Millenicom customers have had their ups and downs over the last two weeks coping with e-mail notifications they would lose, keep, and once again lose their unlimited wireless data plan.

Just a day after Millenicom heard that Sprint would allow them to continue selling Unlimited and Bring Your Own Device plans, the wireless carrier best known for its “unlimited for life” offer changed its mind:

We are very sorry to report that Sprint has reversed their decision from yesterday and terminated their agreement with the gateway for our Unlimited and BYOD accounts.

We are not certain how long until the accounts will be closed.

We will be shipping out Hotspot devices to those clients who had opted for that solution and BMI.net is ready to fulfill orders for those choosing to go with them.

We have attempted to keep you informed every step of the way and avoid any abrupt transition. We apologize that we weren’t able to come through.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service and please accept our sincere wish for your future success.

Dennis Castle
Owner

It is not the first time Millenicom has had problems with Sprint, which has proved to be a difficult carrier to deal with with respect to unlimited use plans.

Sprint’s decision is a major blow to rural Americans who lack access to cable or DSL broadband and are forced to consider satellite-delivered Internet access or pay even more for wireless data plans that come with puny usage caps, overlimit fees or speed throttles.

There are a few alternatives, but since these providers resell access to Sprint-owned networks, all are potentially vulnerable to Sprint’s evolving views on resellers:

Blue Mountain Internet (BMI) offers an “unlimited plan” that isn’t along with several usage allowance plans. BMI strongly recommends the use of their Mobile Broadband Optimizer software that compresses web traffic, dramatically improving speeds and reducing consumption:

Monthly Plans

• $39.99/Month – 1 Gig Data (** up to 3GB compressed) ($25/GB Overlimit Fee)
• $59.99/Month – 3 Gig Data (** up to 9GB compressed) ($20/GB Overlimit Fee)
• $79.99/Month – 5 Gig Data (** up to 15GB compressed) ($20/GB Overlimit Fee)
• $99.99/Month – 10 Gig Data (** Up to 45GB compressed) ($15/GB Overlimit Fee)

• $79.99/Month – Unlimited (Bring Your Own Device) – BYOD
• $99.99/Month – Unlimited Data (S Network) ***

There is a $100 maximum on overlimit fees, but BMI reserves the right to suspend accounts after running 3-5GB over a plan’s allowance to limit exposure to the penalty rate. The compression software is for Windows only and does not work with MIFI devices or with video/audio streaming. BMI warns its wireless service is not intended for video streaming. Customers are not allowed to host computer applications including continuous streaming video and webcam posts that broadcast more than 24 hours; automatic data feeds; automated continuous streaming machine-to-machine connections; or peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing.

EVDODepotUSA offers two truly unlimited use plans starting at $119 a month. The company is only contracted to offer access to Sprint’s woefully congested 3G network and the Clear 4G WiMAX network that typically does not offer much coverage in rural areas. LTE access is not currently available. There is a six month contract obligation, but the company also offers a 10-day free trial.

Their current plans:

Wireless ‘n Wifi offers two partly unlimited plans with no contract commitment. The company charges a refundable deposit on devices, but they become yours to keep after two years:

• Unlimited 4G Sprint/Clear WiMAX with 3G Fallback ($58.99) offers unlimited WiMAX service but has a 5GB cap on Sprint’s 3G network, the network rural customers will encounter the most. Total start-up fee is $194.93 which includes an activation fee, modem deposit (refunded upon modem return or after 24 months of service), the first month of service, and shipping for the wireless device.
• Unlimited 4G LTE with WiMAX and 3G Fallback ($79.99) offers unlimited Sprint 4G LTE and Sprint/Clear WiMAX service with a 35GB cap on Sprint’s 3G network. Customers can select a dual-band device that supports LTE and 3G service for $246.93 (includes activation fee, modem upcharge fee, first month of service, shipping, and refundable $100 modem deposit). Customers looking for access to LTE, 3G, and WiMAX can choose a tri-band device for $315.93 (includes activation fee, modem upcharge, first month of service, shipping and refundable deposit.) Keep in mind Sprint’s 4G LTE network is still very spotty.

Phone companies looking for a cheap way to increase broadband speeds are turning away from fiber optics and towards advanced forms of DSL that don’t bring cost objections from shareholders.

