For many years in the state of Colorado, a state subsidy has helped to provide rural denizens with access to landline phone services. According to Journal-Advocate, that may all change with the introduction of HB 1328, which officials are presently discussing in the Colorado House.
HB 1328 seeks to reallocate money collected within the High Cost Support Mechanism fund. The High Cost fund, directed by the Colorado's Public Utilities Commission, administers a 2.6 percent “universal service” fee to telecommunications carriers that their customers ultimately pay for. That pool is then distributed to “local exchange” carriers that make sure rural customers have access to dial-tone phone services.
The landscape of telecommunications is changing, however, and proponents of the bill, such as its main sponsor Rep. Angela Williams (D-Denver), want some of that pool to go toward broadband services. An additional supporter of the bill, Sen. Larry Crowder (R-Pueblo), remarked that approximately 10 to 15 percent of the state is currently unserved or underserved, regarding citizen's access to broadband. Many of these unserved/underserved areas are located in the western and southern parts of the state. Addressing those areas, Crowder commented on the bill.
“I want them to take that High Cost fund, that money designed to build our rural infrastructure, so our schools and businesses have the same ability to compete worldwide as the [communities along the] I-25 corridor,” he said.
Regardless of supporters' arguments, not everyone is on board with changing how the state allocates the High Cost fund. An article written for the Colorado Independent fears that the bill “would cut consumer protections for telephone service and guarantee a virtually unregulated market for companies providing VoIP (voice over IP) and other Internet services in the state.”
The aim of the bill is to increase support for, and access to, broadband services across the state, but that may come at the cost of telecommunications providers abandoning their dial-tone landline customers. With the law no longer requiring companies to provide landline services to even the most remote customers, opponents of the bill believe rural areas could experience significant prices hikes or find themselves without traditional phone services altogether. Once the broadband services such as voice over IP (VoIP) saturate the market, there will no longer be a need or call for landlines, and telecommunications providers will remove those lines permanently.
Even if VoIP services can take the place of landlines for inbound and outbound household calling, there are some drawbacks to the switch. VoIP callers, similar to cell phone users, don't always have access to proper 911 coverage. The landline system works with 911 to provide a caller's location, but other telephony systems don't always sync as well with emergency services. This could place an undue burden on anyone who may find himself in a crisis but who does not happen to know his location. Advanced 911 services may also accept text messages, photo messages, and video data.
In order for opponents to change sides and begin supporting the current House bill, it appears that 911 credentials will have to be verified alongside a guarantee for equally affordable and accessible coverage. Once those criteria are met, landlines are fated to quickly go the way of the dinosaur. Until such secondary concerns are met, however, opponents may fight tooth and nail to keep the landlines on which they have come to trust and rely.
Edited by Rory J. Thompson