SESSION OF 2020
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 2018
As Recommended by Senate Committee on
Utilities

Brief*
Senate Sub. for HB 2018 would amend the Kansas
Video Competition Act (Act) to prohibit municipalities from
imposing additional requirements for the deployment of micro
wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and to allow a
municipality to require compliance with certain standards.

Definitions
The bill would add the following definitions to the Act:
● “Communications service” would mean information
service or telecommunications service as defined
in 47 U.S.C § 153; and
● “Micro wireless facility” would mean equipment at a
fixed location that is:
○ Installed on cables that are owned and
operated by a video service provider between
utility poles, as defined in KSA 66-2019;
○ Used to provide communications services;
and
○ Not larger in dimensions than 24 inches in
length, 15 inches in width, and 12 inches in
height, and does not have any associated
exterior antenna longer than 11½ inches.
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
 The definition of the term “video service” would be
amended to specify the term would not include any video
programming provided by a commercial mobile service
provider, as defined in 47 U.S.C § 332(d), unless such
programming is determined by the Federal Communications
Commission to be cable service.

Changes to Prohibited Activities Under the Act
The bill would clarify what activities a municipality,
defined as a city or county under the Act, would be prohibited
from engaging in regarding the holder of a state-issued video
service authorization, and add the following prohibitions:
● Impose any fee, tax, or charge other than any
applicable federal and state taxes or the Video
Service Provider Fee found in KSA 2019 Supp. 12-
2024 [Note: The bill would remove similar language
in law that addresses gross tax receipts and fees
associated with the Act.];
● Require the holder of a state-issued video service
authorization to obtain any additional authorization
or license for the provision of communications
service over a holder’s network; and
● Require a video service provider to make an
application or pay any fee, license, tax, or rent for
the installation, placement, maintenance,
operation, or replacement of a micro wireless
facility.
Compliance With Certain Standards for Deployment
The bill would authorize a municipality to require the
holder of a state-issued video service authorization to comply
with the National Electrical Safety Code and all industry-
recognized engineering safety standards.

2- 2018
Clarifications
The bill would clarify nothing in the Act would prohibit a
municipality from assessing the Video Service Provider Fee
or rates or enforcing any regulations pursuant to law relating
to wireless infrastructure siting found in KSA 66-2019.
The bill would also clarify nothing in the bill would be
construed to prohibit a cooperative or the owner of a utility
pole from setting rates, fees, terms, and conditions of any
pole attachment agreement with an authorized video service
provider.
The bill would amend a provision in the Act governing
the requirements of an application for a state-issued video
service authorization to add taxes to the list of items with
which an applicant must comply.

Background
HB 2018 was introduced during the 2019 Session by
Representative Carmichael and would have created the
Kansas Criminal Justice Reform Commission. The contents
of the bill, as amended by the House Committee of the
Whole, were enacted in 2019 HB 2290. On March 17, 2020,
the bill was withdrawn from the Senate Committee on
Judiciary and rereferred to the Senate Committee on Utilities
(Senate Committee). The Senate Committee deleted the
contents of the bill and inserted the language of SB 380, as
passed by the Senate, and adopted a substitute bill.

SB 380
SB 380 was introduced by the Senate Committee at the
request of the Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association
(KCTA).


3- 2018
 In the Senate Committee hearing, representatives of
Cox Communications and KCTA provided proponent
testimony. The proponents stated generally the bill would be a
more efficient way to deploy broadband infrastructure and
would eliminate barriers to deployment. Written-only
proponent testimony was provided by a representative of
Huckaba & Associates.
Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of
the City of Topeka, City of Wichita, League of Kansas
Municipalities (LKM), Sprint, and the Unified Government of
Wyandotte County. The opponents stated generally the bill
would allow cable providers to launch a new fixed wireless
service in the public right-of-way without municipal oversight.
Written-only opponent testimony was provided by
representatives of the cities of Derby, Garnett, Manhattan,
McPherson, Overland Park, and Pittsburg; a coalition of
Northeast Johnson County cities; Kansas Association of
Counties (KAC); and Kansas Municipal Utilities.
Written-only neutral testimony was provided by a
representative of AT&T, noting its neutral position as both a
video service provider and wireless service provider.
The Senate Committee amended the bill to:
● Change the definition of “micro wireless facility”;
● Remove the definitions of “wireless facility” and
wireless services”;
● Add taxes to the list of items with which an
applicant for a state-issued video service
authorization must comply;
● Clarify language regarding activities a municipality
is prohibited from engaging in;


4- 2018
 ● Authorize a municipality to require compliance with
the National Electrical Safety Code and industry
standards;
● Clarify a municipality’s ability to assess fees or
rates and enforce regulations under the law relating
to wireless infrastructure siting; and
● Clarify provisions of the bill would not prohibit a
cooperative or an owner of a utility pole from
setting the terms and conditions of pole attachment
agreements.
In the House Committee on Energy, Utilities and
Communications hearing on March 12, 2020, representatives
of Cox Communications and the KCTA provided proponent
testimony. The proponents stated the bill would provide a way
to deploy broadband and provide more regulatory certainty to
cable providers deploying micro cell technology. Written-only
proponent testimony was provided by a representative of
Huckaba & Associates.
The hearing was scheduled to be continued on March
17, 2020, but the hearing was canceled. Representatives of
LKM and the Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City were scheduled to appear as opponents
to the bill. These representatives instead provided written-
only testimony that generally stated the bill would override a
city’s ability to provide oversight when working with cable
providers seeking to install wireless technology in the right-of-
way. Written-only opponent testimony was provided by
representatives of the KAC, the cities of Overland Park,
Shawnee, and Topeka, and a coalition of Northeast Johnson
County cities.
A representative of Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.,
was scheduled to appear as a neutral conferee at the hearing
and instead provided written-only neutral testimony. Written-
only neutral testimony was also provided by representatives
of AT&T and Sprint.
5- 2018
 According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on SB 380 as introduced, the Kansas Corporation
Commission indicates enactment of the bill would have no
fiscal effect on the agency. KAC indicates enactment of the
bill would reduce county revenues by exempting wireless and
video service providers from local regulations and fees, but
KAC cannot estimate what the reduction might amount to for
the counties, individually or statewide. LKM was unable to
estimate a fiscal effect.


6- 2018


Statutes affected:
As introduced: 25-2435
Version 5: 12-2022, 12-2023, 12-2024
Enrolled - Law effective July 1, 2020: 12-2022, 12-2023, 12-2024