TO ORDER.
THE HEARING OF THE PRIVACY AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE OF
JUNE.
TWENTY SIX TWENTY EIGHTEEN ARE
WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR OUR
AUTHORS --
LETTUCE ESTABLISH QUORUM ON
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL ROLL.
CHAU HERE KILEY [inaudible]
BAKER [inaudible]
BERMAN [inaudible]
CALDERON [inaudible]
GABRIELLE [inaudible]
IRWIN [inaudible]
MULLIN [inaudible]
OBERNOLTE HERE [inaudible]
REYES [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
OKAY.
I NOTICED THAT THERE.
SENATOR WINNER WAS HERE EARLIER
BUT LET'S --
IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THE
NEXT COUPLE MINUTES WILL.
SEE WHAT THE NEXT ITEM.
STILL WE ARE [inaudible]
OKAY.
SO WHY DON'T WHY DON'T WE START
WITH DOWN --
ITEM NUMBER THREE S. B. TWELVE
ALL ONE AND THAT'S A SENATOR
JACKSON'S BILL.
UNDERSTAND THAT THE SENATE
JACKSON IS STILL TIED UP BEEN
COMMITTEE AND SHE HAS SENT.
ARE HER CHIEF OF STAFF MISSED.
TOBY.
LET'S DIRECTOR EXCUSE ME.
I APOLOGIZE SENSE FOR THE
PROMOTION TO PRESENT ON HER
BEHALF SO WITHOUT.
ANYTIME YOU'RE READY YOU MAY --
PRISSY.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
JACKSON LIKE TO PRESENT SENATE
BILL TWELVE A ONE THE BILL THAT
FILLS AN IMPORTANT GAP IN
EXISTING LAW REGARDING.
PROVIDING CUSTOMERS WITH
TRANSLATED VERSIONS OF MORTGAGE
LOAN AND CREDIT EXTENSION
DOCUMENTS.
MORTGAGE LOANS AND EXTENSIONS OF
CREDIT ARE SOME OF THE MOST
COMPLEX FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
THAT CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS WILL
MAKE IN THEIR LIFETIME. FOR
CONSUMERS WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE
IS NOT ENGLISH.
LANGUAGE BARRIER ADDS YET
ANOTHER LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY TO
AN ALREADY COMPLEX PROCESS.
THIS LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZE THIS
CHALLENGE IN TWO THOUSAND NINE
AND RESPONDED WITH ASSEMBLY BILL.
ELEVEN FIFTY WHICH REQUIRED KEY
TERMS OF MORTGAGE LOAN ENTRANCE
LIKE THAT EXTENSION AGREEMENTS.
TO BE TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH.
CHINESE TAGALOG VIETNAMESE OR
KOREAN.
IF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS WERE
PRIMARILY NEGOTIATED AND ONE OF
THOSE LANGUAGES.
HOWEVER ELEVEN FIFTY WAS SILENT
REGARDING --
WHETHER CHANCELLOR XIN SHOULD BE.
PROVIDED IF THE AGREEMENTS WERE
RENEGOTIATED IN THE FUTURE FOR
EXAMPLE IF SOMEONE OBTAINED A
MORTGAGE LOAN MODIFICATION IN
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.
AS WE 12-1 FILLS THIS GAP BY
REQUIRING SUPERVISE FINANCIAL
ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE
BORROWERS WITH TRANSLATED COPIES.
KEY TERMS OF RENEGOTIATED LOAN
AGREEMENTS IF THE RE
NEGOTIATIONS WERE PRIMARILY
CONDUCTED IN SPANISH CHINESE
TAGALOG VIETNAMESE OR KOREAN.
AMENDMENTS TAKEN EARLIER IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS CONFIRMED
THAT THE DEBATES DEPARTMENT OF
BUSINESS OVERSIGHT SHOW MAKE
THESE TRANSLATIONS.
OF KILO PROVISIONS AVAILABLE TO
THESE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AT
NO COST.
AND WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS
WE'RE PLEASED TO SAY THAT THIS
BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION.
S. B. TWELVE OR ONE ALSO ENSURES
DUE PROCESS FOR LICENSEES UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL
MORTGAGE LENDING ACT.
AT FACING LICENSE REVOCATION FOR
FAILING TO FILE A FINANCIAL
REPORT.
NOW WITH THE DEPARTMENT BY
ENTITLING THEM TO A HEARING
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT.
A BY REQUIRING THE DVD OUT TO
VACATE A REVOCATION ORDER IF THE
DEPARTMENT FAILS TO PROVIDE THAT
HEARING WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF
ITS INITIAL ORDER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR JACKSON
AYE REPUBLIC RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE ON SENATE
BILL 12-1.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EFFORTS
WITNESS PLEASE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY NOTICES ANY
SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
THE BILL HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED --
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
SEEING AND HEARING.
NINE LET'S BRING YOU BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SEEN.
NINE OF I BELIEVE THE
RECOMMENDATION IS TO PASS --
WHICH LIKE TO CLOSE.
YES.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL THAT
FILLS A GAP IN EXISTING LAW
RESPONDING TO SOME OF THE EVENTS
WE'VE SEEN OUT OF THE FINANCIAL
CRISIS AYE WHERE PEOPLE ARE
GOING BACK TO RENEGOTIATE THESE
DOCUMENTS.
AND IT'S GREAT CONSUMER
PROTECTION PROVISION FOR OUR
SIDE NON NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS
IN CALIFORNIA SO WITH THAT
CENTER JACKSON RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE HOME AND SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL.
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAO I
SHALL I KILEY.
KILEY AYE BAKER.
BERMAN.
BERMAN AYE CALDERON [inaudible]
GABRIEL.
GABRIEL I IRWIN. FOR WHEN I
MULLIN.
MULLIN AYE OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE AYE REYES.
REYES AYE THAT BUILDS.
THE BILL IS OUT EIGHT ZERO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
THAT LOOKS LIKE A SENATE TWO
WINNERS HERE.
WELCOME SENATOR WIENER YOU HAVE
ITEM NUMBER ONE AND THAT'S S. B.
A TWENTY TWO WELCOME TO OUR
COMMITTEE.
AND UP BEFORE WE START DOWN.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF REMARKS --
IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE
OUR TIME TODAY A WE WILL BE
LIMITING TESTIMONY. TO TEN
MINUTES ARE FOR EACH SIDE NOT
INCLUDING THE AUTHOR'S
PRESENTATION EACH SIDE MAY
DIVIDE THAT TIME.
HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT.
ARE I AFTER THE PRIMARY SUPPORT
TESTIMONY PERIOD.
THE COMMITTEE WILL CALL UP
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTER SOUGHT TO
ADD YOUR NAME AFFILIATION OF ANY
AND POSITION.
TO THE RECORD.
LIKEWISE OUT TO THE OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY PERIOD COMMITTEE WILL
CALL UP ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION TO
ADD THEIR NAME AFFILIATION IF
ANY.
AND POSITION ARE TO THE RECORD
SO WITH THAT --
ANYTIME YOU'RE READY SENATOR
WINNER YOU MAY GET.
UP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND I ARE COLLEAGUES I
TWO WEEKS AGO AYE NET NEUTRALITY
AND THAT IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA --
SO AS OF TODAY I ET INTO YOUR
COMCAST OR WHOEVER IF THEY WANT
TO CANNOT BLOCK --
WEBSITES CAN HAVE FAST LANES AND
SLOW LANES AYE IT'S THE WILD
WEST NOW IN TERMS OF THE
INTERNET AND ITS MAJOR --
MULTIBILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION
GO ON THE INTERNET THAT'S WHERE
WE ARE TODAY --
RIGHT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY
THEREAFTER A TNT PURCHASE TIME
WARNER --
WHICH MEANS THAT A TNT IS NOW IN
A POSITION TO SAY HEY WE WANT
YOU TO GO TO OUR TIME WARNER
PRODUCTS SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE
IT HARD OR IMPOSSIBLE. FOR YOU
TO ACCESS THE WEB SITES OF OUR
COMPETITORS THAT'S WHERE WE ARE
TODAY -- MAY
OUT WE KNOW THAT THE ICE PLEASE
HAVE A HISTORY.
OF ENGAGING IN THIS BEHAVIOR
WHETHER IT IS A TNT AND OTHER
COMPANIES BLOCKING GOOGLE WALLET
WHETHER IT IS A TNT BLOCKING
SKYPE AND FACE TIME.
WHETHER IT IS AN I. S. P.
BLOCKING A UNION ORGANIZING
WEBSITE.
NOT NEUTRALITY IS ABOUT WHO GETS
TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS ON
THE INTERNET AS A PEOPLE LIKE
YOU AND ME AS CONSUMERS.
IS THAT PEOPLE COMPETING AS
INNOVATORS OR IS THAT.
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS GET
TO THE SIDE.
WINNERS AND LOSERS --
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON'T
LEAD WHICH IT WON'T.
I CALIFORNIA MUST LEAD.
AND WE MUST PASS A ROBUST.
BILL THAT PROTECTS NET
NEUTRALITY.
NOT ANOTHER TRIAL THE BILL IN
NAME ONLY.
A REAL NET NEUTRALITY BILL.
WE WORKED FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS
ON SBA.
TWENTY TWO WORKING WITH FORMER
FCC OFFICIALS --
WITH COMPUTER SCIENCE EXPERTS
ARE WITH PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNEW
WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
TAKE THE TWENTY FIFTEEN OBAMA
NET NEUTRALITY ORDER THE ONE
THAT TRUMP'S FCC REPEALED.
AND THE CRAFT THAT INTO A GOOD
BILL AND WE DID THAT AND WE
INTRODUCED A I THAT BILL HAS
ENORMOUS.
SUPPORT.
INCLUDING FROM TOM WHEELER WHO
IS OBAMA'S FCC CHAIRMAN WHO
WROTE THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER.
NANCY PELOSI OUR ATTORNEY
GENERAL HOBBY OVER SARAH.
AND YOU'LL HEAR THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION THE CEO YOU
WESTERN CENTER.
LIKE ON A FRONTIER FOUNDATION
THE LA DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND SO
FORTH THE OPPOSITION.
THE TNT COMCAST VERIZON.
COMPANIES WHOSE INTEREST IS
PROTECTING THEIR SHAREHOLDERS
NOT PROTECTING CONSUMERS.
S. B. TWENTY TWO BEFORE LAST
WEEK COMPREHENSIVELY PROTECTED
NET NEUTRALITY.
THERE WAS A MISINFORMATION
CAMPAIGN WHICH HAS OF AND
FLOODING ACROSS THIS BUILDING
I'M SURE YOU'RE OFFICES HAVE
BEEN INUNDATED.
WITH LOBBYISTS AFTER LOBBYIST
SPREADING INACCURATE INFORMATION
ABOUT THIS BILL.
