October 20, 2026 · CONSUMER PROTECTION AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE · 11,430 words · 5 speakers · 88 segments
Good morning. I call the Consumer Protection Professional Licensure Committee to order today for the purpose of a public hearing on the impact of Verizon's line discontinuance application. In September, Verizon's home phone service customers received a letter from Verizon stating that after November 30, 2026, Verizon was abandoning traditional copper-based home phone service, and customers must switch to another type of service or provider. The letter was a required notice that Verizon must send to its customers as part of the application before the Federal Communication Commission to discontinue copper-based services in California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, West Virginia, and, of course, Pennsylvania. The letter did provide notice, but it didn't explain too much. It stated that customers did not have to do anything, but that change was coming and they had options. In more metropolitan areas, customers do have lots of options. In fact, they probably have already switched over to a fiber, cable, or mobile wireless service. But what happens in the rest of the Commonwealth where options are limited? What is being done to make sure these customers have safe and reliable service at an affordable cost? Today we'll hear from the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and the Pennsylvania Telephone Association to better understand the issue, the history, and what the future looks like if Verizon's application before the FCC does move forward. It should be noted that Verizon was asked to testify and was not able to join us today at today's hearing. I thank today's participants for the availability to testify. I know it's not without challenges. Senator Bascola couldn't join us this morning, but she did submit comments for the record. I now call on Catherine Kennedy, Assistant Consumer Advocate from the Office of Consumer Advocate, to testify. Ms. Kennedy, you have the floor.
good morning uh major majority chair stefano minority chair buscola members of the senate consumer protection and professional licensure committee my name is katie kennedy and i am an assistant consumer advocate at the pennsylvania office of consumer advocate or the oca where i work on behalf of the pennsylvania consumer advocate daryl lawrence i'm also here today with Joel Cheskis, a senior assistant consumer advocate. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony regarding this very important matter of the application of Verizon Communications to the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, under Section 214 of the Federal Communications Act. In its application, Verizon seeks permission from the FCC to discontinue the provision of plain old telephone service, sometimes referred to as basic local exchange service, or POTS, over the traditional copper wire network in Pennsylvania and several other states. Verizon asserts that customers have adequate replacement options and proposes transferring affected consumers to alternative services. But whether those alternatives provide comparable service, affordability, reliability, and meaningful consumer choice remains an open question. In Verizon's application, Verizon explains that it must satisfy the FCC's alternative options and adequate replacement test, while also acknowledging in a footnote that there is a streamlined process now available that replaces those tests. As you mentioned there was a letter sent on September 8th telling customers that they would need to transition to services delivered over alternative technologies without establishing whether those alternatives are actually available in their service areas The application affects consumers throughout Verizon, Pennsylvania, the former Bell Atlantic Service Territory, and Verizon North, the former GTE North Service Territory, as well as Pennsylvania Service Territories served by Frontier Communications Companies. This is the third such application Verizon has made to the FCC affecting other states. Over the summer, the FCC allowed Verizon's first application to be deemed approved without further action. Verizon's second application came within one day of being deemed approved without further FCC action before the FCC determined that additional review was warranted. Verizon's third application, which includes Pennsylvania, has not yet been published in the Federal Register. That publication triggers the 15-day public comment period and the 30-day clock for the application to be deemed granted, making timely public scrutiny especially important. The applicant put consumers who rely on Verizon's Copper Network in Pennsylvania and other regions at risk of losing existing services without assurance that reliable, affordable, and functional alternatives will be available where they live or work. Under the FCC's procedural rules, effective parties, again, have up to 15 days after publication in the Federal Register to submit comments on a proposed service discontinuance. In addition, qualifying applications may be automatically granted on the 31st day after publication in the Federal Register, unless the FCC intervenes. We are very concerned that once the application involving Pennsylvania is published, interested parties may have as little as 15 days to submit comments to the FCC, and that this limited time frame can significantly restrict the ability of affected stakeholders to fully assess the application and prepare meaningful comments. The OCA's major concerns at this point involve how will the needs of Pennsylvania households that lack an adequate alternative or replacement for basic local exchange service delivered over copper facilities be addressed? What protections will ensure that these consumers are not left without reliable and affordable telephone service? How will Verizon's proposed discontinuance affect the commitments Verizon has made in Pennsylvania as part of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, or PUC's, approval of the Verizon Frontier merger just last year? What happens to the obligations arising from the resolution of the OCA's complaint concerning Frontier's poor service quality as the compliance period is still ongoing? Will these commitments and obligations remain enforceable following the proposed transition? How many Verizon consumers rely solely on digital subscriber line, DSL service, and how will they be affected by these applications? Were these consumers excluded from notification because they are not POTS customers? Have they been adequately informed of the proposed changes, how their service may be affected, and what alternatives are available? And how will the proposed discontinuance affect Pennsylvania-specific protections governing basic local exchange service, such as Chapter 30 of the Public Utility Code and the PUC's oversight? By way of brief background, in 1993, the General Assembly had the foresight to add Chapter 30 to the Public Utility Code, providing an alternative form of regulation for incumbent local exchange carriers, or ILEX, in exchange for the accelerated deployment of a broadband network. Of course, what we consider broadband in 1993 is a fraction of the speed of what we call broadband today. Nonetheless, 1993 was only a few years removed from the modified final judgment that broke up the Ma Bell system, and it preceded several major legislative developments that reshaped the telecommunications and utility industries. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pennsylvania Electric Choice and Competition Act of 1996 and Pennsylvania Natural Gas and Competition Act of 1999 In many ways the telecommunications law has led the way in moving from traditional rate rate of return regulation that governed utilities for almost a century and towards an alternative form of regulation. The transitional regulatory framework was built on a fundamental bargain. When the General Assembly enacted Chapter 30 in 1993, incumbent telephone companies were given the opportunity to move away from traditional rate-based rate of return regulation in exchange for commitments to modernize their networks and accelerate the deployment of advanced technology services throughout the commonwealth while preserving universal service, affordable rates, and access to reliable telecommunication service in rural, suburban, and urban communities alike. Since the 90s and early 2000s, technology has changed and customer preferences have evolved, but the need for access to basic local exchange service that is adequate and reasonable and provided at just and reasonable rates has remained and still remains in Pennsylvania. Although the mode of providing that service has changed and the number of consumers relying on basic voice service using copper facilities has decreased, there still remains, as evidenced by Verizon's own application, a substantial number of households in Pennsylvania that require access to basic local exchange service currently provided by copper network facilities. If you are one of those households, or your family member or neighbor are one of those households, and you have no real alternative, then access to safe, reliable, basic local exchange service at just and reasonable rates remains essential. The key point is that people still need universal service to communicate by voice for everyday commerce and social interaction, and to get help in public safety and health situations and emergencies. And this happens over both copper and fiber networks. You may have access to the latest technology, but your neighbor may not have a viable alternative to basic local exchange service, whether because of technical limitations, lack of infrastructure investment, affordability, or other circumstances. But if that neighbor's home catches on fire, you want them to be able to call 911 and get the fire department there as quickly as possible. If a family member lives in a remote part of Pennsylvania and relies on basic local exchange service, you want that family member to be able to reach 911 and get an ambulance when they experience a medical emergency. And there is another important consideration. Telephone service derives much of its value from its ability to connect people with one another. The more people who can be reached through the telephone network, the more valuable that network is to every user. Ensuring that everyone has access to reliable, basic local exchange service is therefore not just about individual households. It's about public safety and emergency communication, public health, community connectivity, and the value of the network as a whole. Nevertheless, through its September 9, 2026 application, Verizon seeks to discontinue service to consumers who continue to rely on a traditional copper network in favor of alternative technologies or providers. Without sufficient assurance that those alternatives exist for the consumer in the first place and will provide adequate, reliable, and affordable replacement service for every affected consumer. Accordingly, the OCA submits that Verizon's application should be denied, and until Verizon demonstrates that each affected consumer does have access to an adequate replacement for their existing service. Verizon may discuss the availability of alternative service warrants careful scrutiny. You've likely heard and will continue to hear from constituents who know firsthand what the coverage maps and aggregate statistics cannot tell you. They have poor or nonexistent cell service, cannot access satellite service, lose service quality whenever it rains, or cannot afford a competitor's bundled package. These are real customers served by this network and their lived experiences must count The OCA has heard the same concerns directly from consumers including during public input hearings and has conducted extensive research to corroborate these firsthand accounts and better assess the scope and severity of the problem. Rural Pennsylvanians cannot be assumed to have access to reliable alternative to copper landline telephone service. Cellular coverage is not universal in rural areas, and the availability of a wireless signal does not necessarily establish that a dependable connection is available at a particular residence. Pennsylvania's own broadband planning documents acknowledge persistent disparities in rural connectivity and explain that rural residents may have limited, if any, options relying on lower-speed connections, satellite service, or no broadband service at all. satellite coverage claims likewise should not be equated with a guarantee of reliable continuous voice telephone service at every location consequently cellular and satellite technologies cannot categorically be treated as equivalent substitutes for copper wire landlines throughout rural pennsylvania any determination that an alternative is adequate should be based on actual service availability and reliability at the affected location rather than nominal coverage alone including at an affordable price so verizon may characterize its proposal as a straightforward transition to alternative service but its own october 9th 2026 letter acknowledges that an fcc approved replacement may prove unavailable at a customer's location verizon's commitment to withhold disconnection or restore copper service in such circumstances underscores the central concern identifying a replacement technology is not the same as ensuring that a customer can actually obtain adequate replacement service many of your constituents will tell you the same thing. Cost, appointment limitations, technological constraints, and other barriers must be examined rather than assuming that an alternative on paper is viable for every affected consumer. Additionally, just one year ago, the PUC approved the settlement of the case involving Verizon and Frontier. Similarly, in the Office of Consumer Advocate v. Commonwealth Telephone Company, the OCA along with the Office of Small Business Advocate filed a complaint against Frontier regarding many service quality issues that were being experienced by customers throughout Frontier service territory. That proceeding was also resolved by a settlement and the PUC's approval of the merger settlement and the service quality settlement remained valid and enforceable legal obligations that Verizon must adhere to. During the public input hearings in the Verizon Frontier merger proceeding before the PUC, consumers, public officials, community organizations, health care providers, educators, and other stakeholders raised concerns about the reliability and modernization of Frontier's Pennsylvania networks. They called for specific, enforceable commitments to upgrade infrastructure, improve service reliability and public safety, expand broadband availability to speeds that meet modern needs, and considered replacing aging aerial and copper facilities with underground infrastructure and fiber optics. Although some participants were cautiously receptive to the merger, they questioned whether Verizon would follow through on its promises after closing. Verizon did not begin auditing its acquired network until June of 2026, yet it has already, just a few months later, filed an application to discontinue service, potentially before the findings of that audit have been fully reviewed or acted upon. Further still, the OCA also raised concerns during the Verizon frontier merger proceeding that Verizon's limited emphasis on the availability of its fixed wireless access or FWA service to frontier customers in Pennsylvania was telling, particularly given the apparent limitations on its availability in rural wire centers served by copper facilities. The OCA made its concerns clear on the record explaining that Verizon should not be permitted to count wireless broadband availability as a benefit of the merger. merely because its coverage maps suggest that service might be available. Rather, Verizon had to show reliable service and identify additional benefits to the transaction that would deliver beyond what Verizon could provide independently. At the time, the OCA was concerned about gaps in coverage in areas where wireless service was unavailable or unreliable. And those concerns have not diminished. they have become even more pressing as Verizon now seeks to discontinue legacy copper-based service. Without clear evidence of where fixed wireless service is genuinely available and capable of meeting customers' needs, there is no assurance that affected Pennsylvanians, particularly those in rural communities or other dead zones, will have access to an adequate replacement. The OCA urges careful, location-specific scrutiny of Verizon's claimed alternatives and potential consequences for customers who have nowhere else to turn. Whether an adequate replacement exists is a premise-specific question. If infrastructure must be physically present, wireless signals must reach the consumer without impairments that undermine service, and terrain, vegetation, and other local conditions can determine whether an alternative is actually reliable and available. The FCC must look beyond the application's broad-brush assumptions and aggregate statistics, including Verizon's assertion that only 2.7% of consumers subscribe to POTS. Low POTS subscription rates do not establish that customers have viable replacement options. Additionally, in the Frontier Service quality case, customers described limited alternatives in rural areas, including places where cellular reception was inadequate. A wireless option that works well in a nearby town may not work indoors at a customer's home, and a cellular connection