down to, I don't doubt that some support needs to be there. The chairman is asking what would, you know, what would I suggest. I would suggest a, a, a, an extension of four years, you know, five years, and study this to get to the real numbers of what's needed to do the funding. Because I'm, I'm trying to get those numbers, and that was my question. You know, I don't think we have the answer. I know you, you, you said you could get me the answer later on. But I'm concerned, is it not true that, that this $40 million is not just building copper to places, it's building fiber to places.

[1:30:00] And, and that fiber can deliver. And I understand y'all do an audit and you don't give them the full reimbursement and so forth. But can we get to those numbers so before we take action on this and find out what the real impact is to those folks that are paying the bills in the 19 company, in the 19 companies that are, if you will, being subsidized by the other parts of Georgia. Because the numbers of 25 times don't add up to me, and I, I need to get my head around that b- before moving forward. And that's the question I have of PSE.

[1:30:30] If, can you get us the numbers for, for later of how many people in the, in the tier two companies that are doing that? The, the next question I ask is these, these companies were opening it back up. They haven't been in this before. What, uh, for what reason would we consider opening it up to people that hadn't needed it before but now need it?

[1:30:52] That's a policy decision.

[1:30:54] No, but, but I'm, I'm not asking... W- we understand we make a policy decision.

[1:30:57] Yeah.

[1:30:57] But w- if, if you're, you regulate them. You're gonna decide if they get in or not. W- I, I believe that's correct, right? They can just apply to get in.

[1:31:06] I think the bill says they just elect.

[1:31:08] Okay, they just elect.

[1:31:09] Yes.

[1:31:09] But what would cause them to elect if they haven't elected before?

[1:31:17] Because they give, they give something up if they elect to get in, right? They, they give up their ability to charge what the market will bear.

[1:31:23] Yes.

[1:31:24] I'm just not sure that's a question for the Public Service Commission at all, in respect.

[1:31:28] Well, you... Yeah. Yeah.

[1:31:30] Yeah, I mean presumably it's a business decision-

[1:31:31] Yes

[1:31:32] ... for these companies as to whether they, they want to elect or not. And we, uh, we don't know enough about the individual-

[1:31:39] Costs

[1:31:39] ... costs and circumstances to know whether-

[1:31:42] They would be, they, they would be going from the free market into a rate, a subsidized rate controlled market, which we got what we got out of in 1995.

[1:31:52] That's correct.

[1:31:53] Okay.

[1:31:54] Chairman Martin, it's a good question. I think they answered it as best they possibly could.

[1:31:57] Yeah.

[1:31:57] You know, I mean, it's the same question. And, uh, you were here when we passed, uh, 168.

[1:32:04] Yes, sir.

[1:32:05] And I was here when we passed the Governor Perdue's bill in 1995 or 1996. So these are questions we've all... Well, not everybody here was there, but I mean, a lot of these questions we've gone over before. It's actually the same, you know, same process. There'd be a reason that that company thought that would be to the benefit of their, let's say, benefit to their subscribers to do that. Uh, any other questions to the... Uh, yes. Yes, ma'am. U- use the microphone there if you would.

[1:32:35] So my question is this. Um, I don't know if you've seen this chart, but it, um, it was prepared by the Cable Association, and they are using data to extrapolate where they think the fund would go. And I, s- since you actually manage the fund, I would think that you might be more able to say whether you think that's a, an exaggeration or, um, a legitimate, um...

[1:33:02] Well, currently, you know, for this year, um, the fund requests are 43.8 million. If this is approved, you know, um, you could have 14 or 15 more companies that could elect. So just intuitively, if they elect, they have cost. So that would conceivably tell you that it will go up. We have no idea what the amount would be b- because that would be based on their cost-

[1:33:29] Sure

[1:33:29] ... to provide service.

[1:33:30] Yes.

[1:33:30] So just conceivably you would think it would go up. But there's no way to determine the cost.

[1:33:35] That's just a...

[1:33:36] I mean.