MEN INFORMATION MISINFORMATION
OF COURSE THERE ARE THE
ASSERTIONS THAT THE BILL SOMEHOW
WENT BEYOND THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
OBAMA ORDER IT DID NOT.
UNFORTUNATELY LAST WEDNESDAY AS
I THINK YOU KNOW --
THE COMMUNICATIONS AND
CONVEYANCE COMMITTEE --
GUIDED THIS BILL.
TURN IT INTO A BILL THAT NO
LONGER ACTUALLY PROTECT NET
NEUTRALITY.
THE COMMITTEE DELETED MOST OF
THE BILL'S CORPORATE TAX SENDS.
PROTECTING THROUGHOUT
INTERCONNECTION AROUND
PROHIBITIONS ON ACCESS FEES --
AROUND PLAYING FAVORITES WITH
THE HIGHEST HIS OWN WEBSITES
VERSUS OTHER WEBSITES.
ON ALLOWING A THROTTLING OF
ENTIRE CLASSES OF APPLICATION
LIKE OF A TELECOM DOESN'T WANT
ANY INTERNET TELEPHONY.
I AND SO FORTH.
THE COMMITTEE STATED THAT IT WAS
SCALING THE BILL BACK TO BE.
CONSISTENT WITH THE TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCURATE.
THE BILL AS IT IS BEFORE YOU
TODAY IT FALLS WELL SHORT OF THE
TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER AND I WANT
TO SHOW YOU.
THIS IS THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER
THAT BARACK OBAMA'S FCC PAST
HUNDREDS OF PAGES THAT WE WORK
METHODICALLY TO BOIL DOWN. TO A
BILL [inaudible]
THE COMMITTEE.
TOOK TO PAY THAT OUT OF IT.
BEST TWO PAGES AND SAID THIS WAS
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER AND
BOILED THE BILL DOWN TO THESE
TWO PAGES.
INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY TAKING THE
PROTECTIONS.
FROM THIS FULL ORDER I WANT TO
THANK THIS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
DID A FANTASTIC JOB THOROUGHLY
GOING THROUGH AND POINTING TO
ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAST
COMMITTEE TOOK OUT OF OUR BILL.
THAT WERE IN THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
ORDER IMPORTANT PROVISIONS.
SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME
TO DO THAT --
SO I THE TODAY CONSUMERS ARE NOT
PROTECTED SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
NOT PROTECTED AND THEY WILL GET
STOMPED OUT OF EXISTENCE.
BY THE BIG GUYS PEACE BECAUSE
NOW BE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
COMPETING.
AGAINST THE ISPS OWNED
BUSINESSES.
THE NETFLIX USING GOOGLE'S OF
THE WORLD THEY'RE GONNA DO OKAY.
THEY CAN PAY WHATEVER MONEY IS
DEMANDED OF THEM THEY MAY NOT
LIKE IT AND THEY DON'T AND IT'S
NOT FAIR THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY.
BUT THEY CAN TIE.
IT IS A SMALL BUSINESSES IF THE
NEXT GENERATION OF NETFLIX'S AND
RULES.
THAT ARE GOING TO GET DESTROYED.
WITH A LOCK OF NET NEUTRALITY.
I SO WHAT I AM ASKING TODAY
CALLING ON I WOULD LOVE IT I
KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN --
IF WE COULD JUST RESTORE REVERSE
ALL THE AMENDMENTS FROM LAST
WEEK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST
OUTCOME.
I'M A REALIST OF SO WHAT I AM
ASKING IS FOR THE COMMITTEE.
OUGHT TO PASS SB A TWENTY TWO IN
ITS CURRENT --
GUIDED FORM OUT OF THE CAN AN
OPPORTUNITY.
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SANTIAGO AND OTHERS TO
TRY TO RESTORE THE BILL WE HAVE
OUR MISTER SANTIAGO AND I HAVE
AGREED TO WORK TOGETHER.
IN GOOD FAITH I TRY --
TO UNDO THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE
LAST WEEK AYE WE WILL CONTINUE
TO DO THAT WORK BUT I NEED THIS
VEHICLE TO MOVE FORWARD IN ORDER
TO DO THAT.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING --
I'M JOINED BY THREE WITNESSES
TODAY OF BARBARA VENCIDA COUP
THE STANFORD LAW PROFESSOR AND
COMPUTER SCIENCE PHD.
WHO'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS
SPACE OFFER A VERY VERY LONG
TIME.
ON WHICH SIDE OR FROM THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION AND
STEVEN RENDER SAN FROM THE
CENTER FOR MEDIA JUSTICE THANK
YOU.
ATTIC BROUGH THANK YOU VERY MUCH
EFFORTS WITNESS PLEASE.
BUT YOU MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
MITCH SNIDER WITH CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION ARE IN A
POSITION OF SUPPORT IF AMENDED
BACK TO THE VERSION OF THE BILL
AS IT WAS ON JUNE ELEVENTH AS AS
THE ULTIMATE YOU REALLY DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT VERSION.
EITHER MEETS A REASONABLE
DEFINITION OF NET NEUTRALITY AND
WE FEEL IT FAILS TO PROTECT OUR
RIGHT TO ORGANIZE ON AND IT'S
ESPECIALLY CONCERNING IN THE
CONTEXT OF ALL THE ATTACKS THAT
WERE FACING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
THAT HAVE TAKEN THE FORM OF BAD
U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
ONE OF WHICH IS GOING TO COME
TOMORROW.
BAD NLRB DECISIONS AND A VARIETY
OF OTHER ATTACKS ON HEALTH AND
SAFETY IN WAGE AND HOUR THAT
WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH RIGHT
NOW THAT ARE VERY MUCH.
ERODING BASIC RIGHTS THAT OUR
MEMBERS HAVE FOUGHT LITERALLY
DIED FOR AND REALLY OUR ONLY
HOPE TO DEFEND THESE RIGHTS IN
MANY CASES IS TO ORGANIZE.
IS TO COME TOGETHER AS WORKERS
COMMUNIQUE PLACE AND TRY TO FIND
WAYS TO DO THINGS BETTER.
AND THE BILL AS IT'S WRITTEN
RIGHT NOW --
THAT ALLOWS FOR A LOT OF THINGS
THAT CONFLICT WITH THAT BECAUSE
THE REALITY IS IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN A LOT OF THE ORGANIZING
HAPPENS ONLINE.
AND THIS BILL ALLOWS FOR ACCESS
FEES THAT'LL MAKE THE INTERNET
MORE EXPENSIVE IT ALLOWS FOR
SLOWING IN BLOCKING AT THE POINT
OF INTERCONNECTION.
THAT COULD VERY POSSIBLY
JEOPARDIZE OUR ABILITY TO
COMMUNICATE ONLINE AND WILL
ENSURE THE OPPOSITION IS GOING
TO COME UP HERE AND TELL YOU ALL
ABOUT.
WHY THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO DO
ANYTHING OF THE SORT THE REALITY
IS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN TWO
THOUSAND FIVE GROUP OF WORKERS
ORGANIZING?
A TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
CALLED TELLUS IN CANADA --
ACTUALLY DID BLOCK WORKERS
ACCESS TO WEBSITE THAT THEY WERE
USING TO ORGANIZE AND SO WE WE
JUST ASK THAT.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS KEEP THAT IN
MIND AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE
IMPORTANCE OF A RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE IN THE FACE OF ALL
THESE FEDERAL TAX AND HOPE THAT
AT SOME POINT THE BILL CAN LOOK
MORE LIKE A DEAD ON JULY.
THANK YOU MY CHAIR NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE.
SO THANKS FOR INVITING ME TO
TESTIFY --
LAST WEEK THAT COMMITTEE
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE
COMMITTEE CUT KEY PARTS OF THE
BILL.
REMOVING MANY IMPORTANT
PROTECTIONS AND CALIFORNIANS ARE
ASKING THE LEGISLATURE TO BRING
IT BACK.
AND THAT REALLY RAISES IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS WHICH IS WHAT OTHER
PROTECTIONS THAT CALIFORNIANS
SHOULD A LOT SHOULD ENJOY.
SO FIRST SHOULD CALIFORNIA
CONSONANTS HAVE AN INTERNET WEB
THAT STATES NEED TO PAY FEES TO
THE OUR CUSTOMERS ICED TEAS.
A RISK BEING BLOCKED FROM THE
CONSUMERS WHO VIEW.
IS THAT HOW WE WANT THE INTERNET
TO WORK IN CALIFORNIA.
I THAT MEANS EIGHTEEN TI WOULD
BE FREE TO CHARGE EVERY WEBSITE
DEFEAT JUST TO BE VISIBLE TO
EIGHTEEN TO SUBSCRIBERS AND
BLOCK THOSE WEBSITES THAT DON'T
PAY THE FEES.
SO IF THE LA TIMES DIDN'T PAY
EIGHTEEN TO DEFEAT IT WOULD NOT
BE ACCESSIBLE TO CUSTOMIZE OF
EIGHTEEN TEAS INTERNET SERVICE.
THAT'S NOT HOW THE INTERNET HAS
WORKED.
TODAY CARDS YOU MUST PAY THE ICE
P. TO GET ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE
INTERNET.
NOT JUST TO THE WEBSITES THAT
HAVE PAID THE I SP.
IN TWENTY TEN AND TWENTY FIFTEEN
THE FCC DECIDED IT SHOULD STAY
THAT WAY AND PROHIBITED THESE.
S. B. EIGHT TO TO DO IT SO AS
WELL AND NOW AND YOU NEED TO
DECIDE WHETHER CALIFORNIANS
SHOULD CONTINUE TO ENJOY THESE.
FOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
THANK YOU.
MISTER SHARE MEMBERS MY NAME
STEVEN AND THOSE ON THE
ORGANIZING DIRECTOR AT THE
CENTER FOR MEDIA JUSTICE LA
WHERE IN OAKLAND BASED RACIAL
JUSTICE ACTION CENTER.
THE FIGHTS FOR THE DIGITAL
RIGHTS OF POOR PEOPLE AND PEOPLE
OF COLOR IN THE UNITED STATES --
CENTER FOR MEDIA JUSTICE --
HAS ADVOCATED FOR NET NEUTRALITY
FOR THE LAST DECADE --
INCLUDING FIGHTING FOR THE
STRONG PROTECTIONS THAT IN THE
TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN OPEN
INTERNET ORDER.
UP BEFORE IT WAS GOT IT LAST
WEEK SB.
EIGHT SAME OPEN INTERNET PART
ACTIONS FOR CALIFORNIANS AND I
AM HERE TO URGE THIS COMMITTEE
TO MOVE THIS BILL FORWARD AND
SUPPORT ALL EFFORTS TO RESTORE
THE ORIGINAL PROTECTIONS IN THE
BILL.
ON THE CENTER FOR MEDIA JUSTICE
FIGHTS FOR NET NEUTRALITY NOT
BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS TO BITS AND BYTES.