cannot solve a coverage problem simply because the customer switches providers. Some consumers in that case testified that the loss of telephone service creates serious safety risks because they depend on their landlines to contact emergency responders. Critically, a consumer had testified that her household had no cellular service and no telephone access at her home when her landline failed. Another consumer similarly testified that he could not rely on cellular service to contact 911 while his disabled wife was home alone. You can find this information further memorialized in the initial decision that is public and available on that very docket. It remains unclear from Verizon's application or from our informal conversations with the company to what extent Verizon and Frontier intend to continue to abide by those obligations if the FCC approves their application. It would be a significant loss of substantial affirmative public benefits for consumers secured only one year ago if the FCC were to approve the application resulting in Verizon and Frontier no longer fulfilling the commitments undertaken in those proceedings. Finally, the OCA notes that additional Pennsylvania-specific issues are present that the FCC should consider when addressing Verizon's application, and the General Assembly should consider when determining what action it should take in response to this application. As noted, Pennsylvania was an early mover in providing an alternative form of regulation to the ILEC in 1993. Pennsylvania, with its unique demographics and topography, which impede wireless coverage, must ensure that it doesn't fall behind other states in its provision of basic local exchange services to consumers who still rely on them. One of the main tenets of Chapter 30 was the requirement to maintain universal telecommunications service at affordable rates. Verizon may have satisfied its network modernization obligations under Chapter 30 a long time ago, But the fundamental requirement in Chapter 30 for universal service throughout its service territory remains the law in Pennsylvania Similarly the PUC has established consumer protections through regulations governing residential communication service including billing practices, service interruptions, and procedures for resolving disputes and filing formal and informal complaints. It remains unclear whether and to what extent Verizon intends to continue honoring if these protections are migrated from traditional copper-based service to alternative technology. Verizon's application does not appear to address the particular challenges that Pennsylvania's mountainous terrain may pose to the availability and reliability of wireless alternatives. The mere identification of a wireless provider or service as available in a geographic area does not necessarily establish that a consumer can obtain reliable service at their residence, particularly in rural and mountainous communities. Availability and service quality are premise-specific and dependent on presence and quality of infrastructure. The absence of any meaningful discussion of these geographic and infrastructure challenges is concerning and underscores the importance of ensuring that the FCC fully considers Pennsylvania's mountainous terrains and its potential effects on the availability and reliability of replacement services. The FCC or Verizon should not assume that a service identified as available in a given area will necessarily provide reliable connectivity at a consumer's residence. Accordingly, the OCA is very concerned as to whether proposed alternatives are genuinely available and reliable for affected consumers. You may also hear about the influx of federal funds coming into Pennsylvania through the federal response to COVID that sought to provide broadband to everyone. This money has been referred to as broadband equity access and deployment money, or BED money. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when everyone was working from home or going to school from home, gaps in broadband coverage throughout the country were exposed. As a result, $42 billion was allocated to close the gaps, of which Pennsylvania was allocated $1.1 billion. The problem is, while the Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority, PBDA, has done a tremendous job allocating the money, the amount of money has already been reduced to less than $800 million. and some of that money is not being used because the providers are surrendering the money for a variety of reasons. We appreciate the bead money but it cannot be relied on just the way Verizon relies on it to provide those alternative services in its application. Satellite service should also not be automatically treated as a comparable replacement for existing copper-based service simply because it is included as an eligible option under the bead program. For many consumers satellite service may entail higher costs, installation challenges, and variable signal quality, making it an inadequate or impractical alternative, depending on their location and circumstances. The FCC must consider these Pennsylvania-specific issues, and so too must the General Assembly. In conclusion, the question remains how Pennsylvania should respond to Verizon's pending application. As I noted at the outset, it is possible that the application could be published in the Federal Register at any moment, triggering a comment period that may be as short as 15 days. Although we do not yet know precisely when the publication will occur or how the FCC will proceed, this remains a real possibility. Accordingly, we encourage the Senate and all other interested parties to submit comments to the FCC, identifying any concerns they may have regarding the application and its potential impact on Pennsylvania consumers. We also encourage Pennsylvania's congressional delegation to be apprised of this matter so that its members have an opportunity to review the application and submit comments as appropriate. it. Depending on how the FCC ultimately acts on Verizon's application, Pennsylvania will need to respond accordingly to ensure that the promise of universal telecommunications service at affordable rates is preserved That promise was central to the original purpose of Chapter 30 and remains Pennsylvania law Thank you for your time and consideration today The OCA intends to submit comments to the FCC addressing these and other concerns once the application is formally published in the Federal Register and the comment period opens I emphasize again that the comment period will be short. Joel and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this important issue, either now or at your convenience in the future.
Well, thank you for your testimony today, Catherine. I really appreciate it, and you raised the very questions we're trying to find answers to. One question I do have for you is when were you first aware of the letter from Verizon and the request to abandon copper?
I would say myself. We often go to senior expos and other events hosted throughout the Commonwealth, and we were provided with copies of letters by concerned consumers. and I would say we did hear from Verizon but we also heard from interested and concerned consumers at expos I would just add that at some point I don't remember the specific date the green light is on I just need to move it closer I don't remember the specific date but at some point council for Verizon reached out to me and either indicated that they were about to file this at the FCC or that they had just filed it I could check my emails and find out specific date but it was sometime in early September that was a question I had was what did they contact you directly so I'm
glad to hear that and as we talked about the abandoning of these services have you been monitoring what's been going on in other states and how it's been
being handled so we are part of the National Association of State Utility consumer advocates, abbreviated as NASUCA. We are very active on the telecom committee with that group and share in information that pops up amongst us, whatever states are experiencing different issues. So I don't know the specific answer to your question, but we've been talking
with the other NASUCA states that are affected. Do they offer any solutions that might work here
in Pennsylvania? Not specifically. I think in part we're waiting to have the publication in the Federal Register before we start putting pen to paper, so to speak, on what the NSUCA comments will be to the FCC. The Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate will be joining with those NSUCA comments in addition to also filing our own Pennsylvania specific comments. In this letter
and in Verizon's submitted testimony, they claim the customers have service options. What if they do not are the services of lesser quality?