[1:33:37] Oh, yeah, I gotcha. Yeah, it's, yeah. So, um, my other question is, and, and perhaps it's for the bill, I, I thought that there were only three companies that were choosing to, uh, were eligible to come into this fund.

[1:33:51] Well, you know, Windstream has six companies, but they have several different certificates. But so we, we count them different, so it's about 14 or 15-

[1:34:01] Okay

[1:34:01] ... that could come in. Yeah.

[1:34:02] Right.

[1:34:02] St. Joe's could come in, but they're, they're so small down there in, uh, southwest Georgia, so. But they're one of them that could come back in also.

[1:34:11] Thank you. We have a couple more questions. Uh, and, uh, I hate to say this right before recognize the whip, but if you have follow-up questions, if you'll request to follow up through the chair, that would be appreciated. Uh, Whip Burchette, you're recognized.

[1:34:26] I'll, I'll wait.

[1:34:27] Hmm?

[1:34:27] I'll wait.

[1:34:28] You don't have to wait.

[1:34:30] Go ahead.

[1:34:34] Do you, do you have a question or not?

[1:34:36] Thanks.

[1:34:38] Understand. Representative Romman.

[1:34:42] I was actually trying to turn it off. I'd rather just hear the rest of them.

[1:34:45] Sorry?

[1:34:45] No.

[1:34:46] I d- I wave.

[1:34:47] You forgot yours too? Okay. You wave. Chair Camp.

[1:34:52] All right. I'm not gonna wave if that's okay. Um, I, I recognize based on this chart, and I don't know how accurate i- it is, I mean, I'm trusting that it's correct. Um, it says in 2025 you had request of $43.8 million.

[1:35:05] That's correct.

[1:35:06] What's the criteria, um, when a company submits, um, what, what finite things does this fund pay for?

[1:35:15] Okay. Basically, what, um, when the company files their, um, cost studies, what they have to do, they have to file their reasonable actual cost of basic local exchange, exchange service, um, minus the maximum amounts that they can be charged. So that's what we, that's the, uh, cost studies that they file. And that, and when they file that, it's audited. So it includes their cost of service minus what they can charge. So basically, since they have a need, that mean their costs outweigh, outweigh what they can charge.

[1:35:50] Okay.

[1:35:50] What they collect.

[1:35:51] Very big

[1:35:51] Excuse me. Collect.

[1:35:52] So you do audit to make sure that all the costs that are submitted are allowable costs to do business?

[1:35:58] Yes, ma'am. Every year, um, we have a, uh, company that audits. They, they do agreed-upon procedures audit. I mean, it, it is pretty extensive. And, um, I, I would alo- also like to say, after the audit is filed, there's a process that any company or any interested party, if they don't agree w- with the audit, they can come in and ask for, you know, for the commission to, uh, have a hearing or anything else to look at those costs. So that's, uh, built in process also.

[1:36:29] Thank you.

[1:36:30] Mm-hmm.

[1:36:30] Thank you. We have one more question, I think. Well, maybe two. Yeah. Um, one more question, I believe. Representative Lupton.

[1:36:38] Thank you, Chair. Um, on this chart from, um, from the s- cable providers, pardon me. Thank you. The request at 2025 right now, 43.8 million. So that's the request.

[1:36:55] Mm-hmm.

[1:36:56] Is that always what you give out? Do you ever say no?

[1:36:59] Yeah.

[1:36:59] Or is basically... Okay.

[1:37:00] Yes. You know, based on the audit, mm, they might adjust it some, yes, and we have in the past.

[1:37:06] Okay, so that may not be-

[1:37:07] That's the-

[1:37:07] ... exactly what's paid out, that's just what's being requested.

[1:37:10] Yes.

[1:37:10] Okay.

[1:37:11] Yes.

[1:37:11] Thank you.

[1:37:14] Representative Lewis-Ward, uh, I think you had a question. Yeah.

[1:37:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we're allowing, this bill would allow additional tier two companies to opt in by Augu- by the end of August. What's the gap between them a- electing in and making the request?