ON BUT BECAUSE IN THE TWENTY
FIRST CENTURY NET NEUTRALITY IS
A CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE.
AND FOR THOSE OUTRAGE BY THE
SEPARATION OF FAMILIES AT THE
BORDER -- OR
UPSET OVER --
TODAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION
AROUND THE MUSLIM BAN AND THE
INTERNET IS GOING TO BE THE
PLACE WE CAN CHANNEL OUR OUTRAGE.
BEFORE IT WAS AMENDED S. B. A
TWENTY TWO COMPREHENSIVELY
PROTECTED A LOT OF THESE VOICES
THAT LIVE AT THE MARGINS.
BUT I NEED TO HIGHLIGHT A
PROTECTION IN THE BILL THAT IS
CRUCIAL TO CMJ AS BE A TWENTY
TWO WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE
MOST EGREGIOUS FORMS OF AN OFTEN
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE.
KNOWN AS ZERO RATING THESE
HARMFUL ON ZERO RATING SCHEMES
PUSH INTERNET CUSTOMERS TO USE
WEBSITES AND APPLICATIONS CHOSEN
BY THEIR INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER IN EXCHANGE EYES PEAS
DO NOT COUNT THAT DATA AGAINST
OUR CUSTOMERS DATA PLAN --
SO SOME WOULD ARGUE THAT THESE
PLANS ARE GOOD FOR COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR AND HIGH WHICH IS I'M
HERE TO SAY THAT DISCRIMINATION
OF ANY FORM IS NEVER GOOD FOR
PEOPLE OF COLOR --
I URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO MOVE SB
EIGHT TWENTY TWO FORWARD AND
FIGHT TO BRING BACK THE CRITICAL
PROTECTIONS REMOVED LAST WEEK
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I NOTICE
THAT THEY'RE USED TO HAVE ABOUT
FIVE MINUTES LEFT US SO IF YOU
HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS SO WE
WOULD WELCOME.
HIM HURT THEM IF BECAUSE OF
DESIRE.
WE HAVE MORE TESTIMONY WE
THOUGHT HE SAID THAT WE CAN ONLY
TALK.
TOM WHICH LIKE YOU HAVE
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AND BECAUSE
YOU HAVE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LEFT
OF YOUR TEN MINUTES TEN MINUTES
TOTAL ON EACH SIDE.
BUT THEY WERE [inaudible]
OKAY SO.
THE SECOND QUESTION AS AN
IMPORTANT PROTECTION YOU SHOULD
WORRY ABOUT IS THIS QUESTION OF
WHERE WE ARE PROTECTING
CONSUMERS FROM NET NEUTRALITY
VIOLATIONS.
WE KNOW THAT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE
WE'VE DONE THIS PUPPY IN DOWN
THIS PAAS BEFORE. FOR EXAMPLE
THE FCC'S TWENTY TEN OPEN
INTERNET RULES ONLY APPLY TO
DATA AS IT TRAVELED ACROSS
COMPRESS NETWORK.
THEY DID NOT APPLY TO DATA AS IT
ENTERS CON BECAUSE NETWORK FROM
THE REST OF THE INTERNET.
SO THE RULES ONLY BAND CON
BECAUSE FROM SLOWING DOWN WHAT
SETS AS THEY TRAVELED OVER
CONGRESS NETWORK.
AND SENSING A LOOPHOLE THE SIXTH
LARGEST ICE PIECE FROM TWENTY
THIRTEEN TO TWENTY FIFTEEN FOUND
A WAY TO SLOW DOWN DATA AS IT
AND HAVE BEEN NETWORKS. SIXTY
FIVE MILLION AMERICANS SUFFER AT
FOR MORE THAN A YEAR.
EMPLOYEES COULDN'T CONNECT TO
THE COMPANY'S NETWORK SCHOOLS
COULDN'T UP OF THAT PAYROLL DATA
SKY COSTS DROPPED AN ONLINE
VIDEO STORE THAT.
IN ITS TWENTY FIFTEEN OPEN
INTERNET ORDER THE FCC FIX THAT
PROBLEM AND IN ACTED A POLICY
THAT ALLOWED IT TO STOP ICE
PEACE FROM CIRCUMVENTING THE
FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS.
AT THE POINT WHERE DATA AND TO
SPEND AT WORK.
THE PRIOR VISION OF SP EIGHT TO
TWO DID SO AS WELL.
SO NOW WE NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER
THIS IS A PROTECTION THAT
CALIFORNIAN SHOULD CONTINUE TO
HAVE.
IF NOT WE ARE EFFECTIVELY SAYING
THAT IT'S OKAY FOR ICE PIECE TO
CIRCUMVENT THE BOLTS NET
NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS AT THE
POINT WHERE DATA AND TEST THE
ICE CUBES NETWORK.
HE IN THE CAPITAL WE TALK A LOT
ABOUT THE NEW VEHICLE NUANCES OF
WHERE AND HOW THE FCC AND ACT AS
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN NET
NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS.
AND THAT'S CERTAINLY VERY
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND.
BUT IN THE END CALIFORNIA STONE
CARE.
THEY NO THEY JUST LOST THE
TWENTY FIFTEEN PROTECTIONS AND
THEY DON'T WANT THE LEGISLATURE
TO BRING THE BACK.
ALL OF THEM.
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
RESTORE THESE PROTECTIONS AND
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS ARE
HOPING YOU WILL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
[inaudible] ONE OF THANK YOU
VERY MUCH --
OTHER ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR
AFFILIATION OR ASSOCIATION.
I AM I AM EMILY RACKS AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CAL PERGA
WERE HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SP TWO TWO AS WRITTEN --
BEFORE WAS AMENDED LAST WEEK
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT PLEASE.
JR MEMBERS KEVIN BACON AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF CALIFORNIA
ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL AS
AMENDED.
DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR THANK
YOU MATCH AND NEXT PLACE.
EVERY MENTAL WITH CALIFORNIA
VOICES FOR PROGRESS WORK
COMMUNITY OF BUSINESS OWNERS
ENTREPRENEURS INVESTORS AND
PHILANTHROPISTS WE SUPPORT
BETWEEN ELEVEN VERSION OF THE
BILL.
PLEASE PASSED TODAY THOUGH SO WE
CAN GO AHEAD AND FIX IT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH EXPOSE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN BURST ON A PRICE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIPHATE
CONSERVATION VOTERS THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA.
AND NEXT AND WE ARE SUPPORTIVE
OF THE JUNE ELEVENTH --
BILL PRIOR TO ITS GUIDING IN THE
LAST COMMITTEE WE DO ENCOURAGE
IT PASSED THE BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY SO THE AUTHOR
CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU MUCH [inaudible]
PLEASE.
HELLO TO EMILY NUMBER HAVE
COURAGE CAMPAIGN A ONE POINT
FOUR MILLION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE
TO SUPPORT THE BILL AS TODAY GET
PASS AND SO WE CAN FIXING GET
BACK TO THE JUNE ELEVENTH
VERSION THEY CAN.
THANK YOU NEXT PLACE SOME OF THE
CORPORATE ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE JUNE
ELEVENTH VERSION OF THE BILL
PRIOR TO THE GOT NO MAN BUT TO
ENCOURAGE YOU TO PASS IT TODAY
THINK YOU CAN MATCH.
NEXT WAYS GOOD AFTERNOON
JENNIFER BANG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
NONPROFITS IN OUR TEN THOUSAND
NONPROFIT MEMBERS COURAGE TO
PASS THE BILL TODAY SO IT CAN BE
WORKED ON WEEKLY SUPPORT THE
JUNE ELEVENTH VERSION OF THE
BILL.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MATCH NEXT
PLEASE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
JAMES JACK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANIES I RESPECTFULLY ASK
THAT YOU MOVE THE BILL FORWARD
SO THAT IT CAN BE THE VEHICLE
FOR A STRONG NET NEUTRALITY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MUCH NEXT PLEASE.
FOREIGN CAR ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY
GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE UTILITY
REFORM NETWORK AS FULL AS WELL
AS THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF THE
SENATOR STRATEGY TO MOVE AND
BEFORE.
I CAN MATCH.
MISTER CHAIR MATT BROUGHT WITH
THAT CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS AND
WITH THE SUPPORT IF AMENDED
POSITION HAS ECHOED.
THANK YOU THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
ARE GOOD AFTERNOON SHERMAN GO
BLOOM OF WESTERN CENTER ON LAW
AND POVERTY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL -- JUNE
ELEVENTH.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
JACK WAGNER CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE IN SUPPORT THE BILL
CIRCUIT JUNE ELEVENTH BUT URGING
PASSES TODAY THANK YOU THANK YOU.
MAUREEN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF
CONSUMERS UNION WE SUPPORT S. B.
A TWENTY TWO BEFORE THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS SPUTTERED YOU TO MOVE
THIS BILL FORWARD TODAY THINK I
CAN MATCH [inaudible]
THANKS WAYS.
KEVIN QUICK BAY AREA STUDENT
ACTIVISTS ALIGNING OURSELVES
WITH THE COMMENTS OF THE
WITNESSES AND FOR THE REASONS
DETAILED IN OUR LETTER WE ARE
SUPPORT IF AMENDED AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING THIS BILL OF
OFF GRADE POINT PINKY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT PLEASE.
HI DON FOG OAKLAND PRIVACY AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF THE BILL A
PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT AND ALSO
STRONG SUPPORT OF THE BILL
[inaudible]
HAS IT STANDS TODAY THINK I CAN
MATCH THANKS WAYS.
I CHAIR MEMBERS AND ABOUT THE
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS WE ARE
IN SUPPORT OF THE JUNE ELEVENTH
VERSION OF THE BILL AND WE WOULD
URGE YOU.
TO PASS THE BILL OUT TODAY SO I
CAN CONTINUE TO BE WORKED ON
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH
AND EXPLAINS. TO NASA TELLIS OF
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE
JUNE ELEVENTH.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
MEGAN VIA RAIL BEHALF OF
WELLSTONE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS
OF SACRAMENTO IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF THE JUNE ELEVENTH VERSION.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
I'M JULIE CHAPMAN OF BARRACKS
CALIFORNIA AND INDIVISIBLE
SACRAMENTO AND WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT AND THIS BILL AS OF THE
JUNE ELEVENTH VERSION THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MUCH.
HI HOW ARE CRISTINA CAHILL ALSO
WITH INDIVISIBLE SACRAMENTO IN
SUPPORT OF THE JUNE ELEVENTH
VERSION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENTS.
IF YOU MATCH TAX.
JIM WINBERG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
TO CALIFORNIA --
WE SUPPORT THE JUNE ELEVENTH
VERSION BUT URGE THE COMMITTEE
TO PASS THE BILL TODAY SO THAT
WE CAN KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
I CAN THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN BIRDS
MAY CONSUMERS ON BEHALF OF THE
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST
REPRESENTING TEN THOUSAND UNION
WRITERS IN CALIFORNIA.