Do you know what the cost differences would be between other services and what's currently offered? Well, again, I think specifically, you know, if you're talking about getting maybe a bundled package from a competitor, and that includes additional services beyond basic local exchange service, I pay Comcast like $300 a month, but I have kids and we get a lot of services and more than we probably need. So obviously a competitive bundled package is going to be expensive. There's also costs for satellite service that could be as much as over $100 a month. whereas a lot of the basic local exchange service plans just again your plain old telephone service you could probably get for to a month And if this application was approved do you believe there would be cost callers included
in the protection for consumers?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by cost caller.
Cost caller. The limitation for expansion of the cost.
Am I getting that right?
Yeah.
We will take that back. Okay.
Appreciate the question. And what do you think would be the best outcome for this situation?
In general, I think the FCC should deny Verizon's application. I understand the need to modernize the network and to provide services over the most efficient network possible, but we're just not confident at this point that we're going to be able to get to those last few homes. I think Verizon's own application puts it as 2.7% of the households, which I think is a lot, actually. I think if I live in one of those households or my grandmother lived in one of those households, I think 2.7% of the households in Pennsylvania is still a lot. So while we're making strides to getting there, and again, wireless coverage gets better. The bead money should be coming. Competitors may be expanding their services. we're just not confident that we're there at this point that this application can be approved here in Pennsylvania.
Well, thank you for your testimony. I want to recognize Senator Brown is attending. I know you just joined us, but did you have any questions for FCA this morning?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, of course, I have the written testimony, and I want to thank the chairman for doing this hearing. and just what you said right there is really all I need to hear. I've gotten letters from plenty of constituents in regards to their concern for this and that 2.7%, like you said, if it's your household and it's you and the safety and the availability of communication, it's not ready. It's not ready to be done and it's something that's extremely important to the area that I represent. So I thank you for your comments, and I thank you for being here and look forward to hearing more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. I greatly appreciate it. And now I call upon Steve DeFrank, chair of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, to testify. Mr. DeFrank will be testifying remotely today. He is unable to testify in person due to his commitments to the Organization of PGM States, also known as OPSI. We are honored to have you with us today as you balance your role at OPSI. while also seeking to ensure proper utility regulation and best outcomes for consumers. Mr. Chairman, you have the floor.
Good morning, Chairman Stefano and members of the committee. Can you hear me?
You are good to go.
Great. My name is Steve D. Frank, and I have the great honor and privilege of serving as the chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee today on the important topic of Verizon's application before the Federal Communications Commission to discontinue copper landline service in Pennsylvania. I WANT TO QUICKLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS A PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATOR, I MUST LIMIT MY COMMENTS TO THE SCOPE OF VERIZON'S APPLICATION NOW PENDING BEFORE THE FCC BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OTHER MATTERS INVOLVING VERIZON'S REGULATED UTILITY SERVICE IN PENNSYLVANIA MAY REQUIRE ADJUDICATION BY THE COMMISSION. AND MY ROLE AS CHAIRMAN IS TO BE ABLE TO I take very seriously the Commission's obligation to ensure that Pennsylvanians have affordable and reliable access to telephone service, including basic standalone telephone service. Under Chapter 30 of the Public Utility Code, as well as Chapter 63 of the Commission's regulations, the Commission has authority over the rates, conditions, and quality of service for copper wire telephone service. notwithstanding the commission's authority it is important for me to acknowledge that verizon's application is pending before the fcc and not before our commission here in pennsylvania this distinction is important because it underscores the fact that verizon's application will be decided under federal law regulations and standards using fcc rules timelines and processes because of this reality the commission is undertaking a careful evaluation of the options and actions necessary to ensure that Pennsylvanians do not lose access to adequate, reliable, and affordable telephone service. The Commission first became aware of Verizon's proposal to discontinue providing what it refers to as, quote, plain old telephone service or, end quote, or plots just over a month ago. The application, in the application, Verizon pointed to challenges associated with legacy copper wire service. including that copper wires are costly to repair, aged, and highly vulnerable to severe weather. According to Verizon, transitioning legacy POTS customers to modern networks would facilitate resiliency, connectivity, and maximize the benefit of federal broadband funding. Significantly, aside from Pennsylvania, Verizon's application also sought the FCC's approval to discontinue POTS service in the District of Columbia, as well as eight other states. As a result, Verizon's application mainly includes aggregated information for all impacted jurisdictions. Therefore, information specific to Pennsylvania customers and the impact upon them is not readily available. As an example, Verizon's application indicated that approximately 750,000 residential and business locations, or 2.7% of its customer base across all the impacted states will still subscribe to legacy service. But the impact in Pennsylvania was not quantified. My office did contact Verizon and learned that an estimated 200,000 Pennsylvania customers may be impacted, with approximately 165,000 of them being residential customers. This means that Pennsylvania's customers will be inordinately impacted as approximately 27% of all POTS customers affected by Verizon's applications are located in Pennsylvania. From our preliminary review of the Verizon's application, we understand that Verizon is seeking to discontinue POTS for its Pennsylvania customers on or after November 30, 2026, with some caveats. Verizon represents that it is not seeking to discontinue copper wire services where customers are unable to get facilities-based service either directly from Verizon or from alternative providers within the discontinuance area. Verizon also indicated that it would work with impacted customers to identify suitable replacement options. Verizon application stated that customer notices were mailed to affected Pennsylvania POTS customers on September 8th 2026 However it remains unclear whether and to what extent Verizon engaged in community outreach in Pennsylvania Although Verizon has represented the impact of POTS customers, will not be deprived of reasonable replacement service, there is insufficient detail about the type of replacements and what and about when and how the replacement options would be presented to customers. The type of replacement service matters not only for ensuring customers access to reasonable and adequate service, but also because issues regarding the Commission's jurisdiction could be implicated. Because the FCC process does not include the avenue for the Commission to conduct an investigation into Verizon's application, the Commission has set a meeting with Verizon to get more information before determining next steps. At the meeting and in the days ahead, the Commission will work to verify whether the following representations that Verizon made to notify customers are accurate, including, one, customers will not experience any service interruptions. Two, customers will have the ability to keep their current phone number. Three, essential services like 911, alarm systems, and medical devices will not be impacted in any transition, and for service reliability will be maintained. Commission will also seek further information about the costs associated with service replacement options to gauge how it may impact customers access to telephone service. I also want to note that only a little over one year ago, on September 11th, 2025, the commission approved a joint settlement permitting Verizon to acquire the parent company of Frontier Communications. I mention this because the settlement required Verizon to undertake a series of commitments related to Frontier's copper wire service, and the Commission's review of Verizon's application will necessarily consider any impact to those commitments. Because Verizon is seeking an automatic grant of the application by the FCC, the timeline for consideration will likely be abbreviated. At the time I prepared this testimony, the FCC has not yet published the notice of Verizon's application in the Federal Register to open the likely 15-day public comment period, but it is expected to be issued soon. The Commission continues to monitor the docket as it gains further information from Verizon and will stand ready to comment as warranted. The Commission understands that Verizon has identified valid concerns about the copper wire infrastructure cost and reliability in seeking to discontinue plot service. Nevertheless, there is insufficient information available to evaluate the impact upon Pennsylvania's access to telephone service, and that is unacceptable. The commission will remain vigilant and will carefully evaluate the actions necessary to ensure that Pennsylvanians do not lose access to adequate, reliable, and affordable telephone service. And, Chairman, I just want to note, as the first testifier was going, my feed was freezing up and was going on and off. it further points to mobile service may not be an adequate replacement for basic service. Networks aren always stable And so you know I just wanted to point that out that I thought it was fitting that as I sit here remotely talking about discontinuing landlines in favor of a mobile service that that may not always be an option
And particularly when it matters of life and death, when it's talking about 911 service and things like that. You know, I can't imagine being in my home, something happening and me not being able to call an ambulance. And that's really what we're talking about here. So with that, I'm happy to thank you again for holding this hearing.