Whether your provider is AT&T or an ISP in Europe or Australia, financial pressure to improve broadband on the cheap is fueling research to wring the last kilobit out of decades-old copper phone wiring.

Alcatel-Lucent suggests VDSL2 Vectoring is one such technology that can enable download speeds up to 100Mbps using noise-cancelling technology to suppress interference.

But the advice doesn’t impress fiber optic fans who suggest any reliance on deteriorating copper phone lines simply postpones an inevitable fiber upgrade that could come at a higher cost down the road.

VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast are only as good as the copper wiring that extends to each customer. Up to 45 percent of North American wire pairs are in some state of disrepair.

Vectoring has been described as “pixie dust” by Australia’s former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Conroy was overseeing Australia’s switch to fiber service as part of the National Broadband Network. But a change in government has scrapped those plans in favor of a cheaper fiber to the neighborhood broadband upgrade advocated by the new Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that resembles AT&T’s U-verse.

“Malcolm can sprinkle pixie dust around and call it vectoring and he can do all that sort of stuff but he cannot guarantee upload speeds,” Conroy told Turnbull.

As with all forms of DSL, speed guarantees are extremely difficult to provide because the technology only performs as well as the copper wiring that connects a neighborhood fiber node to a customer’s home or office. Upload speeds are, in practical terms, significantly slower than download speeds with VDSL2. Turnbull expected download and upload speeds on Australia’s VDSL2 network to be around a ratio of 4:1, which means a customer who has a download speed of 25Mbps per second would receive an upload speed of around 6Mbps.

In the lab, VDSL2 Vectoring delivers promising results, with speeds as high as 100Mbps on the download side. DSL advocates are excited about plans to boost those speeds much higher, as much as 1,000Mbps, using G.Fast technology now under development and expected in 2015. VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast both require operators to minimize copper line lengths for best results. Unfortunately, dilapidated copper networks won’t work well regardless of the line length, and with many telephone companies cutting back upkeep budgets for the dwindling number of customers still using landlines, an estimated 15-45 percent of all line pairs are now in some state of disrepair.

Assuming lab-like conditions, G.Fast can deliver 500Mbps over copper lines less than 100 meters long and 200Mbps over lines between 100 and 200 meters in length.

G.Fast also allows for closer symmetrical speeds, so upload rates can come close or match download speeds.

This cabinet houses the connection between a fiber optic cable and copper phone wiring.

Providers prefer the copper-fiber approach primarily for cost reasons. There are estimates deploying a G.Fast-capable VDSL service to a home would cost around 70 percent less than fiber to the home service. Workers would not need to enter customer homes either, offering less-costly self-install options.

Telekom Austria and Swisscom are among providers committed to launching the technology. Both countries are mountainous and have many rural areas to serve. Fiber rich providers are also looking at the technology for rural customers too costly or too remote to service with fiber.

Critics question the real world performance of both VDSL2 Vectoring and G.Fast on compromised copper landline networks. Decades of repairs, deteriorating insulation, corroded wires, water ingress, and RF interference can all conspire to deliver a fraction of promised speeds.

Many critics also point to the required aggressive deployment of fiber/VDSL cabinets — unsightly and occasionally loud “lawn refrigerators” that sit either in the right of way in front of homes or hang from nearby utility poles. To get the fastest possible speeds, one cabinet may be needed for every four or five homes, depending on lot size. Australia’s VDSL network, without Vectoring or G.Fast requires at least 70,000 cabinets, each powered by the electric grid and temporary backup batteries that keep services running for 1-2 hours in the event of a power failure. The batteries need to be decommissioned periodically and, in some instances, have caused explosions.

The costs of electric consumption, backup batteries, infrastructure, and maintenance of copper lines must be a part of the cost equation before dismissing fiber to the home as too expensive.

CenturyLink is seeking “greater flexibility” to set its own prices, terms and conditions of service without a review by Washington State regulators, even as its broadband customers complain about bait and switch Internet speeds and poor service.