OR IN SUPPORT OF THE PREVIOUS
VERSION OF THE BILL BUT TO URGE
THE COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MATCH.
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME FORWARD.
BECAUSE THE FAMOUS VOTER NAME.
I WOULD APPRECIATE IS A WELCOME
ANYTIME YOU'RE READY WE I'D.
BEGIN.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN MY
NAME'S BILL DIVINE AND I
REPRESENT A T. AND T. I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TO THIS VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE.
LET ME OPEN BY SAYING THAT
EIGHTEEN ANTI SUPPORTS AN OPEN
INTERNET.
WE DO NOT BLOCK WEBSITES WE DO
NOT CENSOR ONLINE CONTENT AND WE
DO NOT DEGRADE INTERNET TRAFFIC.
THESE COMMITMENTS ARE PUBLISHED
ON OUR WEBSITE THEY ARE
ENFORCEABLE BY THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
AND FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARS
THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY WE HAVE
RUN OUR NETWORK.
WE OPPOSE SENATOR WIENERS
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND WE ALSO
OPPOSE THE AMENDED S. B. EIGHT
TWENTY TWO THAT'S BEFORE YOU
TODAY. FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARS
THE INTERNET HAS BEEN THE MAJOR
ECONOMIC ENGINE OF GROWTH.
HERE IN CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES IN
CALIFORNIA ALONE THE INDUSTRY
INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY
YEAR AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
RESULTING IN HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF JOBS AN INCREDIBLE
ARRAY OF EDUCATIONAL.
ENTERTAINMENT AND ECONOMIC
CHOICES FOR CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS.
AND THE DEPLOYMENT OF HIGH SPEED
INTERNET SERVICES THROUGHOUT OUR
STATE.
WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE.
WE'RE NOT ON THE THRESHOLD OF A
SECOND WAVE OF OF A TECHNOLOGY
REVOLUTION.
WITH THE INVENTION ON THE
DEPLOYMENT OF FIVE G. WIRELESS
NETWORKS.
GIGABIT SPEEDS OVER FIBER.
AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS.
WE HAVE A A LOT TO LOOK FORWARD
TO HEARING CALIFORNIA.
HOWEVER I DO WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO CORRECT OR AT LEAST
SUGGESTS SOME OF THE THINGS FROM
THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ARE
INACCURATE.
STATEMENTS THAT EIGHT TWENTY TWO
IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM HAVE BEEN
GUIDED WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS
THE CASE EIGHT TWENTY TWO WENT
FAR BEYOND.
THE NOT TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
OBAMA FCC RULES.
S. B. EIGHT TWENTY TWO WOULD
HAVE BANNED LONG STANDING
COMMERCIALLY NEGOTIATED
CONTRACTS BETWEEN INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS AND CONTENT
PROVIDERS.
S. B. EIGHT TWENTY TWO WOULD
HAVE SHIFTED THESE COSTS.
FROM MULTI BILLION DOLLAR
CONTENT COMPANIES TO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS.
HERE'S WHAT THE OBAMA FCC SAID
ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN AND I QUOTE.
THIS ORDER DOES NOT APPLY THE
OPEN INTERNET RULES TOO
INTERCONNECTION.
HE GOES ON TO STATE.
QUOTE WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WOULD
BE PREMATURE. TO ADOPT
PRESCRIPTIVE RULES TO ADDRESS
ANY PROBLEMS THAT HAVE ARISEN OR
MAY ARISE UNQUOTE.
MEMBERS IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
THAT THE OBAMA FCC DID NOT
PROHIBIT ISPS FROM LONG STANDING
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS I
MIGHT ADD [inaudible]
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS HAVE
BEEN WITH THE INTERNET SINCE THE
BIRTH OF THE INTERNET.
THE SECOND ISSUE THAT YOU'VE
JUST HEARD ABOUT ZERO RATING.
EIGHT TWENTY TWO WOULD HAVE
ENDED.
POPULAR CONSUMER DRIVEN ZERO
READING PROGRAMS OR PROGRAMS
DESCRIBED AS FREE DATA.
THESE PROGRAMS ARE ESPECIALLY
POPULAR AMONG YOUNG MINORITY AND
LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS.
A RECENT STUDY FOUND THAT AT
LEAST THREE POINT SIX MILLION
CALIFORNIANS ENJOY AS MUCH AS
THIRTY DOLLARS A MONTH IN
SAVINGS BY USING FREE DATA OR
ZERO RATING PROGRAMS.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY.
THE OBAMA FCC IN TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN LOOKED CLOSELY AT THIS
ISSUE.
AND SPECIFICALLY DID NOT
PROHIBIT ZERO RATING PROGRAMS.
THE BILL ALSO INCLUDES
PROCUREMENT THE OBAMA NET
NEUTRALITY RULES DID NOT INCLUDE
RESTRICTIONS ON PROCUREMENT FOR
FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL
PROCUREMENT [inaudible]
PERIOD.
AND THEN FINALLY THERE IS THE
ISSUE OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION THE
FREQUENTLY GET DISCOUNTED BOTH
THE OBAMA TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN
FCC.
AND THE TWO THOUSAND SEVENTY FCC
INCLUDED FEDERAL PREEMPTION IN
THEIR NET NEUTRALITY ORDERS.
EVEN FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
WHO WAS QUOTED EARLIER RECOGNIZE
THE IMPORTANCE OF A SINGLE
NATIONAL POLICY HE RECOGNIZED
THE INTERNET ISN'T INTERSTATE
SERVICE.
IN HIS COMMERCIALS ORDER QUOTE
WE REAFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S
LONG STANDING CONCLUSIONS.
THAT BROADBAND NTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE IS JURISDICTION EARLY
INTERSTATE FOR REGULATORY
PURPOSES.
WHILE INDIVIDUAL STATES MAY
DISAGREE WITH THE F. C. C.'S
LEGAL.
AND POLICY JUDGMENTS.
THE WAY TO EXPRESS THAT
DISAGREEMENT.
CONSISTENT WITH THE RULE OF LAW.
IS TO CHALLENGE THOSE JUDGMENTS
IN COURT.
AND BY THE WAY THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL IS DOING HE IS JOINED IN
LITIGATION WITH MULTIPLE OTHER
STATES TO CHALLENGE THE FCC
RULES.
LET ME CONCLUDE BY SAYING
MEMBERS BOTH VERSIONS OF S. B.
EIGHT THIRTY TO EIGHT TWENTY TO
CREATE SIGNIFICANT HARM FOR
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS.
THE INTERNET ECONOMY AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA WE WOULD
URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THE
LEGISLATION THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
CAROLINE MCINTYRE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CABLE AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO SB EIGHT
TWO TWO TODAY --
LIKE MISTER DEVINE STATED FOR
EIGHTEEN T. I WANT TO STATE FOR
THE RECORD THAT THE MEMBERS OF
THE CTA DO IN FACT SUPPORT TO AN
OPEN INTERNET.
THEY ARE COMMITTED TO IT HEARING
TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE BEEN
USED TO DESCRIBE A NET
NEUTRALITY NO BLOCKING NO
PROBABLY NO PAID PRIORITIZATION.
HOWEVER WE CANNOT SUPPORT STATE
LEVEL LEGISLATION THAT WILL
SUBJECT THE INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO STATE BY STATE
[inaudible]
PATCHWORK LEGISLATION WHERE WE
MAY BE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT
RULES ON HOW TO GOVERN THE
OPERATION AT THE NETWORKS --
WE DO IN FACT SUPPORT A FEDERAL
SOLUTION ONE THAT WON'T BE
CHANGED WHENEVER THE
ADMINISTRATION CHANGES FROM ONE
PARTY TO THE NEXT BUT WE DO NOT
AND CANNOT SUPPORT STATE LEVEL
LEGISLATION.
AS POINTED OUT BY MISTER DEVINE
S. B. EIGHT TO TWO DOZEN FAT GO
BEYOND.
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN FCC ORDER
THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE UNDER THE
PRESIDENT OBAMA ADMINISTRATION --
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN
IN THE LAST COMMITTEE I THINK
WHEN A LONG WAY TOWARDS
ADDRESSING AND THOSE THINGS THAT
WERE IN OVER REACH BEYOND THAT
ORDER.
BUT YOU STILL HAVE PROVISIONS IN
THE BILL TODAY THAT CONTINUE TO
GO BEYOND THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
ORDER ONE OF THOSE ISSUES OF
COURSES PROCUREMENT AT STATE
LEVEL PROCUREMENT.
AND THE OTHER IS THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF APPS ACTION THAT THE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULD
IN FACT BE SUBJECT.
TO UNDER THE PROVISIONS OUT OF
S. B. EIGHT THAT IN AND OF
ITSELF MEANS THAT NOT ONLY WOULD
BE BE WE BE SUBJECT TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS WE ARE TO DAY. FOR
THE PUBLIC COMMITMENTS THAT WE
HAVE MADE WE WOULD ALSO BE
SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY AND
JURISDICTION OF FIFTY EIGHT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S MULTIPLE
CITY ATTORNEYS AND OF COURSE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION THAT
LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY CONSUMERS.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO SUBJECT THE
INTERNET APPLE SYSTEM TO THE
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS THAT
MANY OF THESE ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE.
SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'VE NOT PLACED
OVERSIGHT AND THERE ONE
PARTICULAR ENTITY. FOR THOSE
REASONS WE OPPOSE S. B. EIGHT
TWO TWO AND HER QUESTION ABOUT.
THANK YOU MY CHEN NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS US STEEP
CARLSON PROCEED HE AYE A WHERE
THE TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY.
MIKE MY COLLEAGUES I THINK HIT
ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE BILL I'D
LIKE TO KIND OF MAYBE GIVE US
SOME SORT OF A BROADER VIEW
[inaudible]
UP.
THERE IS A REAL FALLACY AT THE
HEART OF A I THINK THAT.
WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY THAT
SOMEHOW OR OTHER? ONE SIDE SWORD
OWNS THE NET NEUTRALITY --
BELOW TO FIGHT THESE BUT THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
WE STATED EARLIER THAT THERE IS
NO NET NEUTRALITY.
THERE IS IN FACT ROBUST NET
NEUTRALITY EXISTS EVERYDAY.
FROM EVERY COMPANY [inaudible]
WHAT YOU HEAR THE WITNESSES HERE
SAY AS WELL WE DON'T HAVE THE
OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE RULES?
THAT WE WANT --
TO SUGGEST THAT --
WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK REMOVE
NET NEUTRALITY?
AND THAT THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF
OF OF BUT SENATOR WINNERS BILL
WAS IN FACT THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
RULES.
IF DISAGREED BY.
CHICO ENTERPRISE RECORD TECH
CRIME SCENE THAT WIRED ALL THE
ARTICLES THAT CAME OUT AFTER THE
HEARING THE OTHER DAY.