[1:37:31] Mm.

[1:37:36] All right. That, that's a good question. And so they elected and granted and every-

[1:37:42] How quickly does it-

[1:37:43] Yeah, how quickly. I guess it would be...

[1:37:47] I thought it was 30 days, but... What, what do you mean? H- h- when they can request money from the fund?

[1:37:52] Correct.

[1:37:55] Oh. You said 30 what?

[1:37:57] I forgot how big a request it is.

[1:37:59] Yeah, I mean...

[1:38:01] You dump it on them.

[1:38:03] You're not gonna save the bills.

[1:38:05] I know it's only a year. I know they can't take-

[1:38:13] That's a question.

[1:38:13] Yeah, I-

[1:38:14] I wanna make sure that we're clear on. I think you're asking, you're asking about those companies that are regulated.

[1:38:20] Yeah, when they come-

[1:38:21] The company, the new companies that are el-

[1:38:22] Yeah

[1:38:23] ... the companies that want to-

[1:38:23] You're asking, you're asking-

[1:38:25] ... elect to come in

[1:38:25] ... the new ones who would want to be regulated. Is that under the, the-

[1:38:28] Once they opt in in August-

[1:38:29] Yeah

[1:38:29] ... what's the gap between them-

[1:38:31] Yeah

[1:38:31] ... being allowed to request funds?

[1:38:33] I'm, I feel sure that the PSE, I mean, if y- if they make, if they elect to do that, there's a process through the PSE that, uh, has happened for the other ones that, who have already elected to do that. I believe that's the way it would be. I think she's talking about-

[1:38:44] I'm not talking about the process

[1:38:45] ... right

[1:38:46] ... the timeframe that would allow the-

[1:38:47] The timeframe, okay.

[1:38:50] I'll find that out for you.

[1:38:51] Yeah.

[1:38:52] Yeah. I know they got a-

[1:38:53] Good, good question

[1:38:53] ... meeting on the 26th, but-

[1:38:55] Representative Romman, you remember what you were gonna ask, right?

[1:38:56] Yes. Um, well, actually, I wanted some clarification. Because there's so many questions, at the appropriate time, could we motion to just send this to subcommittee so we can get better language that addresses all of these concerns?

[1:39:08] Well, you can make, uh, if you're recognized, you can make any, uh-

[1:39:11] Do you recognize me for said motion? Can I make a motion at the appropriate time?

[1:39:16] You're not recognized for that or any other motion right now.

[1:39:18] Okay. When, when the appropriate time is.

[1:39:21] All right, that's all the questions on it. Uh.

[1:39:23] New one.

[1:39:25] You wanted to speak on the bill, right? Okay. Representative Williams is not a member of this committee, by the way. But we, uh, we're very honored to have him here. He wants to speak on the bill.

[1:39:35] Yeah.

[1:39:37] But is he one of us?

[1:39:38] No, he's, he's not a member. He, but he's a esteemed member of the General Assembly, and we certainly wanna hear from him.

[1:39:47] Steve.

[1:39:50] In August? Yeah, August. Yeah.

[1:39:52] All right.

[1:39:54] I know what you mean.

[1:39:55] If I may, I hope nobody says anything.

[1:39:57] He did so.

[1:39:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:39:59] Representative Williams, if you will make it brief. We're running pa- way past our time, and, uh, I know-

[1:40:04] Like I told the preacher last week, y'all waited all day to let me talk, then give me a time limit.

[1:40:08] Sure.

[1:40:09] But okay, I'll do what I can. Thank you. I'm gonna be very brief, because I, I'm gonna put it where the goats can get it, and Representative Moore. But I'm going to. Here's... I live in a community like some of these representatives. I was here in 2010 on the, in the legislature, and I understand some of the problems when they say we weren't informed about the bill.

[1:40:39] I've been in the minority since 2005, and I understand not being informed about the bill. So after I've gotten that behind me, I have also seen many independent phone companies through the years. And I have no doubt that I'm probably, and I'll stand corrected, the only person in here that ever insured a rural telephone company. And I insured coastal utilities for many years through my company.