Three years after the Monroe, La., based independent phone company purchased Qwest — a former Baby Bell serving the Pacific Northwest — CenturyLink continues to lose customers to cell phone providers and cable phone and broadband service. Since 2001, CenturyLink and its predecessor have said goodbye to 60 percent of their customers, reducing the number of lines in service from around 2.7 million to just over 1 million.

CenturyLink is apparently ready to lose still more after upsetting customers with a notice it intended to seek deregulation that could lead to rising phone bills.

Docket UT-130477, filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) proposes to replace currently regulated service with what CenturyLink calls “an Alternate Form Of Regulation.” (AFOR)

If approved, CenturyLink will “normalize” telephone rates in Washington State, language some suspect is “code” for a rate increase. For CenturyLink customers in cities like Seattle, Spokane, and Tacoma, the maximum rate permitted for basic phone service for the next three years will be $15.50 (unless a customer already pays more), before calling features, taxes, and surcharges are applied. Most observers, including the state regulator, suspect CenturyLink will limit rate hikes to $1-2 if approved. A higher increase might provoke more customers to leave.

Washington residents already pay the nation’s second highest taxes on wireless service. Now landline customers also pay more. (Graphic: The Spokesman)

“We don’t think they can do much because, in our view, all (a big rate increase) is going to do is accelerate people dropping the landline into their homes,” Brian Thomas, a spokesman for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission told The Spokesman-Review. “A lot of people are cutting the cord.”

Frontier Communications, which previously won its own case for deregulation within its service areas including Everett, Wenatchee, and Tri-Cities, raised rates about $1 beginning this month.

A spokesman for the company confessed Frontier’s phone service is becoming obsolete.

“It’s safe to say plain old telephone service is in the process of becoming archaic for some people,” Frontier’s Carl Gipson said. “Five years from now, it will be almost – but not quite – extinct.”

Every rate change seems to provoke a review of whether landline service is still necessary.

Earlier this year, CenturyLink jumped on board legislation that purposely increased phone rates by several dollars a month by removing the sales tax exemption on residential telephone service. Wireless companies did not enjoy the same exemption and sued for parity.

A confidential settlement with state regulators made Washington phone customers, instead of telecom companies, liable for the sales tax starting in August. As a result, some residential phone bills went up at much as $5 based on retroactively charged sales tax.

Customers sticking with CenturyLink often say it is the only broadband provider in rural towns across the state. Although better than satellite broadband, the lack of regulatory oversight and technology investments have allowed CenturyLink to sell Internet speeds it cannot provide to customers.

At a hearing held this week by the San Juan County Council, members criticized CenturyLink officials on hand for selling fast service but delivering slow speeds to the group of islands between the mainland of Washington State and Vancouver Island, B.C.

Hughes

“Last night I did a speed test at my house and I am paying for 10Mbps but only getting 4.74Mbps,” complained Councilman Rick Hughes (District 4 – Orcas West). “I am paying for 10 and I am only getting 5Mbps, so how is that fair? There has been a ton of frustration over the last two years we have worked on this broadband issue. Everywhere I go and every meeting I talk to all I hear is complaints about CenturyLink. No matter what they are paying for, it’s a poor broadband connection to the end customer.”

CenturyLink provides broadband to 88% of the territory the company serves in Washington. Like most telephone companies, CenturyLink relies on DSL in much of its footprint and has upgraded central offices, remote equipment, and the telephone lines that connect them. On the San Juan Islands, most customers used to receive 1-3Mbps, but CenturyLink claimed at this week’s hearing it spent billion on infrastructure improvements that can now deliver faster Internet service across the state. In San Juan County, CenturyLink claims:

• 58% of all qualified addresses were upgraded to 10-25Mbps;
• 66% now qualify for more than 10Mbps (but less than 25Mbps) versus 46% prior to upgrades;
• 29% of customers now qualify to sign up for 25Mbps service.

CenturyLink warned the council its speed claims were not to be taken literally, noting DSL “speed is dependent on distance from equipment; speeds drop quickly as distance increases.”

Hughes told CenturyLink officials residents appreciated the investment, but customers were still disappointed after being promised higher speeds than actually received.

“When people call customer service, there is always an excuse about why there is a problem,” said Hughes. “If people are paying for something, they want to receive it.”