for the opportunity to testify and happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you, Chairman, for testifying today. I really appreciate it and carving out this time in your day as you're very busy where you are. A couple quick questions for you. In your testimony, I really couldn't tell, did Verizon contact the PUC directly?
We did. I do not believe we were contacted directly. I believe we were notified of the consumer notices that went out on September 8th.
Okay, thank you. And in their application, they talk about the last mile connects fell nationwide about 81%. Do you know what those numbers look like specifically for Pennsylvania?
I do not, but that's something we can get for you. I'm not sure what that number is, but that's something I'll have JJ follow up with your office on.
Okay, thank you. And the application makes several references to consumer switching providers. And it's always great that consumers have a choice, but it sounds more like Verizon is seeking to dump them because they're hard to serve. What will happen to those that cannot switch or find that what they switch to is not reliable?
Well, that's some of the unknowns I talked about in my testimony. That's a question that we will have for Verizon when we meet with them. and I don't have an answer for you though I'm not sure but that is a question that I think Verizon has to be able to answer and you brought this up during if this application is approved what will the requirements under the Verizon frontier settlement will they still apply um well again that's another good question and it gets to the uncertainty of this application I suspect they wouldn't if the FCC removes Verizon's commitment to offer copper service, landline service. Any commitment that they made as a result of the settlement, I would argue, would be removed.
But that's something that our legal counsel would answer. Okay. And will Verizon still considered a PUC-regulated utility? Will it be subject to the PUC's consumer protections and rate-making processes?
Again, not sure about that. I would argue probably not because we don't have any jurisdiction over those other types of alternatives. So any of those customers going to those types of alternatives, I think we would lose jurisdiction over that, I'd suspect.
Thank you. Senator Brown, did you have any questions?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Commissioner DeFrank.
Very good testimony. I think what this does for me in your testimony is say, how do we get to this point with this little amount of time to be able to protect and give the residents what they need on communication So I mean even looking and saying that Verizon did not offer all the information and then you had to go and dig further to get the information that said there 200 residents some of them business 165 residential that are concerning as far as you know if they will receive you know the coverage that they need Did I get that right? 165,000?
That's right. We were told by Verizon 200,000 lines impacted 165,000 of residentials.
Right. And you only got that information because you went after that information.
And that was not something that was available.
Right. And it was not easily available when going after it either. We had to do some arm twisting.
Right, which is very concerning to me in itself, and I understand that this is FCC.
So I guess one of my questions to you is, well, two questions. We are one month away, right?
November 30th, a little over.
November 30th is the deadline here.
And it appears even from your testimony that there are so many questions to be answered.
You know, in your opinion, you know, this should not have gotten to this point. Am I correct? This far out one month away?
You know, in my opinion, yes, I would agree with you. You know, their FCC rules, though, I don't want to sit there and say, you know, attack their rules. But they do have this expedited review, which is why you have this shortened comment period. And, you know, they have 30 days to act, the FCC. So that's the application that Verizon filed. You know, it is a very expedited review for, you know, I mean, of the eight states in the District of Columbia, you're talking about 750,000. And I know we're only talking about those Pennsylvania lines affected. But if I'm sitting in a seat of an FCC commissioner, I'm looking at that number.
It's 750,000 lines that are impacted by this that I'm supposed to make a decision on like that. That's very concerning.
Right, exactly. And although we are at the state level and we can effectuate in our positions state policy, obviously we have strong connections as far as working with other legislators on federal level as well.
What would you suggest the process should be for something like this in regards to maybe a relationship with the states?
well again i i don't want to you know go after the fcc or anything here but i i think that you know it's helpful um you know it would be helpful for our counterparts at the federal level to talk to us of what's what we're doing here at the state level um you know the interaction we have with ferk for instance um is is a regular interaction um fcc not as much because a lot of that service has been restructured or deregulated. However, we still do have regulation over basic landline copper service that we're talking about here. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. It's
just very concerning the amount of information and how quickly I feel it's moved for the resident and sort of the break in that communication. As we're talking about communication,
there's a very strong break in communication. So thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Sure. And it is, I mean, you know, depending what the commission does, I'm one of five commissioners. We will have to vote on it whether we file comments or not.
I'm certainly going to be supportive of filing comments and hope that at least two other commissioners agree with me and that we are able to file comments in this.
I think it's important because the number of Pennsylvanians impacted by this in such a short amount of time.
One more quick question for you. The telephone service is changing and its dynamics are changing.
Is the PUC looking at any other regulatory processes to review that? We are not because the application is not before us.
I don't know what the FCC is going to do.