[1:41:13] But what I want to make very, very plain here is we've got to be, get beyond just the numbers here and think about people. I do know this much, that there's still an awful lot of people in Georgia- that use landlines. I can think of one company in particular where half of their subscribers are landline users. Now, I'm down there on that dark part of that map.

[1:41:45] I've been a whole, I've been a client of AT&T since before the company I went in with was bought in 1994 from Stephens in Arkansas when you bought Alltel. I was an Alltel customer, so I have no gripes. I feel a lot like David felt before the big fight, 'cause all the Goliaths are here, and not many of us are here. I'm one of only four legislators in the minority party that has a completely rural district.

[1:42:17] So it's kinda hard to imagine what we go through when you're used to all the conveniences of, of, of, of everything. I do know this, that I can call certain companies, some of whom are represented here, and I'm not talking about AT&T now, and ask for an appointment to have a repair done, and I'll be told, "We can get to you in seven days between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00." I can pick up my phone right now if a friend of mine calls me from McIntosh County, and I can call Darren Telephone Company and say, "I wanna speak to Ms.

[1:42:55] Mary Forsythe. I got a problem." And she'll pick up the phone and say, "What is it, Al? Can you go down to Jones and get this person straight today? We'll have somebody there before 4:00." That's unheard of in the city, 'cause it takes eight punches to be told that you're at the wrong desk. Customer service is important, and it has almost disappeared. And were it not for the independents, there wouldn't be any. Be very careful of what we do. This co- these companies went through a, a, a, a period where there was a question whether there would be an independent telephone company.

[1:43:31] There are those that would like that. I've seen the big boys gobble up the minnows for years now. But they are, they do a service that goes beyond the bottom line, and that is a service to the community. We wouldn't have broadband down the coast of Georgia were it not for Darren Telephone. My kids could not get their homework online. They couldn't respond online. Still a service. Had it not been for subsidies, most of your parents, before you left and came to the big city in good times, most of your parents were dependent upon the subsidies of independent EMCs and independent telephone companies.

[1:44:17] Don't leave all these folk out in the cold. They have a right to know that they can call 911 and get somebody who will answer them and save a life. This is bigger than dollars and cents. I'm not really a numbers man, not really. Mr. Martin, I'll call you when I have a numbers problem in the future, but I'm not. I'm just, I know you are.

[1:44:40] Thank you. Thank-

[1:44:40] I'm just worried about the people now. I, I know you're gonna cut me off-

[1:44:44] Mr. Chairman

[1:44:44] ... so I'm gonna get through, 'cause you gonna be the, one day, to my committee. Go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. Any questions ? Any questions?

[1:44:53] Uh, Representative Williams, how long have you been in the minority?

[1:44:58] I've been in the minority since 2005. What a sad day in glory. What a-

[1:45:03] So that makes it, that makes it 20 years.

[1:45:06] 20 years.

[1:45:07] That's, uh, that's just only twice as long as I was in the minority. So good timing on my part too.

[1:45:13] Well, I hope to get that we can change that.

[1:45:17] Thank you. Appreciate you coming.

[1:45:18] Thank you, sir.

[1:45:19] Uh, okay. Uh, what, uh... I think we, we've heard a lot of good testimony. I think questions have been answered, and I appreciate that very, very much. Um, I'm not going to, uh, I'm not going to speak on anything that has been said other than, you know, I have been here for a long time. I've chaired this committee for a long time, and, uh, I, I have a pretty good feel for the way things happen, and I don't... I've thought about this, uh, all through this meeting, I thought about it before we came to this meeting, but I have wondered whether or not any further information, that's been kind of part of a lot of the testimony, we need more information, we m- need more time.

[1:46:03] Uh, I think that I made the decision as chairman that any more time that would go to that would not pre- pre- uh, present us with anything that is really necessary or would help us make a decision. Um, I don't know that it would change anybody's mind. I think that we've heard everything that we need to hear today. We've had, I've tried to be as, as fair as I can to let everybody have their say and everybody to ask their questions. I hope everybody in here has had the chance and feel like that they're, they've got the questions answered and got the, they have the information that they need.