LAST WEEK SAID WELL.
THOSE RULES ONE WAY BY.
BUT WOULD IT WOULD IN FACT THE
COMMITTEE DID WAS PUT IN THE
CORD NET NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLES.
THAT'S WHAT'S IN THIS BILL RIGHT
NOW IT'S GOT A FEW OTHER THINGS
TO WHICH WE DISAGREE WITH.
BUT TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEHOW OR
OTHER NET NEUTRALITY IS GONE
[inaudible]
DOESN'T EXIST.
WE WOULD STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH
THAT.
WE ALSO THINK THAT SOMEHOW OR
OTHER THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT
MIGHT BE WHAT COULD BE WHAT WE
DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN.
IT REALLY HASN'T HAPPENED.
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS TO TRY
TO SUGGEST THAT CALIFORNIA NEEDS
TO PUT?
IN PLACE AND YOU HEARD ALL THE
ALL THE SUPPORTERS SAY THIS GO
BACK.
TO A SET OF RULES THAT ARE
UNNECESSARY PRESCRIPTIVE AND
WILL HAVE NEGATIVE CONSUMER
IMPACTS.
WE WOULD THE U. DECISIVE THE
LAST HEARING I THINK WE SHOULD
NOT ALLOW.
A ALARMIST SPECULATION.
GET IN THE WAY OF DE A RADICAL
DEPARTURE.
FROM THE LIGHT REGULATORY TOUCH
WHICH HAS ALLOWED THE INTERNET
TO BECOME WHAT IT IS TODAY.
PARTICULARLY FROM CALIFORNIA AND
I THINK WE AS CALIFORNIA.
OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANT
CALIFORNIA TO CONTINUE --
SIXTEEN HAVE TO SAY.
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS IN THE
STATE THAT MADE ALL THIS HAPPEN?
WE WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THEM
A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL --
INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND
AFFILIATION.
SECURE MEMBER SHE WILL NEED A
BEHALF COMCAST OPPOSING.
THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
FRED MAIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ALLIANCE OF VENTURE SANTA
BARBARA COUNTIES OPPOSE.
EDU NEXT PLEASE.
ERIC HARRIS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE NAACP AND AND OPPOSITION
THANK YOU.
THANKS PLACE.
YOU WANT A BENSON REPRESENTING
THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS
SOCIO XIN ALSO IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
KEYCHAIN WITH SOCIETY FOR THE
BLIND WE OPPOSE.
I CAN MATCH NEXT PLEASE.
SHOCKING* COMMUNICATIONS
CALIFORNIA POST AQ NEXT PLEASE.
SARAH BOOT ON BEHALF OF CALCULUS
ASIAN THANK YOU MUCH
[inaudible]
SPACE CAN RYAN HELD HER ESCHATON
OPPOSE AQ.
PLEDGE SHEPHERD ON BEHALF OF THE
CAL ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION THANK YOU MENTION
EXPERTISE.
SUSAN PETERSON LIVE WITH TO
MOBILE ALSO IN OPPOSITION I CAN
MATCH NEXT PLACE.
JACKIE CAME IN WITH FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE THANK YOU THANKS PLEASE.
A WOMAN CONTENT WITH THE
OROVILLE AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU
NICE PLACE.
I MANY MISS PERRY DICKINSON
PRESTON'S TELECOM CONSULTING ON
THE STRONG OPPOSITION OF SBA.
TWENTY TWO THANK YOU THANKS
PLACE WE ANY TALK AT SACRAMENTO
ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
DEBBIE BAEZ SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS UNDER MY COUNTY I OPPOSE
THE BILL THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
CURT JOHNSTON SALON COMMUNITY
COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
OPPOSE THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
ELISE CHEEK SOLANO COUNTY BLACK
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OPPOSE.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE GARRY
MCDONALD HOUSE CONCERT FAMILY
RESOURCE CENTER AND ALSO VICE
CHAIR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE A LINCOLN OPPOSE.
I CAN MATCH NEXT PLACE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN ERIC JOHNSON
BETH FRESNO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WE OPPOSE [inaudible]
NEXT MAYES.
AND JQUERY ON BEHALF OF THE
PRESIDENT AREA HISPANIC
FOUNDATION WE OPPOSE.
I CAN MUCH NEXT PISCINE PRATAMA
BONE WITH THE FRESNO CENTER
OPPOSE THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
PAM LIMITS ON BEHALF OF
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
NANCY MORRIS WITH THE CONGRESS
OF CALIFORNIA SENIORS IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
THANKS PLEASE DARIA CONSERVE OFF
WITH COUNSEL FOR CROSS CULTURAL
AFFAIRS AND WE OPPOSE US BEAT.
TWENTY TWO THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
SERGEI WHEN NICK OF HIS RUSSIAN
AMERICAN MEDIA PLUS [inaudible]
OKAY.
I COMMISSION EXPLAINS.
ABRAHAM CONTROLS WITH THE SECOND
ORIGINAL CONSERVATION CORPS WE
OPPOSE.
I CAN MATCH NEXT PLACE.
HEIDI MARSILLI ON BEHALF OF
VERIZON ALSO IN OPPOSITION THANK
YOU NEXT PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON BRENDA PALOMINO
BEHALF SPRINT ALSO IN OPPOSITION
THANK YOU NICE PLACE.
KATHY RODRIGUEZ OF THE STOCK BUT
HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION THANK YOU
[inaudible]
SPACE.
GLENDORA JEAN NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF A PAPA IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
SPACE STORE WALDRON WITH THE
VALLEY INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
ASSOCIATION VIKA AND THE LOS
ANGELES AREA CHAMBER COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU MATCH NEXT PLEASE.
JOINT COMMITTEE REPS IN
CALIFORNIA SPENDING JAMES A
COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU MATCH NEXT PLACE JOHN
DIRTY WITH THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION.
I CAMANCHE NEXT PLEASE.
JEAN CANNELLA OCA SACRAMENT OF
CHAPTER OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU MATCH NEXT PLEASE.
CHRIS SMITH SACRAMENTO HOUGHTON
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
WHERE TOP ON BEHALF OF ORANGE
COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL IN
OPPOSITION?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
SEEING AND HEARING AND LET'S
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS COMMENTS I MR
OBERNOLTE HAD A QUESTION.
FIRST.
FOLLOWED BY MISTER NOLAN BUT
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR OF I TO
QUESTION.
ABOUT THE COMMITTEE ACTION FROM
A WEEK AGO AND I KNOW THAT THE
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE
COMMITTEE INTENDED.
TO HAVE THE BILL IMPLEMENT
EXACTLY THE TWO THOUSAND FIFTY A
TWO THOUSAND TEN FCC ORDER.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN
SOME DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT THE AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY
ACCOMPLISH THAT SO I NOTICE IN
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS THAT ONE
OF THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
JUST DELETE THE CONTENTS OF THE
BILL AND REFERENCES THAT SEVERAL
HUNDRED PAGE DOCUMENT THAT YOU
WERE HOLDING UP.
THAT'S A VERY VIVID IMAGE.
YOU KNOW THE DATA AND SO THE
BILL UNDER THAT AMENDMENT WOULD
JUST REFERENCE THAT DOCUMENT AND
AND REQUIRE INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS WITH IN CALIFORNIA. TO
ADHERE TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS I
ARE YOU ACCEPTING THAT AMENDMENT
ON HER ARE RESPECTFULLY NO AND
WE PERSON OUGHT.
WE AGREE WE'VE WITH THE SPIRIT
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND
WE ARE EXTREMELY APPRECIATIVE
THAT THE COMMITTEE AND IT'S VERY
THOROUGH ANALYSIS WAS.
TRYING TO THINK FOR CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS TO SOLVE WHAT HAPPENED
LAST WEEK AND WE WE APPRECIATE
THAT.
ON THE CHALLENGE WITH DOING IT
YOU KNOW WHEN I FIRST SAW IT IS
VERY TEMPTING TO SAY YEAH OF
COURSE HE WOULD DO THAT.
IS ARE THERE SOMETHING A LITTLE
BIT --
CHALLENGING WITH PASSING A STATE
LAW TO SAY YOU HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH A REPEALED.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO SOMETHING
AS CRAFTING IT AND I KNOW THAT
THE STAFF I'M SO HAD.
IT'S NOT BEEN A JAILBREAK FROM
LAST WEEK HOLLYWOOD WORK.
GUESSING MAY HAVE TRIED TO WORK
WITH US TO DO THAT --
BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT WAY TO
TO TO GET OUT IT. TO SOME A
LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING ABOUT.
ALSO THE WITH THE ORDER --
THERE ARE SOME ASPECTS OF IT
THAT ARE NOT NET NEUTRALITY --
AND SO IT WOULD BE ACQUIRING
COMPLIANCE WITH THEM THINGS THAT
NO ONE ON ANY SITE IS.
IS ASKING --
FOR AND IN ADDITION UP PARTS OF
THIS ORDER ARE ON RESPONDING TO
PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE'S A LOT OF TO SORT OF
COLLOQUY THING THERE WAS THIS
COMMENT THIS IS OUR RESPONSE.
SO IT JUST DOESN'T MATCH UP IN
THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO AND
THAT'S WHY.
ARE WE SPENT OUR SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY --
MY STAFF OUTSIDE FOLKS ARE
TAKING WHAT'S IN THIS ORDER THAT
IS ACTUALLY LEGAL OBLIGATION
AROUND THE NEUTRALITY.
AND PUTTING IT INTO A BILL
WITHOUT BEST APPROACH SO --
SO GO WERE APPRECIATIVE OF THE
CREATIVE THINKING ABOUT WHERE
WERE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THAT
AMENDMENT OKAY WELL I JUST
THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN A KIND OF A CREATIVE WAY OF
SOLVING THE DILEMMA WAS CREATIVE
ELEGANCE.
BUT I'M WERE PURCHASED IT
DOESN'T MATCH UP.
IT'S PERFECTLY AS WE WOULD LIKE
SO OKAY WELL I MEAN I I HAVE TO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE BILL
TODAY BUT I WANTED TO TAKE.
A MINUTE AND TELL YOU WHY AND
WHAT I TALKED TO CONSTITUENTS
ABOUT THIS ISSUE IT'S ALWAYS A
DIFFICULT DISCUSSION BECAUSE
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT INTERNET
NEUTRALITY YOU TALK ABOUT AN
OPEN AND FREE INTERNET IN A LACK
OF DISCRIMINATION.
THESE WORDS ARE VERY EMOTIONALLY
EVOCATIVE.
AND IT'S EASY FOR PEOPLE TO SAY
WELL HOW COULD YOU NOT SUPPORT
THAT.
BUT I LIKE TO USE THAT ANALOGY
AND A FEW FOR ABUSE IT BEFORE I
APOLOGIZE BUT I I TELL PEOPLE
THAT THE INTERNET'S KINDA LIKE
VILLAGE BY A RIVER.