The FCC may throw this back to state commissions. I don't think that's going to happen. but, you know, that's why I was kind of careful with my comments because this is something that may be in front of us at the PUC. I don't think it will be, but, you know, again, it is concerning,
and going back to Senator Brown's question, you know, regarding this happening so fast
and so quickly and what can be done. I mean, I think that, you know, public input is important here. You know, listening to public input hearings would be an important part of, you know, seeing
what these impacted customers, what their thoughts are, and how comfortable they may be
with the replacement service we're talking about here. Well, again, I thank you for taking the time
out to testify and answer our questions today and let you continue your important work there.
Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks, Senator. You're welcome. Our next panel was to be Verizon, but they weren't able to be here today to participate, so it's very difficult for us to understand what Verizon was attempting to do and how customers will be impacted. But they did provide written testimony that has been supplied to our members and will be available on our website. In lieu of Verizon's participation today, we have asked Stephen Samara, President of the Pennsylvania Telephone Association, to speak from PTA's perspective on the elimination of copper-based services. Steve, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Brown, good to see all of you this morning. Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments, at least on behalf of the PTA member companies who are also doing this transition from copper to fiber throughout all rural parts of the Commonwealth. The PTA represents more than two dozen rural telcos across Pennsylvania, utilizing for over a century the copper network that we've all become accustomed to using. But more and more of those services are being offered over fiber optic cable. My smaller member companies, which are 1,000 access line companies,
between 1,000 and 5,000 access line companies, are almost exclusively fiber to their customers. And so that's more and more where we're headed these days. The topic at hand here with Verizon's application is being addressed not only through the 214 process, but through a number of different initiatives, both regulatory and legislative, to make sure that all of our customers are taken care of. This move from copper to fiber, from my perspective, representing these folks for over three decades is this is an effort to provide services for our customers not abandon them These are all services that can provide through fiber virtually unlimited bandwidth And, you know, as we all know, copper has been great, as I mentioned, for a long time. It does have very, very significant limitations. It is difficult and costly to maintain. It doesn't give you the increases in speed that many higher bandwidth customers are seeking these days. It is the subject and the focus of copper theft in many parts of the Commonwealth and throughout the country. I think in Pennsylvania scrapyards you can get $5 to $6 per pound for stripped copper cable. And if you are an industrious thief, that's not a bad way to make a living, I guess, for a little while. but we're seeing it more and more throughout our service territories. It also bears mentioning that squirrels in various parts of the Commonwealth have a particular taste for copper cables. So, you know, that happens. It happened to me recently, that squirrels will chew through the insulation, allow water into the copper network, and degrade service. So not the subject of this hearing necessarily, but just something to file away. I'm sure you weren't mentioning or expecting squirrels to be mentioned during today's hearing, but it is something as far as the cost to maintain the service and provide continuous service to our customers is an issue. But by comparison, fiber optic cable has virtually unlimited speed capabilities, cheaper to maintain and environmentally friendly. It's not cheap to deploy. As you know, I think the Fiber Broadband Association has ranges of $25,000 to $80,000 per mile. to deploy fiber aerially. And if you have to go underground, it's $80,000 to $200,000 per mile to deploy. And as all of us in Pennsylvania know, through geology and topography, and we can talk about pull attachments, but that, again, not an issue for today's hearing. But if you give me the opportunity, I could take up a whole day talking about that. But it's not easy to deploy. It's not cheap to deploy, but that's where we're headed. Obviously, that's the subject of what we're talking about here today. Verizon is not unique to that discussion. As I mentioned, all of the rural local exchange carriers are in that bucket as well. But it puts us in an interesting position. With all of the folks that are out there offering service, we have the desire and the ability to do this. We are hamstrung by our legacy monopoly regulations. I think that's driving much of what Verizon and other incumbent local exchange carriers are doing nationally. I think there are 18, at least 18 states that are in the midst of doing these types of things. It's probably more since I sat here this morning. But that legacy regulation, that monopoly regulation, does hamstring us. And our basic philosophy is that the more providers there are in the mix, there's the economic model of pushing down prices for all customers. So there's a customer benefit to having more competitors that are fairly competing without those legacy regulations. We are the only fully regulated category of telecom providers in Pennsylvania. We are regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. We're regulated by the FCC. Cable, wireless, satellite folks have enjoyed, and we're not asking them to be dumped in our category, but they enjoy a much lighter hand when it comes to regulation at both the state and federal level So what you seeing from us is you know a desire to be able to offer our fiber services more nimbly without those legacy regulations. One of those efforts is obviously the subject matter at issue today, the 214 applications of Verizon. And quite frankly, what, you know, what's that issue here is Kohler, our carrier of last resort obligations. You know, when we were monopolists, that safety net of, you know, making sure that MobL or whoever the local carrier was was going to provide you service was necessary. I mean, there was no option. If you didn't have one of my member companies or Verizon or one of these other folks offering service, you were SOL. But those days are long gone. I mean, they're not even in the rearview mirror anymore. So consequently, the Kohler obligation and the public policy objective of universal service that Katie and Joel referenced and Chairman DeFrank referenced is important. It's ingrained in both federal and state regulations and legislation. It's not easy to extricate yourself from those things. I think I will get some argument from folks that were here before me saying it's easier at the FCC than it used to be, and I'll acknowledge that it probably is easier at the FCC than it used to be. But there are still arrows in the quiver of both the PUC and the FCC to make sure that these companies that are trying to move from a copper to a fiber network, you know, do so by jumping through the, you know, through the hoops and clearing the hurdles to make sure that there are other options out there. the sliver of folks that are um would find themselves in a position where they don't have an alternative may be a sliver but it's not inconsequential to us i mean they all matter whether it's three percent or whether it's one percent they all matter to us we have lost from monopoly era having 100 of customers to single digits of voice subscriptions in Pennsylvania. We are not in a position, nor has it ever been our business model, to make sure we get rid of the rest of them. I mean, it's just nonsensical to us. So this notion that folks are at risk of losing service and we're in an effort to try and get rid of them because they're difficult or costly to serve, from my experience, as I said, working for three decades with these folks, just doesn't make sense to me. I understand where the committee is coming from. These are legitimate questions. These folks, we want to make sure that they're served. I mean, it doesn't do us any good to make sure they're not served. If they can't access 911, if they can't make dial tone calls, you know, that is certainly a concern to us. At the federal level, the Section 214 requirements of the FCC and their corresponding regulations do give them oversight as to, you know, what we have to do to jump through those hoops to get there. Verizon is not unique to the application process. AT&T