[1:46:38] So with that, that's the end of my speech. What's the will of the committee?

[1:46:42] Do pass.

[1:46:42] Do pass.

[1:46:44] Mr. Burchett has made a motion. Is there a, is there a second?

[1:46:47] Second.

[1:46:49] Any discussion? Chairman Martin.

[1:46:53] Mr. Chairman, um, if, uh, if I'll be recognized, I'd like to move to amend the item.

[1:47:01] I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you for the buzzing.

[1:47:04] I'll try again. I'd, I'd like to be recognized to, uh, offer an amendment.

[1:47:09] You're recognized.

[1:47:18] I'd like to do more. I'd, I'll, I'll, uh, go with this at this, at this time. Um, and, um, on line 74, the stricken language would be reinstated So it would read, "Any distributions pursuant to this subparagraph shall be limited to a period of no more than 20 years." So I would reinstate that. I would add following that, "Or until December 31st, 2038, whichever is later." So that would effectively, um, keep a sunset in place.

[1:47:55] I've just... I left the 20 years, Mr. Chairman, just for the ease of, of the amendment of the bill. But whichever is later, obviously December 31st, 2038 would be later than the 20 years. So it would effectively extend the sunset eight years.

[1:48:09] Okay.

[1:48:09] That would be my motion. I would offer that.

[1:48:10] Luton has made a motion. Is there a second?

[1:48:13] Second.

[1:48:13] We have a second. Any discussion on the, on the, uh, on the proposed amendment?

[1:48:22] Somebody has their light on over here or not? I don't. Seeing no discussion, we have a proposed amendment and a second. All in favor of the amendments... I'll ask again, is there any questions about it?

[1:48:37] Did he say w- whichever is later, Mr. Chairman?

[1:48:40] Yes.

[1:48:41] Well, if you unstrike the 20 years, the 20 years would start today, correct?

[1:48:45] No, no, because the 20 years was, it goes into the, it's, it's current law. The 20 years runs from t- 2009.

[1:48:54] Not from the new, not from the new law that we're passing today?

[1:48:58] No, not from the, from the 04 song.

[1:49:01] Well, I mean, I, I would... I don't know if we have a, a, an attorney here.

[1:49:05] Well, yeah.

[1:49:05] If we, if we didn't change the bill, it, it, like it-

[1:49:10] It wouldn't change anything.

[1:49:11] If, if... Well, I understand that, but it's not changing that language. I mean, I would yield to the at- attorney. My, my intent, Mr. Chairman, is to make it go to 2038 as, as you and I discussed.

[1:49:21] Right.

[1:49:23] Uh, is, do we have-

[1:49:24] So you-

[1:49:24] Can I, can I ask the attorney his opinion on the amendment?

[1:49:27] Yeah. Where is it? Okay, Mr. Huntington.

[1:49:29] Um, so Representative Kelly is correct that if you were to phrase it 20 years or December 31st, whichever is later, then those companies which import-

[1:49:42] Sorry, would you come to the mic? I'm sorry.

[1:49:46] Oh. Uh, Representative Kelly was correct, that if you say whichever is later, 20 years or '38, then the companies that enroll pursuant to the new window would push that back.

[1:50:00] But in 2045, it-

[1:50:01] Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may be recognized, I would, would draw that amendment and, and try to get back to our original intent.

[1:50:10] Yes, sir.

[1:50:10] Um, and, and say then, then, then I would say such basic exchange services until 2030, until December 31st, 2038.

[1:50:26] Would that be correct, Mr. Huntington?

[1:50:30] Leave the stricken. Sh- fixed price permitted for such exchange services, uh, until December 31st, 2038.

[1:50:41] I'm not sure I completely understand the, the suggestion, but you could also, just by, just to recommend a possibility, um, keep the stricken language, and following that in a new sentence say, "No distribution pursuant to this subparagraph shall be made after December 31st of 2038."