“For our long-term financial interests in this county, we need to have reliable 10-25Mbps service to customers on any part of the islands,” Hughes added. “My goal has always been 90+ percent should be able to get 25Mbps or better connectivity in the county.”

The problem for CenturyLink is the amount of upgrade investment versus the amount of return that investment will generate. San Juan County is disconnected from the mainland and collectively house only 15,769 residents. But it is also the smallest of Washington’s 39 counties in land area, which can make infrastructure projects less costly.

CenturyLink committed to continue investment in its network “where economically feasible.”

San Juan County’s Orcas Power & Light Cooperative (OPALCO), a member-owned, non-profit cooperative electric utility may have a partial solution to the problem of meeting Return on Investment requirements.

OPALCO originally proposed a hybrid fiber-wireless system designed to reach 90% of the county with a $34 million investment, to be built over two years. When completed, all county residents would pay a $15 monthly co-op infrastructure fee and a $75 monthly fee for broadband and telephone service. To gauge interest, OPALCO asked residents for a $90 pre-commitment deposit. By the annual meeting in May, the co-op admitted only 900 residents signed up and it needed 5,800 customers to make the project a success.

Some residents balked at the high cost, others did not want wireless broadband technology, and some local environmental activists wanted OPALCO to focus on clean, affordable energy and avoid the competitive broadband business.

The lack of commitment forced the co-op to modify its broadband plans, offering a “New Direction” to residents in June 2013.

OPALCO elected to stay out of the ISP business and instead announced a public-private initiative, providing fiber infrastructure to existing service providers. In effect, the co-op will cover the cost of building fiber extensions where CenturyLink is not willing to invest. For a $3-5 million investment from the co-op, ISPs like CenturyLink will be able to commission OPALCO to build fiber in the right places to make DSL service better. CenturyLink would have non-exclusive rights to the fiber network and would have to pay the co-op a service lease fee.

Unlike ISPs in other communities that have shunned publicly funded fiber infrastructure, CenturyLink says it will contemplate a trial — buying bandwidth from OPALCO instead of enhancing its own fiber middle mile network — to test what level of improved service CenturyLink can offer customers.

Regardless of CenturyLink’s plans, OPALCO is moving forward installing limited fiber connections as part of an effort to develop a more modern electric grid.

“Our data communications network brings exponential benefit to our membership,” OPALCO notes. “It includes tools that allow the co-op to: control peak usage and keep power costs down, remotely manage and control the electrical distribution system, manage and resolve power outages more efficiently, integrate and manage community solar projects and improve public safety throughout the county.”

There are some drawbacks, reports Wally Gudgell from The Gudgell Group.

“It will take longer to implement, and will impact fewer businesses and households,” Gudgell writes. “While about two-thirds of the islands will eventually be covered, more remote areas will have to work with a local ISP and potentially pay more for service.  DSL coverage for homes that are further than 15,000 feet from CenturyLink fiber-served distribution hubs will be challenging. Some homeowners may need to pay for fiber to be run to their homes by Islands Network (fiber direct is costly, estimated at $20/foot).”

Frontier Communications is interested in buying landlines bigger phone companies like AT&T and Verizon might want to sell.

CEO Maggie Wilderotter sat down with The Wall Street Journal to answer questions about her leadership of the independent telephone company.

Despite ongoing landline disconnects and a challenging business environment that led to a second quarter loss of $38.5 million, Wilderotter says Frontier is “well positioned for success” and is willing to acquire new customers castaway by larger phone companies like AT&T and Verizon.

“I would do acquisitions only if they’re smart,” Wilderotter said. “We would buy assets that drive more scale. We would look at another carve out like the Verizon acquisition or acquiring stand-alone rural telephone companies.”

Frontier’s last acquisition in 2010 nearly tripled its size after picking up landlines sold off by Verizon Communications.

Independent telephone companies like Frontier are not just buyers, however. Wilderotter hinted Frontier has received offers encouraging a sale of the company, perhaps even one from a satellite provider like Dish Network or DirecTV.

“Other players [like] CenturyLink have similar assets,” Wilderotter said. “Some unconventional folks might look. The satellite category [for instance]. We have had conversations in the past. They weren’t the right offers.”