has probably led the way nationally in going through these procedures with the FCC. Some of my member companies will be entering that fray as well and trying to go through the 214 process as well. But the FCC is responsible for analyzing whether customers have adequate alternatives, whether replacement technology is reliable, whether vulnerable customers will be harmed, and whether the change affects public safety or national security. That is one and the subject of this committee's focus today. But there are other initiatives, as I mentioned, to address these issues. The General Assembly has weighed in on this two decades ago Act 183 of 2004 one of the policy declarations was specifically to specifically recognize that the regulatory obligations imposed upon my member companies should be more consistent with where alternative providers are coming from. The PTA has been attempting to kind of effectuate those changes through legislation like Senator Kristen Phillips Hill Senate Bill 491, which is currently before the Senate for consideration. We've done that for a number of sessions. We're trying to effectuate those changes through a legislative process. That bill does not affect the Kohler obligations of my member companies in areas of the state where there is no competition. It does require and preserves Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code, which ensures that the commission, one of the arrows in the quiver of the commission, PUC, is to make sure that my member companies with certificates of public convenience are furnishing affordable, or not affordable, reliable, adequate, reasonably continuous service. That is not affected by what we're trying to do legislatively here. So they have that arrow in the quiver to make sure that we're doing what we are supposed to be doing there. Discussions on that legislation have kind of leveled out at exactly what you're trying to do here, Chairman and Senator Brown on the committee, is discuss what options are available, what are alternative service providers, who's out there. I hear and I know that wireless service is not ubiquitous. We'll all do deference to my wireless friends. I get it. I understand that. We have taken those perspectives to heart. We have spent considerable time talking about what that legislation looks like and what is the definition of an alternative service provider, whether wireless counts. You know, some people say wireless shouldn't. I get it. I understand that because it's not ubiquitous. I will tell you Starlink has told the federal government and Congress and the FCC that it's everywhere, that there's no need to worry about anyone else because Starlink satellites will cover you. with all due deference to Mr. Musk, I think that's probably not true. But that's, again, a discussion for another day. But that notion of what's out there and what counts and what doesn't count is important to us. And we are actively working on amendatory language to the legislation. We won't get it done this session, obviously, since we're right at the bitter end here. But that's an ongoing discussion I think we'll have in future sessions to decide what an alternative service provider looks like and what counts. The PUC has also recognized this issue in a number of different forums. Way back in 2020, the commission teed up a docket also recognizing that we need to kind of develop some consistency with how our legacy telecom providers are regulated and how alternative service providers are regulated. They teed that up. They took the first steps towards streamlining the Public Utility Code to recognize that we all should be treated on the same footing. They haven't gone far enough, in my opinion, that our continuing discussions we're having with the Commission to kind of get us there. But the Commission also elevated the discussion and re-energized an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the Pennsylvania Universal Service Fund. And part of that discussion involves the very matter we're talking about here, which is a notion and a concept that the PTA teed up, which is that of a transition carrier. Let's move forward. Let's move forward. fiber providers. Yes, we still offer basic voice service, but what technology is used to do that? So that notion the Commission took particular interest in, and we were glad that they did. We are currently involved in discussions with Commission staff, with other interested parties, and what that looks like. And the concept is, what are you willing to give up as a provider as far as support from the Universal Service Fund in exchange for some carrier of last resort relief? But we are now in the process of talking about exactly what this committee has teed up, which is what does an alternative service provider look like? How do you gauge whether Mrs. Smith at the end of the road has adequate service to allow her to call 911, to allow her to make any outgoing calls or receive calls? So we're right at the cusp of discussing all of those issues going forward. So this is a notion that is not unique to the 214 applications, I guess, is the bottom line. There are both legislative and commission initiatives going on that will address those issues. And, you know, we are in the middle of that. We're happy to be in the middle of it. We recognize there are folks that don't want all the bells and whistles of fiber, don't want all the advanced services. Some don't want Internet. The take rate for Internet is much lower than you probably think it is, even though we're putting the network out there. Those people shouldn't count less. We recognize that. We're not looking to abandon them. And we're here to tell you that, you know, we're taking this seriously, seriously enough to be involved in a number of different initiatives, both at this level, the federal level, through the commission and through the legislature, to try and address this transition. Because it's happening. There's no avoiding it. It's just how best do we go about ensuring that folks don't drop off the network. So appreciate the opportunity. Happy to answer any questions you may have.
Well, thank you for stepping in here at the last minute. I really appreciate that. You mentioned this in your testimony, and the other phone companies across Pennsylvania, have they been ready to file applications as well?
There are some that will, I think. I think some of the larger companies will follow suit. So my smaller member companies, for the most part, are 99% fiber now, and that transition for their customers has gone smoothly with no hiccups. But, yeah, I think you'll see some of the larger rural local exchange carriers maybe not as large as Verizon follow suit. And as I mentioned, there are other companies across the country who are doing this now. It's at various levels of consideration state by state.
You mentioned that several of your member companies have already been replacing copper with fiber. In this application now from Verizon in front of the FCC, they talk about just abandoning copper, not mentioning replacing with fiber. What do you know if there is that actually going on? Is it replacing the branch lines and trunk lines with fiber, or is this just abandoning copper altogether and have to find other types of alternatives? For my member companies?
For this Verizon application. How do you view that?
Well, I read their testimony.
I talked to them I don like the word abandoning I don really like the word discontinuing I understand why that being used Verizon testimony to my reading of it and talking to them is they'll keep folks on copper if there's no other alternatives out there. I mean, I don't know of a better consideration you can have than that. But it says in their testimony, I read it like you folks did. I mean, I think they are in a position where they recognize that there are some individuals who don't have alternatives. I think that percentage of folks is small. I think it's getting smaller every day. But if there's a commitment out there from Verizon or any of my member companies going forward that they're going to continue customers on copper service if they want it, you know, is there. I mean, I don't know what else to tell you. We're going to provide the service to folks. So whether it's copper, we prefer that it be fiber for the reasons I mentioned, because copper is difficult and costly to maintain. And it does provide a superior service to folks, the fiber does. And we hope that people migrate to it. But like I said, there are folks that don't subscribe to internet. There are folks that don't subscribe to landline service who just want to be off the grid. And that's a small percentage, but it doesn't mean they matter less. And I want to make sure that we're not anti-technology here at this committee. It's just we're taking care of and protecting our consumers.