[1:51:04] I, I, I would make that motion if the chair will entertain it. That was the intent, uh, of the... That was, uh, my intent a- after discussion with the chair earlier.

[1:51:13] The intent is the code for 2038.

[1:51:15] Yes, sir.

[1:51:15] Okay.

[1:51:18] One time.

[1:51:18] Yes, sir.

[1:51:19] Is that okay? Mr. Mike?

[1:51:21] Recognize-

[1:51:21] Yes, you're recognized.

[1:51:22] Mr. Mike?

[1:51:22] Thank you.

[1:51:23] I'm borrowed.

[1:51:25] It's Mike.

[1:51:26] So, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarity on this motion, uh, to the, uh, to Chairman Martin, is what I'm understanding then, this effectively is gonna add eight years to the current code. Right now this-

[1:51:38] Yes, sir

[1:51:39] ... right now this sunsets in four years, correct?

[1:51:42] Correct.

[1:51:42] And this will actually effectively push it out for 12 more years, correct?

[1:51:46] Yes, sir.

[1:51:46] All right. So to the, to the whips point earlier, we got a lot of friends in this room, and we're trying to do the best for the citizens of the state of Georgia. Uh, rather than just stripping it all away, this, this is a, a, I hate to say compromise, but it gives us more, it, it keeps it before this body, legislative body, to fine-tune it in years moving forward. But it should not have any effect on the financing for our friends in the rural telephone world. This gives them effectively eight more years of so-

[1:52:16] 12

[1:52:17] ... at the table. 12 in total, so I'll second that motion. Or the s- motion's already been seconded, but I'll speak in favor of it.

[1:52:25] Chairman Martin restated his motion, and we have a second. I believe that's the status we're in. Well, we have... Okay, we have, uh, we can have a discussion. Representative Moore.

[1:52:40] What does the 12 years come in? It's your mic.

[1:52:44] What, babe? I, I, I don't mean to be flip, but-

[1:52:47] It's your mic.

[1:52:48] No, no, it, it's, it's 10. It, it, it'll let me show you. You can go to 2030, check that. You can go to 2038 and say again, read it. So it's four years from now.

[1:52:56] Okay. All right. I thought we were talking about from this year.

[1:53:00] No, ma'am. It, it, yes, I... The 20 years currently would go, if we did nothing, it would go to the 23rd. We're striking all that language, and we're just going to 2038, so it would be a qu- 12, 12 years. And, and-

[1:53:13] All right

[1:53:14] That would be an arbitrary number.

[1:53:16] Yeah.

[1:53:16] And as I think Chairman Martin had, uh, said previously in a question, when you have a sunset date- It brings people back together again to discuss the whole issue about whether or not to continue it and, and have another, a new sunset date. So I think that's a very good point.

[1:53:31] Yes, sir. And Mr. Chairman, I think the, the, Ms. Chan mentioned the 10-year financing and so forth, so this gives the legislature two years, you know, to do that, and, uh, with, and they, we can have that con- conversation if there's case made over two years to do something else with the sunset date or remove it entirely. Okay. We have the time to do that. But as, as, uh, Clerk Chair Williams said, this doesn't, um, this will allow them to move forward with business and, and still keep it before the body. And- Is there any further discussion?

[1:53:58] Yes.

[1:53:59] I'm gonna go, Mary Frances, I'll make you go first. Use the mic- microphone, please.

[1:54:05] Um, is it, uh, Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to ask the bill sponsor about his, uh, response to this amendment or his thoughts on this amendment?

[1:54:14] Uh, the bill's sponsors, yes. You ask him if he objects.

[1:54:17] So y- you do not object?

[1:54:25] He can reject your question, Mary Frances, but he'll object to the amendment.

[1:54:29] He will object to the amendment.

[1:54:33] Colleague, I do believe that's gonna impact-

[1:54:34] Yeah, me too

[1:54:35] ... Dempsey, but for a lot of these companies, that's the whole reason we're here. And if it doesn't impact it right in this bill, it's gonna come up real quick.

