‘Number-one obstructionist': Electricity co-ops lambasted for slow broadband rollout
More than a billion dollars worth of government incentives to boost rural Hoosier broadband access could get tangled in the utility pole attachment fight between Indiana's electricity providers and telecommunications companies — prompting a major potential amendment and several hostile exchanges at a Tuesday committee hearing.
'For three years of my life, I have been trying to get the utilities and the telecoms to agree,' the committee's frustrated leader, Rep. Ed Soliday, began. '… And so, we now are here.'
'The loser in all of this is the rural person who needs broadband,' he said. '… I'm going to give out phone numbers of who to call when they come to me and say their children are going to McDonald's to do their homework.'
Senate Bill 502 is lawmakers' attempt to mediate.
Communities struggle to get connected, despite billions in broadband investment
For now, it would require telecommunications companies to 'prove to you that there is a problem,' AT&T Indiana President Bill Soards told a corresponding Senate committee in February. His and other companies would submit information on their attachment requests to the Indiana Broadband Office quarterly until July 2030.
But a detailed amendment from Soliday, R-Valparaiso, would strike the reporting requirements and instead set deadlines to push both provider types toward collaboration — or face the consequences. If a pole owner's noncompliance causes a telecommunications company to lose government funding for a broadband project, the owner could owe the company $25,000.
The committee didn't take a decision on the edits Tuesday. It will consider the legislation again next week.
'Some of you are concerned about the amendment. Let me say this: it can get a lot worse,' Soliday warned. He later threatened to raise it to $250,000.
'We need to solve the problem. All the creative solutions to get around (or) away from this — I will devote my entire life to getting this done.'
Over the last four years, Indiana has poured $350 million into rural access to modern high-speed internet, according to bill author Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington. The state was also allocated nearly $870 million in 2023, as part of a $43 billion federal 'internet for all' initiative; an estimated 150,000 Hoosier addresses are eligible, per Indiana Chief Broadband Office Steve Cox. The office is still working on a spending proposal.
Broadband providers contend that pole owners — like electric utilities — are hindering progress.
In February's Senate committee hearing, Spectrum parent Charter Communications reported that its successful pole attachment applications averaged a nearly 400-day wait for approval. But thousands of pending applications have languished for about 500 days, on average.
Electric utilities cite incomplete and inaccurate telecommunications applications as primary causes of delay. They maintain that illegal or improperly done attachments risk damaging the state's electric infrastructure — dubbed the 'backbone for the broadband rollout,' by Michael Charbonneau, government relations head for the Indiana Electric Cooperatives.
'We have worked in good faith with other stakeholders,' Charbonneau told the committee, 'to develop a framework for processing pole attachments related to broadband grant funding.'
His organization opposed the amendment, citing 'significant' financial penalties, to the chagrin of lawmakers disappointed by slow progress.
'We've got the money to do it. So it just baffles me that, in that whole time frame, industry has not come together and figured out how to do this,' said Rep. Jim Pressel, R-Rolling Prairie.
Soliday was more aggressive.
'You know what I think, Mr. Charbonneau? You don't want a solution!' he asserted. 'You're in the business of broadband, aren't you? Aren't you? … You are competing with the broadband companies. Are you, or are you not?'
Charbonneau said 27 of his organization's 38 members have some involvement, generally starting a decade ago, 'because someone had to deliver broadband to rural Indiana.'
He pushed back on the allegations, saying, 'We want rural Indiana to succeed, and it needs broadband and electricity to do so.'
Charbonneau stood before the committee for more than thirty minutes. Questions about the amendment, attachment requests, contracts and delays repeatedly lapsed into heated exchanges — prompting audible gasps from some audience members.
As lawmakers neared caucus time, Soliday said they'd continue discussions next week 'because, what I heard you say in your testimony today is that, by Oct. 1, it is impossible for the REMCs (rural electric membership cooperatives) to agree to any type of timeline or performance standards with the telecoms. …'
'No, it is not —' Charbonneau began.
'Then, you can. It's a binary question. Yes or no?' Soliday pressed.
After several more exchanges, Charbonneau said he was concerned less about the deadline and more that all parties were working 'in good faith.' He sought a solution without fines.
CONTACT US
'What you'd really like is no accountability, and we can continue with this … indefinitely. That's what I'm hearing you say,' Soliday said, as Charbonneau reiterated his aversion to the penalties.