Many shareholders stay loyal to Frontier because the company pays a significant dividend to those holding stock. Anything that threatens the dividend typically drives Frontier’s stock price lower, so Wilderotter was quick to note any other acquisitions will not come at the expense of that dividend.

Wilderotter

“We would do acquisitions in a way that preserves the dividend,” Wilderotter said. “We might take on more debt instead.”

Frontier’s business plan relies heavily on selling service in less competitive rural areas often bypassed by large cable operators. Because of inherent network limitations created by copper telephone lines, Frontier maintains market dominance mostly in communities where cable service is not widely available or is provided over antiquated infrastructure unsuitable for significant broadband upgrades.

In the last two years, Frontier has spent several billion dollars to upgrade its own infrastructure to offer faster and more reliable Internet access, but the upgraded service is still out of reach for many Frontier customers who need it the most. In central West Virginia, Frontier customers in Gilmer (pop. 8693) and Braxton (pop. 14,523) Counties can’t wait to drop satellite Internet access for Frontier DSL. The infrastructure has been reportedly in place for several months, but the service has not yet been switched on.

Additional Frontier broadband expansion depends on company investment and federal broadband improvement funds.

In September, West Virginia’s congressional delegation announced an award of roughly $24.1 million in leftover federal funds to continue construction of broadband infrastructure in rural areas of the state.

“With help from the FCC, so many more of our families and businesses will soon have the transformative and necessary power of high-speed Internet at their fingertips, opening the doors to many new educational and economic opportunities,” said Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller.

Frontier also recently applied for an extra $28.9 million from the Connect America Fund to target broadband for another 47,000 homes and business in West Virginia.

Gilmer County, W.V.

If Frontier receives 100% of the requested amount, the Obama Administration’s broadband funding programs will have contributed $63 million towards service improvement in West Virginia.

Frontier Communications manager Daniel Page said the next target areas for broadband improvement are in Pleasants (pop. 7,605) and Ritchie (pop. 10,236) Counties, both in northwest West Virginia.

Wilderotter says 85% of Frontier customers now have broadband access available to them, up from 60% in 2011.

“Our goal is to be able to reach over 90%, probably by the end of this year or first part of next year,” Wilderotter said.

The biggest challenges facing Frontier over the next year?

“Technology disruption—and [industry players’] business models being challenged,” Wilderotter told the newspaper. “Customer expectations on how they utilize the Internet continue to morph as rich applications are made available.”

To manage increased traffic, Frontier can invest in capacity upgrades or start network management measures to limit subscribers’ Internet usage.

Frontier has run a usage limit trial in Kingman, Ariz., Elk Grove and Palo Cedro, Calif., Mound, Minn. as well as Cookeville and Crossville, Tenn. for over a year to measure bandwidth consumption by application type. In those areas, Frontier DSL is usage capped at 100 or 250GB per month. Customers exceeding their allowance are advised to either limit usage or convert to a “high user” service plan starting at $99.99 a month.

[flv width=”640″ height=”332″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Business News Frontier Broadband 8-8-13.flv[/flv]

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told Fox Business News in August the company was “laser focused” on broadband.  (5 minutes)

A sweeping deregulation measure sponsored by Verizon Communications would end the telephone company’s obligation to provide landline service and remove state-mandated customer quality of service standards in Massachusetts.

House Bill 2930, “An Act modernizing telephone regulation and encouraging economic growth,” introduced by Rep. Stephen L. DiNatale (D-Fitchburg) is succinct:

SECTION 1. Chapter 25C of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 7 thereof the following sections.

Section 8. Notwithstanding any other general or special law to the contrary, the department shall have no jurisdiction, general supervision, regulation or control over wireless service, including mobile radio telephone service, or radio utilities.

Section 9. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, subject to the provisions of section 10 of this chapter, no provision of this chapter, Chapter 25 or Chapter 159, 8 and no regulation, order or settlement or portion thereof adopted pursuant to any such provision, shall apply to any telephone company (or a common carrier offering telephone service) in any municipality for which the company or carrier certifies to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation that there are at least two providers offering voice telephone service to retail residential customers in that municipality using any technology, including but not limited to wireless voice service and VoIP service.