AND THE VILLAGERS CAN SEE ACROSS
THE RIVER THIS HIGHWAY BUT THEY
CAN'T GET TO IT IT'S VERY
FRUSTRATING AND ONE DAY A BRIDGE
COMPANY DECIDES TO BUILD A
BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER THAT IS OF
GREAT BENEFIT TO EVERYONE THAT
LIVES IN THE VILLAGE.
SO MORE AND MORE PEOPLE USE THIS
BRIDGE EVERYDAY AND THE BRIDGE
IS ONLY DESIGNED TO HOLD A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WEIGHT AT ONCE.
SO THE BRIDGE COMPANIES GOING TO
HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO THEY
LIMIT THE TRAFFIC TO THE BRIDGE.
AND SO TO COME UP WITH THIS
PROPOSAL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
CHARGE A DIFFERENT TOLL FOR
EIGHTEEN WHEELERS ON HONDA
CIVICS EIGHTEEN WHEELERS PAY
MORE BECAUSE THEY WAY MORE.
AND THEY ALSO MAY BE THAT THAT'S
A PAID PART OF OUR THAT'S
DIFFERENTIAL PRICING.
RIGHT THE IN THE ANALOGY I'M
ALSO GOING TO ADD A TOLL ROAD
PETROLEUM TO THE BRIDGE
[inaudible]
THAT.
PEOPLE CAN PAY TO GO ACROSS THE
BRIDGE WITH LESS TRAFFIC WHICH
BY THE WAY AS A BENEFIT TO THE
PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY BECAUSE IT
MOVES TRAFFIC.
I OUT OF THE DANTE BLAMES THAT'S
PRIORITIZATION.
THE QUESTION IS DO YOU THINK
THAT'S FAIR OR DO YOU THINK THAT
THAT'S NOT FAIR BECAUSE IF YOU
IF YOU OPPOSE THAT THEN YOU'RE A
FAN OF BRIDGE NEUTRALITY.
AND IF YOU THINK THAT IT'S FAIR
TO CHARGE DIFFERENT TOOLS FOR
DIFFERENT TYPES OF VEHICLES THEY
ON YOUR OPPONENT A BRIDGE
NEUTRALITY.
AND I THINK THAT REALLY BRINGS
IT HOME TO PEOPLE.
IN WHAT WHAT WHAT'S AT STAKE
HERE THAT AND I KNOW THAT.
SOME PEOPLE SAY WELL WE KNOW
WHAT WHAT HAPPENS BRIDGE COMPANY
HAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
IMPACT.
OVER WHAT KIND OF VEHICLES
TRANSIT THE BRIDGE I IT'S NOT
FAIR THEY THEY COULD TOTALLY
PREVENT CERTAIN TYPES OF
VEHICLES FROM CROSSING THE
BRIDGE.
YOU KNOW AS AT A FAIR THING EVEN
ON THE BRIDGE COMPANY HASN'T
TALKED ABOUT DOING THAT.
AND THE SOLUTION TO THAT.
IS TO BUILD MORE BRIDGES.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT IS WE
WANT LOTS OF BRIDGES WE WANT
LOTS OF INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS PROVIDING DATA TO
PEOPLE IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS
AND THE MORE.
REGULATION THAT WE LYER ON TOP
OF THE ACT OF PROVIDING THAT
SERVICE TO PEOPLE THE FEWER
BRIDGES WE GET.
AND NOT THE MORE BRIDGES WE GET.
AND I ALSO WANT TO MAKE THE
POINT THAT.
IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT WE
WOULD DON'T WANT ANTI
COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR ON THE
INTERNET.
AND I THINK THAT WE WILL ALL BE
UNANIMOUS IN OUR OPINION ON THAT.
HOWEVER WE DO ALREADY HAVE RULES
IN PLACE.
THAT PROHIBIT THAT TYPES OF
BEHAVIOR.
WE HAVE RULES THAT ARE ANTI
TRUST AND FORCED THE FEDERAL
LEVEL WE HAVE RULES AGAINST ANTI
COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR THAT WERE
FORCED BOTH AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
AND AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT ANY.
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER THAT
HAD THE TEMERITY TO DO SOMETHING
LIKE PROHIBITING SOMEONE FOR
VISITING A WEBSITE.
WOULD INSTANTLY BE FACED WITH A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER FROM ONE
OF THOSE AGENCIES IF NOT
MULTIPLE AGENCIES.
AND THERE'S A TRACK RECORD OF
THIS BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE
BEEN DOCUMENTED ABUSES IN THE
PAST.
I MOST OF THOSE HAVE COME TO
LIGHT.
BECAUSE THE FCC TOOK ACTION
AGAINST THOSE COMPANIES BY THE
WAY A LOT OF THE ONES THAT WE
WERE TAUGHT THAT WERE TALKED
ABOUT IN THE PRESENTATION.
ARE OCCURRED BEFORE THE TWO
THOUSAND TEN FCC NET NEUTRALITY
ORDER SO THE FCC WAS ALREADY ON
THE JOB AND ALREADY WAS
PROHIBITING THOSE KINDS OF
BEHAVIOR.
ARE YOU KNOW THE REAL PROBLEM
THAT I HAVE THAT NEUTRALITY IS
THIS EVERY TIME THAT WE TRY TO
MAKE IT.
LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE EIGHTEEN
WHEELERS ACROSS THE BRIDGE.
BY DEFINITION WE'RE MAKING IT
MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE PEOPLE AT
HONDA CIVICS ACROSS THE BRIDGE
AND MOST OF US DRIVE HONDA
CIVICS.
SO.
THE BREAK THE THE INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS THEY HAVE A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FIXED COST OF
DOING BUSINESS IN PROVIDING THE
SERVICE THAT THEY DO.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
RECOVER THOSE COSTS OR GO OUT OF
BUSINESS AND IF WE PROHIBIT THEM
FROM CHARGING CERTAIN TRAFFIC
MORE.
AND PRIORITIZING CERTAIN TRAFFIC
DOWN ALL THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO
GET MORE EXPENSIVE SO AFTER
RESPECTFULLY OF OPPOSE THE BILL
TODAY BUT I THINK YOU FOR
BRINGING FORWARD IT'S A IT'S A
GOOD DISCUSSION HAVE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF THAT'S A
FASCINATING --
AN ALLERGY A MISTER MOLEN HASN'T.
I WISH I HAD A COOL COUNTER
ANALOGY.
BUT I CAN HE DOES GOOD HE DOES
GET BETTER EVERY TIME --
LET ME JUST SIMPLY SAY SENATOR
WINNER THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS
ISSUE HEAD ON YOU LIKE TO GET
INTO THESE DIFFICULT STICKY
ISSUES AND I APPLAUD YOUR FORKS
AND NO IT'S NOT.
A EASY TO DO SOME A PROUD
PRINCIPLE CO AUTHOR OF THE
ORIGINAL.
S. B. EIGHT TWO TO THE PRE
AMENDED VERSION I DO BELIEVE
THAT AMENDMENTS WEEK IN THE
CORPS.
A CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN THE
BILL I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PROCESS HOW THAT ALL.
OCCURRED SO ACCORDINGLY ALTHOUGH
THE BILL FORWARD TODAY TO
CONVERSATION MOVING.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME UP WITH A
PRODUCT WHERE THE INTERESTS OF
THE CONSUMERS ARE PARAMOUNT.
AND THAT WE SET A UP STANDARD
FOR NET NEUTRALITY FOR THE REST
OF THE COUNTRY --
TO FOLLOW SO I WILL VOTE
ACCORDINGLY WHEN THE TIME COMES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU
VERY MUCH MISTER ALCOTT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS.
YOU KNOW WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MADE THEIR ACTION AND
WITH REGARD TO NET NEUTRALITY IN
THE REPEAL OF IT --
MYSELF COLLEAGUES IN THIS HOUSE
AND ALSO COLLEAGUES IN THE OTHER
HOUSE.
WE ARE VERY CLEAR THAT WE WANTED
TO RESTORE THOSE PROTECTIONS.
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT
IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE.
THE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LOOKING OUT FOR US IN
MAINTAINING WHAT WE'VE HAD.
THAT WE AS A STATE HAVE TO ACT
TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO RE
IMPLEMENT THE OBAMA. TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER OR WE ARE GOING TO
NOT DO NOTHING --
YOURSELF AND SENATOR DELEON TOOK
THE MANTLE TO DO THAT --
AND I THINK THAT IT'S BEEN A
REALLY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION
HAVE -- WITH
REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT
IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE BUT IN THE
PROCESS I THINK WAS BECOME.
DIFFICULT --
FOR MYSELF BUT I THINK A LOT OF
MEMBERS IS IS JUST --
THERE'S AND THERE'S NO CLEAR
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CLEAR
EXPLANATION AS TO WHERE THESE
GOAL POSTS REALLY ARE --
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THE A BOMB
ORDER YOUR BILL AND THEN ALSO
YOUR ORIGINAL VERSION OF YOUR
BILL IN THE AMENDED VERSION OF
YOUR BILL.
AND AND AND YOU KNOW YOU TALK
YOU KNOW NEAR PROPONENTS SAY WOW
THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WITH
THE OBAMA ORDER WAS TO TALK TO
THE OPPONENTS OF ON AND SAY IT
IS COMPLETELY.
DIFFERENT IT GOES FAR BEYOND
WHAT THE ORIGINAL BOND ORDER DID.
AND IN ALL THREE HUNDRED PAGES
YOU HAVE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF
YOU ABOUT TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY
PAGES OF COMMENT.
AND ABOUT TWENTY PAGES OF OTHER
MORE SUBSTANTIVE SCENARIO --
TYPE OF INFORMATION AND YOU KNOW.
BUT I ASKED MY STAFF TO DO AS I
SAID OKAY YOU KNOW IT TAKE
WHATEVER THE MAIN PROVISIONS ARE
OF THE ORIGINAL TWENTY FIFTEEN
ORDER.
PUT ON PUT IT DOWN AND THEN
LATER ON WHAT YOU KNOW S. B.
EIGHT TWENTY TO DOAND WHAT DOES
HE DO NOW AS ADAM OUT AS IT'S
AMENDED.
NEITHER THE WHAT WE PUT TOGETHER
WAS.
IN OTHER FIRST ISSUE WHICH IS
THE REQUEST OCCASION OF
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICES OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE DOZEN APPLIED IN
APPLYING YOUR BILL THERE'S A
PLAN THAT --
BLOCKING.
WAS ORIGINALLY IN YOUR BILL
UNDER THE AMENDED VERSION TO US
IT LOOKS THIS IT WOULD BE IF THE
SAME AND YOUR BILL TODAY
[inaudible]
THROTTLING.
WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN YOUR BILL
LOOKS TO BE THE SAME AS EXACTLY
WHAT IT IS IN IN YOUR BILL TODAY?