'Three. Years. And we wind up with storytelling every time. We need a solution. So if your answer is (that) it can't be done, you shouldn't even be here,' Soliday added.
'Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm here to say we oppose this amendment,' Charbonneau replied.
The back-and-forth continued until Soliday dubbed the REMCs the 'number-one obstructionist.'
'Wow,' Charbonneau said.
'And that is a fact that I can document. And here we go again,' Soliday concluded. 'So, (I'll) be happy to see you all next Tuesday. Do you have a different amendment? How many hours have we met? All I get is mush. Thank you for your testimony. … With that, we are adjourned.'
Indiana's broadband problems may go beyond state lines, however.
The federal broadband effort is falling behind schedule, Stateline has reported. And, under President Donald Trump's administration, it faces an overhaul that could push lucrative contracts toward Elon Musk — the world's richest man and a top Trump adviser — according to the National Public Radio. One of the furthest-along states, West Virginia, is reworking its proposal to better align with the administration's desires, per Broadband Breakfast.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Senate judicial confirmation delays spark President Trump's ire
The recent flare-up between President Trump and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) conjures the image of two elderly neighbors quarrelling over a back fence about property line disagreements. That metaphor is not far from the reality of the latest clash. Presidents and Congress have been tangling over turf from the beginning of the republic. Who is encroaching on whose constitutional prerogatives. In the present instance, the president has attacked Grassley for allowing so-called 'blue slips' — 'an ancient and probably unconstitutional custom' — to get in the way of confirming nominees for federal district court judgeships and U.S. attorney posts. Grassley says he was especially 'offended' and 'disappointed' by the president's personal insults on his Truth Social platform. He called Grassley a RINO ('Republican in name only') for protecting Democratic senators and went on to call for term limits (Grassley was first elected to the Senate in 1981 and is 91 years old), saying it's time to 'dethrone the kings.' Fellow senators of both parties rallied to Grassley's defense. They like the seniority system (especially the closer they get to a committee chairmanship). They like the blue-slip system when it comes to confirming judicial nominees from their home states. And they dislike it when a president meddles in their chamber's internal rules and procedures since, as the Constitution makes clear, ' Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.' What is a blue slip? It is a document, written on blue paper, on which the home state senators of presidential nominees for federal district court judgeships and U.S. attorney positions indicate their approval or disapproval of those nominees. In other words, only two senators are eligible to submit blue slips for each nominee. The blue slip process is not written in Senate rules or even in the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead of a rule, it has been variously described as a 'custom' or 'tradition.' The Judiciary Committee chairmen set the ground rules for the confirmation process in each Congress. The president was correct when he said Chairman Grassley could abolish the blue slip requirements with 'just a flick of the pen.' In 2017, for instance, Judiciary Chairman Grassley declared that blue slips would no longer be required for appeals court judgeships, and that is still the case. The committee has gone through multiple iterations of the custom dating back to 1917. In many of those instances, the lack of both senators' approval would be taken into consideration by the committee in determining whether to proceed with confirmation hearings and whether to vote on sending the nomination to the Senate floor for debate and a vote. As it now stands, a covered nominee must have blue slip approvals from both senators for the nomination to move forward in committee, though a Judiciary Committee chair may declare an exception for any reason on any occasion — that was done twice during Joe Biden's tenure as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. The president, in his attack on Grassley in July, incorrectly stated that presidents would never be able to appoint judges in liberal strongholds if even one senator in the opposition party refuses to submit a blue slip of approval. In fact, only the two senators from the home state of the judicial nominee may do so. Still, the president is understandably peeved that his judicial and executive nominees are taking too long to be confirmed. President Trump set two confirmation process records during the first 200 days of his second non-consecutive term. According to Chris Piper of Brookings, based on data compiled by his colleague Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, Trump submitted more executive and judicial nominations over that period (401) than any previous president. The second record he set, though, was that he faced more confirmation delays than any of his predecessors. Piper offers several explanations for the current delays, most notably that Senate Democrats are slow-walking nominations because they are not satisfied with their quality. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) attributes it to the nominees' lack of experience, ethical conflicts of interest and perceived extreme views. Consequently, Senate Democrats are demanding full debates and recorded votes on nearly every nominee, both in committee and on the floor. When Trump demanded that Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) cancel the August recess and keep the Senate in session until all pending nominations were dealt with, Thune extended the session by one day only and was able to clear the docket of several of the longstanding and most controversial nominees. It is doubtful that confirmations will pick up significantly in the fall, with critical budget-related deadlines once again pressing. The flurry of negative blue slips may still resemble record snowfalls by winter. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran, culminating as the House Rules Committee chief of staff in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
Almost half of adults say they are ordering kids' meals. Here's what's behind the trend.
Almost half of U.S. adults say they're ordering from restaurant kid menus in order to save money when they go out to eat and to opt for smaller portions, new research shows. About 44% of adults surveyed by Lightspeed Commerce, a provider of point-of-sale technology for hospitality businesses, said they're ordering from the kids' menus at restaurants. Kids' meals are traditionally less expensive than those on adult menus because portion sizes are usually smaller. The trend comes as some consumers are cutting back on eating out, with McDonald's and Wendy's earlier this month reported sluggish breakfast sales. The companies attributed the trend to heightened economic uncertainty and pressures facing low-income consumers. Adult diners said smaller portions, simpler menus and lower prices are compelling them to turn to kids' menus, Lightspeed said. "Whether it's a mini burger or mac and cheese, the kids' menu is becoming a smart option — not just a nostalgic one," Lightspeed researchers said. The cost of fast food has also skyrocketed over the past decade, according to a 2024 report by FinanceBuzz. The personal finance site found that the price of a McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal more than doubled in price from $5.39 in 2014 to $11.99 in 2024. At McDonald's, a six-piece chicken McNugget Happy Meal, which comes with fries, milk and apple juice, costs $5.99. By comparison, an order of six McNugget's from the burger chain's McValue menu costs $5.59, but doesn't include fries or drinks. Eating at restaurants has become more costly, with the most recent consumer price index data, which measures changes in the price of everyday goods, showing that the cost of dining out has risen 3.9% over the past 12 months.
Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Sherrod Brown challenges crypto PACs to rematch in Senate bid
Political operatives working for the cryptocurrency industry will be on high alert now that Democrats appear to be all in on Sherrod Brown as the national party's candidate for Senate in Ohio. Why it matters: With Brown as their pick, Democrats — already facing steep odds of retaking the Senate in 2026 — are directly squaring off against Fairshake, the crypto PAC that helped unseat the industry critic just a year ago. At the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Summit Tuesday, Sen. Tim Scott (R.—SC) told the room, "Thank you to all y'all for getting rid of Sherrod Brown." Fairshake, the network of PACs that opposed Brown in 2024, has $140 million on hand already to support pro-crypto candidates and — crucially, for Brown — oppose those that are seen as impediments. Between the lines: The organization Stand With Crypto has ranked Brown as "strongly against crypto" based on his statements and actions in Congress. And his former position as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, from which he stonewalled industry-backed legislation, made him a target for Fairshake in the last election. What he's saying: "Cryptocurrency is a part of America's economy," Brown said in a statement Tuesday sent by the campaign to Axios, in response to a request for an interview. "My goal is to make sure that as more people use cryptocurrency, it expands opportunity and lifts up Ohioans and they are not put at risk." The campaign did not respond to multiple requests to answer follow up questions about whether his policy positions have shifted since his loss. In addition, neither the Ohio Democratic Party nor the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee replied to a request for comment from Axios. What they're saying: Brian Wright, a longtime Ohio-based political strategist serving as president of WrightPath Solutions, tells Axios that he can see why the party wants Brown. Over his 32 years in Congress, the last 18 spent in the Senate, Brown had been able to flip otherwise Republican counties with a pro-worker message, Wright explained, though it didn't work out as well in 2024. Still, even with millions spent against him, Brown only lost 46% to 50% a year ago. "Anything can really happen here, but is it a bad idea for him to run again? I don't think he was defeated soundly enough to say that," Wright says. Zoom out: A Democrat's odds of winning the Ohio Senate seat haven't risen above 33% on the Kalshi prediction market since the contract started in July, now with $2.7 million in volume. State of play: Party leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.—NY) wants Brown. Schumer has been perplexing on crypto issues, both acting as if pro-crypto legislation could pass in 2024 but also voting against the recently enacted stablecoin legislation, GENIUS. The Cook Political report still favors Jon Husted in the Ohio race, the Republican incumbent appointed to fill J.D. Vance's vacated seat, and the larger map still favors Republicans going into 2026.