[1:54:41] Other, other que-

[1:54:42] I've been doing them a lot

[1:54:44] ... another question, Mr. Chairman?

[1:54:47] Mr. Chairman, ask him if he objects.

[1:54:48] Okay.

[1:54:49] Objects.

[1:54:49] So do you, so does the, does the chair have a, um, an alternative proposal for, um, in terms of number of years?

[1:54:57] No.

[1:54:58] No.

[1:54:58] No, that's not, that's out of order.

[1:55:00] Out of order. Yes, sir.

[1:55:00] Out of order. Uh, okay. Whip Burchett.

[1:55:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, while I do understand, um, the gentleman's, um, um, concern about leaving, uh, no expiration on this, w- a- any year, isn't it true, isn't any year we can come back and put a date on this? And, uh, isn't it also true, I didn't hear any testimony whatsoever from anybody to 12 years, or 20 years, or 15 years, so we're just picking a number out of the sky.

[1:55:38] We don't know what the impact that it does on those businesses, and one has already been raised by the author in saying that, uh, it could impact their ability to borrow. So, um, isn't it true that we're just perpetuating what we've already done and saying, just arbitrarily grabbing a number out of the sky?

[1:55:56] Well, we're arbitrarily if, if this were to pass, but n- this is the, this is the time that, uh, that discussion is. You know, if somebody, I mean, there can be a, a, an amendment to the amendment. Uh, that, that's his, that's his proposed amendment right there that's gonna be here in a minute voted on.

[1:56:11] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

[1:56:17] So to recognize, Mr. Whip, you, to, to recognize that we're four years from the ex- expiration date yesterday, which is eight years clo- or, or it was seven years closer than we will build next, than we will be next year to the date I, uh, uh, that I offered, and we haven't heard anything from anybody last year at five years, or the year before at six, or the year before at seven. So I, I think that you've, you've been down here a minute a- as, as have I. How many times do you see, uh, sunsets put on things after they've... Well, let me ask you this.

[1:56:48] How many times do you see a bill that we have in tax, you, you do some times down there in ways and means, how many times do we have, uh, sunset dates that we remove in their entirety? Can you, can you think of a lot of those? My point here is this is money coming out of Georgians' pockets, going in and, and helping other Georgians. I'll, I'll stipulate that it's doing that. There, there's a question about how much it would hurt one person, help another. But the point is, it, it deserves to be before this body. We've even heard 911 thrown around, and I can tell you from chairing that committee this summer, that should've been looked at 20 years ago, because that's been out of date for a long, long time, and we didn't look at it, and you know why?

[1:57:27] 'Cause there was no sunset, and everybody was happy collecting $1.50 from $1 Georgia. So I, I understand, I understand your advocacy, um, for those that you represent. My, my advocacy is for us to be responsible. I think this, this 12, you know, a total of 12 years, if they're doing 10-year finance, we have two years to come back and discuss it. And, and cases could be made, I mean, they, they, they were frozen, the rates were frozen in 2009, limited by inflation. I can assure you rates in other parts of the state have been, have gone up in areas that were more than inflation.

[1:58:00] So this just gives us an opportunity to, to keep the, the thing open. I think it's a fair compromise, but I respect everyone's, uh, vote the way they would have it.

[1:58:08] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Martin.

[1:58:09] Uh, do we have any further discussion on this amendment? Repres- uh, who's next? Uh, Representative Ca- Kahaian.

[1:58:17] Well done. Thank-

[1:58:18] Is that good?

[1:58:18] Yes, sir. Well done, Chairman. Uh, my, um, I have great heartburn to vote for subsidies in perpetuity. So my question is, if I vote yes on this amendment, it's going to be reinstating a sunset of 12 years.

[1:58:33] Instating a sunset, yeah. Reinstating one.

[1:58:36] Exactly.

[1:58:37] There's not one currently, but this wouldn't-

[1:58:39] Thank you

[1:58:39] ... well, there, there is one. I'm sorry. It would be changing the, the sunset, yes.