PAID PRIORITIZATION AND YOUR
BILL IT PROHIBITED THIRD PARTY
PAID PRIORITIZATION.
HOWEVER IN THE NOW AMENDED
VERSION IT REMOVES THE THIRD
PARTY I'M A STILL BUT STILL
PROHIBITS PAID PRIORITIZATION.
AND THEN THEIR STANDARD FOR
INTERNET CONDUCT.
AND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN YOUR
BILL -- AT
LEAST FROM OUR ASSESSMENT LOOKS
TO BE THE SAME AS IT IS IN YOUR
BILL AND THEN THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
[inaudible]
JUST BEING.
YOUR ORIGINAL BILL THIS BEING
THE AMENDED VERSION.
I THAT SEEM TO GO BEYOND
WHATEVER THE A BOMB ORDER HAD
DONE -- AND
I THINK THAT.
YOU KNOW I I I I I WAS INTRIGUED
BY THE COMMITTEES ORIGINAL.
APROPOS PROPOSAL TO JUST
REFERENCE YEARS FIFTH TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER I UNDERSTAND THE
COMPLEXITIES WITH DOING THAT
ESPECIALLY BEING A LAW THAT NO
LONGER.
EXISTS --
AND I APPRECIATE THAT RESPECT
THAT BUT I THINK WHAT A LOT OF
MEMBERS YOU'RE GONNA FACE MOVING
FORWARD.
IS IS THAT.
A I THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE
FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO UNDO THE
ACTIONS OF PREVIOUS POLICY
COMMITTEE.
I REGARDLESS OF HOW THOSE
CHANGES HAPPEN.
I BUT I THINK MOVING FOR THE
CONCERN IT'S GONNA BE IS WHAT
DID WHAT WAS THE INTENT AND THE
HEART OF THE TWENTY FIFTEEN A
BOMB ORDER.
AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE AT
LEAST CODIFYING INTO LAW OF
THOSE SAME [inaudible]
PROVISIONS NOTHING MORE NOTHING
LESS -- AND
THERE BEEN A DISAGREEMENTS THERE
HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT WERE
PROPOSED FOR THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
ORDER THAT.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TRIED
DECIDED TO TAKE PASS ON SOME OF
ARGUED THAT THOSE WERE ORIGINAL
IN YOUR ORIGINAL VERSION OF YOUR
BILL OTHERS.
NOW THE PROPONENTS SAY AREN'T --
BUT I THINK.
MOVING FORWARD BUT IT'S GOING TO
BE REALLY VITAL IS THAT WE
UNDERSTAND.
THAT WHATEVER WE MOVE UPON AND
WHATEVER WE TAKE ACTION ON IS.
IT LEAST AND ITS FORM ACT
CURRENT FORM REGARDLESS OF HOW
WE SEE IT IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF
WHAT THE OBAMA ORDER WAS AND I
THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT --
FOR MYSELF AND OTHER MEMBERS
CONTINUE SUPPORT --
BAN.
WHAT I WILL SAY THAT WAS YOU
KNOW FOR THOSE THAT REPRESENT
THE OPPONENTS OF THE BILL?
YOU KNOW WE'RE IN THIS POSITION
AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE
ARGUMENT OF I DON'T WANT A
PATCHWORK.
OF DIFFERENT STATES PASSING
DIFFERENT REGULATIONS THAT WE
HAVE TO BE COMPLYING WITH AND
HOW THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO
IMPLEMENT THE INTERNET AS A
PROVIDER.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT I I
GET THAT BUT WHAT DID YOU DO TO
PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.
WHEN IT WAS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL
WHAT DID YOU DO?
DID YOU ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE RE
CLASSIFICATION AND WHO YOU WERE.
WHO YOU WERE BEING REGULATED BY?
OR DID YOU FIGHT TO STOP AND
PREVENT IT FROM EVER HAPPENING
BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE.
BECAUSE IF THAT HAD NEVER BEEN
REPEALED WE NEVER WOULD HAVE
BEEN IN THE POSITION THAT WE ARE
TODAY WHERE WE AS A STATE.
NOW HAVE TO ACT ON WHAT YOU
CLASSIFY A FEDERALLY PRINT ISSUE --
WE VERY MUCH AS A FIFTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD SHOULD HAVE
A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE
INTERNET.
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AND WHAT WE DO DOESN'T SERVE
JUST AS A NATIONAL MODEL SERVES
AS AN INTERNATIONAL MODEL SO WE
VERY MUCH TAKE THE COMPLETE
MCKAY IMPLEMENTATION THAT.
THE THE THE THE IMPLICATIONS OF
WHAT WE DO EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
BUT IN THE FUTURE I THINK WHAT
FRUSTRATES MYSELF IN MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES IS THAT.
THINGS WILL HAPPEN ON THE
FEDERAL LEVEL.
WILL TRY TO RESTORE THAT BECAUSE
WE APPRECIATE THEM THE
PROTECTIONS AND IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA BUT YET.
WHAT WAS DONE ON YOUR AND? TO
KEEP US FROM EVER GETTING TO
THIS POINT.
TRUMP'S FIGHTING AGAINST THE AS
A PROVIDER FROM SAYING YOU KNOW
WHAT.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING
FROM THE WE NEED TO KEEP THINGS
THE WAY THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THIS
IS WHAT WORKS AND IT'S GONNA
CAUSE A HEADACHE FOR US BECAUSE
EVERY STATES WANT TO IMPLEMENT
THEIR OWN POLICY.
I THINK THAT THAT --
YOU CAN GO BACK --
BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION MOVING
FORWARD BECAUSE IT PUTS US ALL
IN A POSITION WHERE NOW TRYING
TO RE LITIGATE AN ISSUE THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED.
IT WAS ALREADY SETTLED ON THE
FOUNDED ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL --
AND YOU KNOW WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE PROVIDE OUR CONSTITUENTS
WITH THE PROTECTIONS THAT THEY
DESERVE AND THAT YOU KNOW THERE
IS NO.
NOBODY THAT HAS ANY ADVANTAGE
OVER ANOTHER I MEAN.
SO I THINK THAT ON THE PROPONENT
SIDE WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE
SURE THAT WE ARE.
AS TRUE TO THAT A BOMB ORDER AS
WE POSSIBLY CAN TO MAKE SURE WE
GET SOMETHING TO THE GOVERNOR.
BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME I
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THE CONCERNS
OF THE OPPOSITION HOUSE I WILL
BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL TODAY
THOUGH IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND MISS
VARIAS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
[inaudible]
BEFORE I IT GIVE MY COMMENTS I
DID WANT TO SAY THAT FOR THIS
VILLAGE AND THE FREEWAY IN THE
BRIDGE.
IF THE VILLAGE AND THE RIVER AND
THE BRIDGE BELONG TO THE PEOPLE
THAN A BELONGS TO ALL OF THE
PEOPLE.
AND I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT FOR ME.
THAT WE KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT
IT DOES BELONG TO ALL OF THE
PEOPLE.
THERE WERE THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT WE DO NEED A NET NEUTRALITY
BILL THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND.
OF BETWEEN YOU AND A SENATOR
KEVIN DE LEóN THERE WAS THE
DISCUSSION AND YOURS IS THE ONE
THAT CAME FORWARD --
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PRIOR
COMMITTEE I I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE THAT CAN'T BE UNDONE --
BUT THERE HAS TO BE DISCUSSION.
WE NEED A NET NEUTRALITY BILL
AND WE NEED THE STAKEHOLDERS TO
BE AT THE TABLE TOGETHER TO
DISCUSS WHAT IS BEST SO THAT AS
MY COLLEAGUE HAS SAID SOMETHING
IS PASSED AND TAKEN TO THE
GOVERNOR.
WE CANNOT BE WITHOUT.
NECRO TOOK NEUTRALITY SO I I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU BROUGHT IT
FORWARD APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
OF OF THE OPPOSITION I THINK
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
THAT EVERYBODY DO JOIN.
TOGETHER SO THAT WE DO GIVE
SOMETHING TO THE GOVERNOR THE IT
TAKES ALL PEOPLE ALL OWNERS OF
THAT BRIDGE THAT.
THAT VILLAGE AND THAT FREEWAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ARE THERE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
[inaudible]
IT'S KIND.
I HAVE A DIFFERENT SENATOR I'D.
JUST BE CLEAR IF THE OBAMA ERA --
RULE OR ORDER HAD NOT BEEN THE
BILL WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN
NECESSARY.
I WOULD I WOULD HAVE --
I'M I'M WHEN I'M WE MOVE FORWARD
THIS BILL.
BECAUSE I DON'T ACTUALITY
PROTECTIONS WERE REPEALED GOT
GAS AND SO THERE IS THIS
QUESTION ABOUT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD SAID WELL
LET'S JUST REFERENCE --
THAT ORDER --
SO.
UNDER THAT WOULD WIN THAT THAT
ORDER WAS STILL IN PLACE --
HOW IS A COMPANY OR AN ISP TO GO
ABOUT FIGURING OUT WHAT ITS
OBLIGATIONS WERE?
WELL OF COURSE THE FCC WITH THE
REGULATOR AND AND SPEAKING OF
WHETHER WE'RE GOING UP TO THE
TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER BEYOND ONE
THING WE DID NOT DO.
IN THIS BILL IS RECLASSIFY EYES
PEAS AS PUBLIC UTILITIES THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID THAT
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS TO
BE HEEDED.
THE MOST OF EVERYTHING WE'RE NOT
DOING THAT HERE SO IN THAT
RESPECT WE YOU KNOW IT IT
DOESN'T EVEN TALK TO ANNOUNCE A
NO ONE HAS BEEN ASKING.
US FOR THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T
WANT TO SEE IF YOU SEE OUGHT TO
BE IN CHARGE AND THAT'S ITS OWN
SEPARATE A DYNAMIC --
SO -- HIGH
BUT THE F. C. C. OF COURSE WOULD
BE THE QUOTE WAS THE GLOBAL
UTILITY STYLE.
OUR REGULATOR AND IT BECOMES.
INNOVATIVE BAY THAT ARE AT THE
PROCESS IN TERMS OF HOW THE
REGULATION OVERSIGHT.
OCCURRED SO SO EVEN THOUGH WE
HAVE WORKED VERY HARD.
TO AYE STAY FAITHFUL TO TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER.
PUTTING ASIDE THAT ULTIMATELY
IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING CONSUMERS
AND ECONOMY NOT A NOT ABOUT
WHETHER YOU'RE EXACTLY PERFECTLY
LINE FOR LINE.
OF WITH THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER
BUT WE DID WORK.
NOR A COMMENT ON THAT.
WHEN I CLOSE ABOUT HOW WE
BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT --
pTHE SAME BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THE
FCC IN THE FCC REGULATES IN A
DIFFERENT WAY THAN WE DO OF
LEGISLATIVE LIKE --
SO WE I AM AGAIN WITH THAT
PERSON THEN WE APPRECIATE THE
SPIRIT OF IT WE JUST DON'T THINK
IT WORKS LOGISTICALLY.