Sure, I understand. I get the calls almost daily from your offices, all the offices, about constituents that have had issues with this. The Verizon notice that went out, I got calls about that from lots of folks across the Commonwealth, and I tried to steer them through exactly what I believe is the process. And I believe Verizon's doing a great job of telling folks what they plan to do. We may argue about whether the FCC process is too abbreviated, too quick. That's under this administration and this commission. The whole delete, delete, delete docket at the FCC has kind of gone through and tried to streamline all these processes and streamline the transition, and I get it. To Katie and Joel's concerns and to Commissioner or Chairman DeFrank's concerns, Yeah, I understand why there's legitimate questions about the speed with which this is happening. I think Verizon and the rest of my member companies are in a position to address those. In the application and the letter that went out, mainly the letter that went out to the consumers across Pennsylvania, it gives a website to check for available options. From your experience and your members' experience, how accurate is that website in locating the specific addresses and availability of the options?
Broadband availability or any service availability is the subject of ongoing scrutiny. It should be. The FCC's broadband map has come under consistent criticism that it is not accurate. They're updating it every day. I think it bears checking with individual customers, and I hope that those customers will raise their hand and say something about it if they don't have the service. We don't want them not to have the service. Like I said, that's not our goal is to get people dropping off the network. That doesn make any sense from a business perspective So yeah the subject that a subject for another hearing Chairman of who has it and who doesn unserved underserved The BEAD program is another you know we could have hearings all day for the rest of the year, and I'm happy to show up for any of those. But yeah, that's an ongoing concern about who has it and who doesn't and what they have, and who wants it
and doesn't want it. So. And one more question, and I'll turn it over to Senator Brown. You mentioned this in your application. We weren't going to talk about it. You said pole attachments, but you brought something to my mind. With this application now with the FCC through Verizon, what do you think will happen to our double pole issue in Pennsylvania?
I don't know that this application per se has impacts on that. I mean, copper is deployed aerially. Fiber is deployed aerially. Like I said, pole attachment is a whole other issue that we can get into. I understand that that is an issue around the Commonwealth. Like I said, I get those calls frequently on behalf of, you know, lots of my member companies. But the bottom line is, you know, copper is expensive to maintain. It's not as reliable as fiber. You know, we're hoping to get to, I mean, if we could have everything fiber underground throughout the Commonwealth, especially in rural parts of the state, we'd love it. It costs more, but we wouldn't have the issues with pull attachments and pulls on trees and all that kind of stuff. But, you know, I don't know that the 214 application in and of itself would have an impact on that necessarily, but it's something we're hoping to get to where we have a reliable, easier-to-maintain network that provides service to our customers that's to their liking and they're willing to subscribe to.
All right, thank you.
Senator Brown.
Thank you again for your testimony and being here this morning. Two quick things. You mentioned the cost of going from copper to fiber being inexpensive, but the deployment of it being very expensive. What does that mean for a constituent as far as what they currently are doing? And we transfer over to fiber on their utility bill as far as their phone.
What I can tell you as far as experience to date, Senator Brown, is that the prices for the new fiber service are very competitive with what they're experiencing now. I mean, I've not been led to believe that we're going from $20 to $30 a month to $100 a month for fiber. I mean, most of what we've done as an industry is to avoid that specifically, to make that transition seamless, to allow them to keep their phone number, to keep them on the network, and to do so at a price point that is competitive with what they're currently paying now. In some cases, you know, I've seen statistics where it's actually, the cost has actually gone down for subscribers. I can't tell you that's the case in all instances, but it doesn't do us any good to go to Fiber and charge folks $100 a month for DialTone. It just doesn't make any sense. I do hear complaints about what it costs for Starlink to you know put the antenna on the roof and what it costs to do that and to pay monthly for that service And that not a viable alternative because of the cost available to it But from my industry's perspective, what we're trying to do is move folks from the copper to the fiber and have it be seamless both in service and cost. And like I said, a lot of my smaller member companies have already done that. They haven't had the experiences that they haven't had people dropping off because of affordability. I understand there are, you know, Joel and Katie's job and Chairman DeFrank's job is to make sure it doesn't happen.
Affordability is something we're concerned about, obviously, as business people. Thank you. And, yeah, obviously there's always that balance between advancement and affordability and price to make sure things line up nicely. One thing I do want to bring your attention to is the letter that was sent out from Verizon mentioning that there was an important update about your home phone service. And the letter states it's informational only and requires no customer action at this time. But throughout the letter, it talks about the date of November 30th. It talks about what this means for you. It gives a link. but nowhere in here is there a mention that I can see of a public comment period. And I just wanted to bring attention to that because I do think in light of what we have heard through this testimony of the unknowns, that the lack of having that public comment period noted in this letter takes away the very information that we need and we desire to try to protect the resident. So just wanted to bring that to your attention. I think that's something that's very important for all the telephone companies to ensure they have.
No, I appreciate you mentioning that, Senator, and I will take it back to Verizon and make sure they're aware of it as well.
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your testimony today and all that testified in front of us for this very important situation facing Pennsylvania. And as we seek a more modern infrastructure that meets the growing technology demands, we must balance the needs of our current situation with the transition to the future. We are facing this in every industry, in every utility. We must ensure this progress does not come at the sake of consumer protection. Both are very critical. Today's hearing was to better understand how we accomplish this as Verizon transitions from traditional landline service to fiber, cable, and wireless communication. Hearing from Verizon was critical. And as I always heard the slogan, can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Hopefully Verizon has heard us now. We didn't hear from them, though. So we didn't find out, especially here at the committee level, about this until we heard letters coming back from our constituents. And as you heard, I think we need to get some of these questions answered. And I have no doubts that there are benefits to our modernization efforts here. The Commonwealth has supported these upgrades with tens of millions of dollars in broadband deployment. We want this progress. We have supported this progress, but we also need to have our assurances that our residents won't be left without reliable service and a dial tone. We appreciate the guidance that the OCA, the PUC, and the PTA have provided as the committee seeks clarifications and ways future options. And this concludes today's hearing. Thank you very much.