Consumer groups and big business aren't known for seeing eye to eye. Yesterday was no exception.

With legislation requiring that telephone companies provide high-speed Internet access to all parts of Pennsylvania by 2015 set to expire at the end of the year, state lawmakers heard arguments in Pittsburgh over one of two competing house bills aimed at replacing it.

Up for debate at a public hearing at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center was House Bill 1669, the version backed chiefly by consumer groups, which phone company officials variously ridiculed as "outrageous" and a "desperate piece of legislation."

Consumer advocates, on the other hand, said the measure would ensure that phone companies didn't renege on the mandate to provide high-speed broadband service for all customers, and at the same time safeguard consumers from excessive increases in their phone bills.

The vast majority of residents in urban areas of the state already have access to high-speed Internet service -- either through their phone company, cable TV provider, or both. In Allegheny County, for instance, Verizon, the region's largest local phone company, and Comcast, the area's biggest cable TV provider, both say roughly 85 percent of their customers are able to get broadband service.

But many rural areas have no options for high-speed Internet access, which many view as a growing necessity for modern commerce and communication.

The expiring legislation, passed in 1993 and known as Chapter 30, removed certain regulatory burdens, including caps on profits, on Verizon and other phone carriers in exchange for commitments to upgrade their networks to provide statewide broadband service by 2015.

The cornerstone of HB 1669 is a broadband infrastructure development fund that would be funded by an assessment on operating revenues of the state's largest phone companies. The money would be used to help build networks in underserved areas.

But the measure would end up stifling investment, Verizon of Pennsylvania President James O'Rourke contended in a news release yesterday, saying that the fund "jeopardizes the capital budgets of the very companies that are building advanced telecom networks."

The bill also would require automatic enrollment in the federal life line program that provides discounted basic phone service to low-income residents.

"Right now, [participants] have to sign up for it, and most low-income people don't know about it," said state Consumer Advocate Irwin Popowsky, a strong supporter of the bill.

Popowsky, in an interview, criticized House Bill 30, the version backed by the local phone industry, saying it lets companies off the broadband deployment hook. The measure would scale back the requirement to reach 100 percent of customers, to 70 percent, for all local phone providers except Verizon, he said.

Another provision would remove certain restrictions on rate hikes. That would allow Verizon to collect an extra $3 billion by the time broadband deployment would be completed in 2015, Popowsky said.

Lauren Townsend, executive director of Citizens for Consumer Justice, who testified in favor of HB 1669, asked that a provision be added that imposes penalties on phone companies for failing to make service calls in a timely manner.

She accused Verizon of running an internal campaign called "Stop the Trucks" that rewards employees for saving money by ignoring, delaying or otherwise avoiding service calls to homes and businesses.

Verizon spokesman Lee Gierczynski called the accusation "ridiculous."

"Nothing like that exists at Verizon," he said. Employees do receive rewards, such as tickets to various events, based on such factors as attendance and overall job performance, but the incentives have nothing to do with the number of service calls that are dispatched, he said.

Members of the house Consumer Affairs Committee asked Townsend for evidence the campaign existed, which she said she would provide.