LANSING – If old adages are true, the Michigan House Energy and Technology Committee’s version of the new Michigan Telecommunications Act must be just about perfect: No one likes it. The substitute released late Monday to HB 5237 is opposed by large telecommunications providers, their competitors and their customers.

But Committee Chair Rep. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) appeared to expect some of the objections. “We did listen very intently and took a lot of your comments into consideration,” he said at the opening of the committee discussions. “While you may not get everything you want, hopefully we did the best for the public.”

The only one of the new provisions in the substitute that drew criticism was the change to wholesale price regulations. The bill in its current version would require that wholesale rates reflect actual costs for the service and are no more than retail rates for that service. But the provision also expires in two years.

Fred Anderson with the Michigan Alliance for Competitive Telecommunications said the sunset would allow the incumbent providers to delay implementing interconnection agreements for two years and then set predatory prices to push out competitors.

“When you’re ahead, you want to run out the clock,” he said.

But Nofs said two years was what the competitors told him they needed to be independent of the incumbents. “We wanted to guarantee they had access. We had to make sure there was a rate set in the wholesale market,” he said. “It’s two years to tell the CLECs and other groups that you really need to start investing in Michigan.”

Both large providers and customer groups are upset that the bill retains a minimum 100-call plan. SBC officials told Gongwer News Service that 100 calls is too many, while customer groups said there needed to be a broader range of regulated plans.

“It requires providers to expand their service but keep their costs at the old level,” said Jon Kreger with SBC. He said the language of the bill would require SBC and other providers to offer the Call 100 plan at the same price they currently offer Call 50.

And he said customers with Call 50 do not need the additional service or the eventual rate increase it will mean. “Those individuals on Call 50 make an average of 39 calls per month,” he said.

But Rick Gamber with the Michigan Consumer Federation said regulating rates only on Call 100 leaves many who need more calls than that at the mercy of a sole service provider.

“If you live in an area with competition, (your rates) might not go up,” he said. “Large areas of the state have zero competitors.”

Gamber acknowledged that call plans should be deregulated where there is competition. “At some point maybe those need to go away, but only when we’re certain that people have choices,” he said.

Nofs said after the meeting that those concerned the bill will leave the poor without protection are ignoring that the PSC had already deregulated the largest markets in the state. The House bill, he said, would reinstate some protections for those residents who need it.

But opposition was not the universal position on the bill Tuesday. The Michigan Business and Professional Association supported the measure as promoting “fair and competitive practices at all levels.”

The committee is expected to take up a number of amendments Wednesday before reporting the bill. Among those changes will be some restructuring of customer protections suggested by Public Service Commission Chair Peter Lark and language to ensure that broadband over power lines and other alternative services are addressed.

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com