[1:58:42] Thank you.

[1:58:44] That's correct. Okay. Anybody, any other discussion? I wanna make sure we get this. Anybody else? I see lights, but I don't see anybody putting their hand... Yes, ma'am.

[1:58:54] Um, I'd just like to say that when we talk about ways and means, those are typically sunsets on tax credits, so it's the state providing a tax credit. Is that not true primarily? Um, in this case, this is actually subsidizing rural Georgia, um, which is very different than subsidizing, in my opinion, when we do a tax credit that helps a business hopefully grow jobs. That's what our hope always is. In this case, those are individual people, um, back to what Representative Williams said. You know, these are individual people who, they live in rural Georgia.

[1:59:28] They live in a shrinking population. We are gonna have to subsidize some of that area. I know that's heartburn for a lot of people who live in urban areas. Um, my, my area is rapidly becoming urbanized, but I, I grew up in a very rural area in middle Georgia, and it's still very rural. And- I've had many relatives over time who do not have good cell phone coverage, and if they did not have a landline, they would not have access still today in 2025. So, um, I just wanted to make that statement.

[1:59:57] We're gonna take a vote on this thing in just a second. So, uh-

[2:00:03] Representative-

[2:00:03] Chairman Martin, do you wanna say something else?

[2:00:05] Just wanted to say that the, the Representative, uh, Chair Lady Camp, I mean, I, I appreciate your understanding, but y- you realize this is other people's money. I mean, this is us, us voting to take it from one Georgian and give it to another Georgian. If you wanna bring a bill that says that this comes out of the general fund, l- l- let's talk about that. But I mean, the reason I wanna keep an eye on it is this is coming from one ... It's, it's us making a decision to take from one and give to another, and I think w- we're doing that, and we've been, we have been since 2009, and we're gonna do it for another 12 years. But I think it's absolutely fair in that p- point of time to look at it, because I've been down here for a little while, and I'll tell you, if that sunset goes away, th- there's not gonna be a point to ever look at it again.

[2:00:44] It, it just wasn't. There wasn't a time between 1995 and 2009 that it was looked at. So, um, I just, I think this is a fair thing. This, I mean, if good things come of it, it may be extended.

[2:00:56] Whip Burchett, you had something.

[2:00:57] Th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the only point I would make is that y- you're right, um, Chairman, uh, Martin, these are m- my folks. I don't know how many folks in your district have, um, landlines, but these are the folks that I represent, and I don't know if I'm gonna be here in 12 years. I don't know if you're gonna be here in 12 years. And so I wanna do what I can right now for my folks, and that's why I object to your, um, amendment.

[2:01:22] All right, we have an amendment, uh, been seconded. We've h- heard discussion. Uh, the author of the bill, he, he's, uh, he objects to it, just everybody needs to know that. But you vote the way that you wanna vote. It would change, it would change the bill in the way that we've discussed. And other than that, I think that's the only change that this, this amendment would make, so it's up to you. All in favor of the Martin amendment, signify by saying aye.

[2:01:50] Aye.

[2:01:51] Any opposed by saying nay. I'm gonna have to have a show of hands. All in favor, raise your hand, please. One hand, right hand.

[2:02:00] In favor of what?

[2:02:01] In favor of the amendment.

[2:02:07] Can you put your hands up?

[2:02:11] Please.

[2:02:13] Got a good count? All opposed, raise your hand. Okay, I don't know what the numbers are, but obviously it's failed. Okay. The amendment has failed. Any other discussion on the bill? Okay, back to the main motion. All in favor of House Bill, whatever it is.

[2:02:38] House Bill 998.

[2:02:41] It's Bill 998, uh,

[2:02:47] signify by saying aye. Any opposed by saying no. Okay, I'll go ahead just for, make sure we have it. I know what it is. But all, all in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed, please raise your hand. Okay, the motion passes. Uh, Chairman Leverett, your bill has passed, and you can take it on from here.

[2:03:08] All right.

[2:03:09] Thank, thank you.