Texas Senate Bill SB586

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Relating to the distribution of universal service funds to certain small and rural incumbent local exchange companies.

Impact

The proposed changes impact existing state laws by refining how support is distributed among small rural telecommunications providers. Specifically, it seeks to amend the approach taken in previous legislation regarding the calculation of support levels. With the introduction of this bill, it is expected that small providers will have more certainty regarding financial support, helping them sustain operations and potentially encourage greater investment in rural infrastructure. This aligns with broader state goals of promoting connectivity and supporting local economies in underserved areas.

Summary

SB586 aims to amend the Utilities Code to address the distribution of universal service funds specifically intended for small and rural incumbent local exchange companies. The bill establishes guidelines for the Public Utility Commission of Texas to review and adjust support amounts for these small providers, ensuring they can maintain reasonable returns that align with regulated revenue needs. This act reflects an ongoing effort to sustain essential telecommunication services in less populated areas, which often struggle under the weight of operational costs against their limited customer bases.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB586 appears generally positive among proponents who advocate for improved telecommunications in rural settings. Advocates for the bill stress the importance of ensuring that smaller providers can compete fairly and sustain services, as many rural communities are at risk of losing access to essential communication services otherwise. However, there may be some contention regarding the sustainability and accountability measures in place for the use and distribution of these funds among the providers.

Contention

Several points of contention have emerged during discussions surrounding SB586. Critics may argue that the mechanisms for calculating and distributing support could favor certain providers over others, potentially creating inequities. Additionally, concerns about the regulatory authority of the Public Utility Commission and how effectively it can oversee the provision and allocation of these funds have also been noted. Stakeholders have also debated what constitutes a 'reasonable return' for small providers, as this can vary significantly based on regional operational costs.