Section 10. Nothing in sections 8 or 9 of this chapter shall be construed to affect or modify:
a. the authority of the attorney general to apply and enforce chapter 93A or other consumer protection laws of general applicability;
b. the department’s authority under sections 18B and 18H of Chapter 159, concerning enhanced 911 service, and under section 15E of Chapter 166, concerning telephone relay service;
c. the rights or obligations of any carrier under 47 U.S.C. § 251 or 47 U.S.C. § 252; or
d. the department’s authority to administer the federal Lifeline and Link-up programs or the Connect America Fund.

SECTION 2. Sections 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14 and 15 of Chapter 166 are hereby repealed.

The measure was discussed at a hearing this week before the Legislature’s Energy & Telecommunications Committee. Verizon argued its company is still regulated as if it was a monopoly, with reporting requirements and customer service mandates that do not apply to its competitors in the cable or wireless industry.

DiNatale

“We have to answer a customer’s call within x number of seconds,” said Verizon spokesman Phil Santoro. “If we don’t, we get penalized. No other company that provides phone service has to do that. They’re all regulations that were formed when we were a monopoly, and they haven’t been changed.”

Verizon lobbyist Joe Zukowski told the Boston Business Journal Verizon is required to respond to repair calls within a 24-hour window, something not required of its biggest competitor Comcast. Verizon has to report its annual finances and various customer metrics governing response times and outages to state regulators. Verizon also has to offer landline service anywhere in its service area across most of the state, while cable companies can pick the places they wish to serve.

DiNatale regularly supports Verizon’s legislative initiatives. In 2012, he proposed a bill to amend state law to remove the authority of the Department of Telecommunications and Cable to regulate the wireless industry, deferring instead to federal regulations that industry representatives said would level the playing field.

DiNatale suggested Massachusetts could be left behind if the legislature didn’t adopt the measure. Rep. Randy Hunt, a Sandwich Republican, asked if Massachusetts had missed out on any innovations in technology because of overregulation. Zukowski suggested a Massachusetts legislature hostile to business interests would make the company think twice about expanding its 4G LTE network in the state. By November, the bill was effectively buried in a legislative maneuver and by June 2013, Verizon announced it largely completed its 4G LTE upgrade, regardless of the bill.

DiNatale’s latest bill includes last year’s wireless oversight ban as well as forbidding the Department of Telecommunications and Cable from regulating Verizon in any part of the state where at least one provider of any kind offers competitive service.

Despite DiNatale’s attempt to ban state regulation of wireless service,  Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), argued at Tuesday’s hearing for (S 1617), “The Cellphone User’s Bill of Rights,” that would require clearly published prices and service policies, monitors the quality of cell service in the state, and limits all cell contracts to 12 months.

“Many people don’t have landline phones anymore. However, as wireless subscribership increases, so do complaints about the contracts and services,” Spilka told the committee.

Zukowski suggested that rural areas will still be covered by regulation where Verizon maintains a monopoly. But the legislation eliminates regulation from any part of the state where even one competitor promises to provide service. AT&T Mobility alone would give Verizon an effective way out of regulatory oversight, because AT&T claims it already provides solid service to the majority of the state.

AT&T Mobility claims its competing cell service is available across almost the entire state of Massachusetts. The areas boxed in red are the only significant parts of the state without claimed coverage by AT&T.

There are only about three dozen or so towns in the state with no cable voice service, and even fewer with significant sections that have no cell phone service, all in the sparsely populated rural central and western parts of the state.

Other key components of this and another bill Verizon is supporting this term:

• Verizon would end its commitment to provide universal service in the state. Under the terms of the bill, Verizon could also justify ceasing rural landline service and offer an alternative such as Voice Link, a wireless landline replacement not subject to state oversight;
• Verizon would not have to report finances and customer service metrics and would no longer have to meet mandated customer service standards;
• State authority to compel reliable E911 service without any charge to the calling party and mandates regarding service for the disabled are weakened or eliminated;
• Elimination of a requirement providing Verizon customers with 10 free directory assistance calls per month, unless the customer is certified as elderly or disabled;
• Impose clear terms that wireless service is off-limits to state regulators.

The bill is co-sponsored by: Rep. Stephen Kulik (D-Worthington), Sen. Anthony Petruccelli (D-East Boston), Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D-Revere), and Sen. Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett).