Concerning modifications to the prepaid wireless telecommunications service charges.
HB 26-1115 makes a series of technical and substantive updates to Colorado’s prepaid wireless telecommunications charge statutes. The bill focuses on the three charges that apply to prepaid wireless service sales: the 911 charge, the 988 charge, and the telephone disability access (TDA) charge. It corrects cross-references, updates definitions of “prepaid wireless telecommunications service” and related terms, and aligns the statutes governing collection, remittance, and administration of these charges.
The bill broadens and clarifies how the charges apply to prepaid wireless services sold in advance, including services sold in predetermined units of time or money and services offering unlimited use for a fixed period. It also expressly includes providers of free prepaid wireless service that rely on federally supported services or programs in the 911 and 988 charge collection and remittance framework, and it clarifies that the 988 charge is administered by the Department of Revenue. In addition, it authorizes disclosure of confidential tax information to the Public Utilities Commission and the relevant enterprises for the 988 and TDA charges, and allows electronic filing and payment requirements for the 988 charge.
The bill’s practical effect is to harmonize Colorado’s prepaid wireless charge statutes and reduce ambiguity in how the charges are imposed and collected. It amends provisions in Titles 29, 39, and 40 to ensure the prepaid wireless 911, 988, and TDA charges are treated consistently, including clarifying that services not subject to these prepaid wireless charges remain subject to other applicable telecommunications charges under state law. It also adds cross-references so the statutory definitions used across the charge regimes match one another.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and its enactment history is neutral to supportive, with the measure appearing to be a cleanup and implementation bill rather than a controversial policy change. The bill passed through the Finance committees and was ultimately signed by the Governor, suggesting broad institutional support for the administrative and technical corrections.
There is little visible contention in the available record. The main issues addressed are statutory consistency, administrative authority, and proper application of the charges to free or federally supported prepaid wireless services. Any potential concern would likely center on compliance burdens for sellers and providers, confidentiality of tax information, and the scope of the 988 charge, but no opposing arguments or recorded disputes are included in the provided materials.
HB 26-1115 amends multiple sections of Colorado law governing telecommunications-related charges, including provisions in Titles 29, 39, and 40. It expands and clarifies the statutory definitions and collection rules for prepaid wireless 911, 988, and TDA charges, authorizes the Department of Revenue to administer the 988 charge in the same manner as related charges, and permits confidential information sharing with the Public Utilities Commission and the relevant enterprises. The bill also authorizes electronic filing and payment for the prepaid wireless 988 charge and clarifies the relationship between prepaid wireless charges and other telecommunications charges.
The available record suggests a generally favorable and noncontroversial reception. The bill was enacted and signed by the Governor, and the context indicates it moved as a Finance measure focused on technical corrections and administrative alignment. No committee testimony, recorded votes, or amendments in the provided materials indicate significant opposition.
The bill’s main points of potential contention involve how broadly prepaid wireless service should be defined, whether providers of free or federally supported service should be treated as remitters, and how much administrative and reporting authority the Department of Revenue and related enterprises should have. Another possible issue is confidentiality, because the bill expands access to tax information for the Public Utilities Commission and the enterprises administering the charges. No specific opposing viewpoints are included in the provided record, so any contention appears limited or unrecorded.