ITEMS PASS HERE ARE A STATE
LEVEL BILL THAT CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED AND ENFORCED.
SO EVEN IF IT WASN'T ENTIRELY
WORKABLE DO YOU THINK THAT IF
THAT AMENDMENT WERE ADOPTED AT
THAT POINT IT WOULD BE A REAL
NET NEUTRALITY BELLER WOULD
STILL BE AN END OF TRIAL AND
BILLING NAME ONLY.
I I I I I THINK IF WE HAVE A
BILL THAT.
THAT DOES EVERYTHING THAT TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER.
DID AND YES THAT WOULD BE A
STRONG NET NEUTRALITY BILL.
WHAT CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE LAST
WEEK DOES NOT MEET THAT?
A STANDARD WHAT WE PROPOSED I
DID IDEALLY THE FCC WERE
REALIZED EMITTER WILL MISTAKEN
REINSTATE THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
ORDER AND THAT THEY WILL BE.
MUCH MORE PEACE AND HARMONY ON
EARTH.
WE CAN ALL HOPE FOR THAT --
THE PEACE AND HARMONY PART --
SO I I DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT.
THE POINTS RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION THEY MOLESTED OFF A
FEW THINGS LIKE A ZERO RATING IN
OUR CONNECTIONS --
PROCUREMENT AND I THINK THAT
THOSE ITEMS I GO BEYOND WHAT THE
TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN ORDERED AND
SO I KNOW I DO I DO SO IN TERMS
OF INTERCONNECTION.
ARE AND THEY AND THERE WAS --
CHERRY PICKING UP SOME LANGUAGE
IN THAT ORDER I'VE TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER.
ABSOLUTELY AND EXPLICITLY AND WE
CAN PROVIDE THE LANGUAGE OUGHT
PROVIDED THAT YOU CAN NOT GIVE
BE NET NEUTRALITY AT THE POINT
OF INTERCONNECTION.
SO IN TERMS OF WHAT THE AMOUNT
FROM LAST WEEK THAT SAYING NO
YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT THE MAMMOTH
LESLIE SAID NO BLOCKING
THROTTLING.
NOTES THAT ARE THAT IS LISTED IN
THEIR BUT IT IT IS NOT BE THE
COMMITTEE REMOVED.
THE PROVISION IN OUR BILL THAT
WAS IN THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER
THAT YOU CAN'T USE IN OUR
CONNECTION TO AVOID MENTALITY IN
WHAT IS I MEAN.
YEAH IF I'M AN ISP AND YOU'RE
TELLING ME YOU CAN'T BLOCK
ANYONE ON YOUR OWN NETWORK.
BUT YOU CAN DO AT THE POINT
WHERE DATA FLOWS INTO YOUR
NETWORK WHICH IS CALLED
INTERCONNECTION.
THEN UNDER CHARLIE DOESN'T EXIST
SO GREAT I WON'T BLOCK ANYONE ON
MY NETWORK I'M JUST GONNA SHUT
THEM DOWN AS THEY ENTER MY
NETWORKS OF YOUR TIMES ISN'T
PAYING ME.
ENOUGH MONEY OUGHT NEAR TIMES
DATA DOESN'T GET TO ENTER MY
NETWORK OR IT'S GOING TO ENTER
INTO REALLY DEGRADED WAY.
THEY DID THAT TO NETFLIX --
DOT WAS THAT SO THE INFAMOUS
HOME WHERE WE'RE NOT POLLUTE
THEY WANT TO CHARGE THAT SAY IT
HATE NETFLIX IF YOU WANT TO
ACCESS MY CUSTOMERS.
YOU PAY ME A FEE.
AND WHEN THAT LOOKS WHEN DO IT
I'D BE DEGRADED.
NETFLIX AND THERE WAS A TIME
WHEN I WAS VERY IT WAS A LOT OF
BUFFERING GOING ALONG WITH
NETFLIX ULTIMATELY NETFLIX.
PAID.
IT'S OUR TRADE SECRETS WE DON'T
KNOW HOW MUCH IT.
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY --
NETFLIX CAN AFFORD TO PAY IT.
AND THE DATA.
ARE THERE A LOT OF COMPANIES
THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THAT
AND THAT'S WHAT'S SCARY ABOUT SO
THE INTERCONNECTION PIECE WAS IN
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER --
IT WAS TAKEN OUT LAST WEEK OF
OUR BILL YOU COMMITTEE ZERO
RATING --
VIA AND WE HAVE A LETTER FROM
TOM WHEELER FROM CHAIRMAN
WHEELER ATTESTING TO THAT.
I ZERO RATING --
Y. DAXI SEE UNDER THE TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER.
UNDER THE GENERAL CONDUCT WILL
WAS BEGINNING TO ENFORCE ON
AGAINST I BELIEVE IT WAS A TNT.
ON ZERO RATING BECAUSE IF YOU
ARE IF YOU TEAR COMCAST.
RISE AND SANDRA --
ANDY AND SAID HEY IF USE MY
PRODUCT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY --
USER DATA IF YOU DATA.
AND EVEN THOUGH THAT SOLD AS
QUOTE UNQUOTE FREE DATA IT'S NOT
VERY.
AYE WHAT IT DOES IS IT GIVES THE
EYEPIECE AND SENATE TO KEEP YOUR
DATA COPS LOW.
AND TO MAKE UNLIMITED DATA PLANS
EXPENSIVE BECAUSE IF EVERYONE
CAN AFFORD UNLIMITED DATA PLAN
ZERO RATING HAS NO VALUE SO
PEOPLE --
WHO IF WARY OF LIKE I'VE
[inaudible]
I KNOW.
WE'RE ABLE TO MOST OF US PLAY
FOR AN UNLIMITED DATA PLAN.
WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON ZERO
RATINGS TELL US WHERE TO GO WE
GET THE PICKET.
IF YOU'RE LOW INCOME CONSUMER.
I AND YOU CAN'T AFFORD UNLIMITED
A PLAN THEN YOU GET BASICALLY
DROPPED INTO HERE THE FIVE OPS.
THAT YOU CAN USE AND WON'T COUNT
AGAINST YOUR DATA.
OUR AND SO WHAT'S YOUR RATING
DOES IT TURNS -
IT TURNS THE INTERNET INTO A
FORM OF CABLE.
ARMY CABLE CUSTOMER I LIKE CABLE
NO OFFENSE CAROLINE THOUGHT.
BUT I DON'T WANT MY INTERNET TO
BE CABLE WHERE I'M TOLD HERE
THAT FIFTY PLACES YOU CAN GO --
AND NO ONE ELSE HAS A CONTRACT
WITH US AND SO YOU CAN'T GO
ANYWHERE ELSE.
BY AND SO ZERO RATING IS --
IT WHEN IT'S DONE ABUSIVE WAY.
CAN BE VERY ANTI CONSUMER I'M
NOT.
IN ORDER WAS HAD INITIATED AN
ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST A TNT
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SHOT
THAT ENFORCEMENT DOWN.
I DO WANT TO GIVE --
THE WHAT IT'S MAKING TO YOU
CHANCE TO RESPOND BECAUSE OUR
FATHERS AND PRETTY CLEAR
LANGUAGE ON THE INTERCONNECTION
THAT YOU LET US FOR THE ORDER.
ABSOLUTELY WE'VE GOT.
MISTER A KILEY THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND WE WOULD
DISAGREE WITH US SENATOR WIENERS
A POINT OF VIEW ON THIS.
FIRST AND FOREMOST I READ MY
TESTIMONY AND I QUOTE DISORDER
DOES NOT APPLY THE OPEN INTERNET
RULES TO INNER CONNECTION
UNQUOTE THAT WAS IN BLACK AND
WHITE IN THE FCC ORDER.
AND SO THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION
ON INNER CONNECTION.
ON THE ISSUE OF ZERO RATING --
IN FACT THEY SPECIFICALLY AT THE
FCC YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THIS
ISSUE AND THEY DID NOT PROHIBIT
ZERO RATING NOW THE SUGGESTION.
THAT A TNT WAS UNDER SOME FORM
OF INVESTIGATION.
THE FCC MADE AN INQUIRY OF A. T.
AND T. EIGHTEEN T. RESPONDED TO
THAT INQUIRY AND IT WAS STAFF
BACK AND FORTH A COUPLE OF TIMES
WITH A. T. AND T..
THERE WAS NO STAFF
RECOMMENDATION TO THE FCC THE
FCC TOOK NO ACTION OR
ENFORCEMENT AGAINST A TNT WE
WERE NEVER FORMALLY CHARGED OR
ACCUSED OF ANY VIOLATION.
IN FACT INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH ONE
ZERO RATING AND FREE DATA AT
EIGHTEEN T. AND I SUSPECT IT'S
TRUE OF ALL THE COMPETITORS WE
HAVE AN OPEN ANTI DISCRIMINATION
POLICY SO ANY CONTENT PROVIDER.
GET NOW ZERO RATING WITH A TNT
FOR THE IDENTICAL PRICES.
WITH NO DATA CAPS WHATSOEVER.
AND SO EVERYBODY WHETHER YOU'RE
SMALL OR LARGE CAN ACCESS THE
PLATFORM AND PROVIDE
[inaudible]
CONTENT.
WITH A ZERO RATING PROGRAM THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS ZERO
RATING IS BASICALLY A MARKETING
PLAN WERE CONTACT A CONTENT
COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO PROMOTE
THEIR PRODUCT. TO AN ISP'S
CUSTOMER AND THE CUSTOMER
BENEFITS BY GETTING ZIP FREE
DATA OUT OF THE DEAL IF AND ONLY
IF.
THEY CHOOSE TO SIGN UP FOR FOR
ZERO RATING AND BY THE WAY.
THE FALLACY OF THIS WHOLE
CONVERSATION IS NO ONE IS BLOCK
IF A CONTENT PROVIDER CHOOSES
NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A ZERO
RATING PROGRAM AND MANY DON'T.
THEY HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS TO
THE PLATFORM.
UNLIMITED NO CONSUMERS EVER
BLOCKED NO CONSUMERS EVER DENIED
ACCESS.
I WOULD SUGGEST OF THE MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE AND I'LL MAKE
THIS MY FINAL COMMENT RESPONSE
YOUR QUESTION.
THINK ABOUT YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE
ON THE INTERNET.
YOU'RE NEVER BLOCKS YOU GO
ANYWHERE YOU WANT COLLECT ANY
CONTENT YOU WANT AT ANY TIME YOU
WANT THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE'S
MASSIVE VIOLATIONS.
IS INACCURATE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
THANK YOU AND I ALSO ONE
QUESTION FOR THE AWARENESS FROM
US STANFORD THAT WERE YOU
INVOLVED IN --
THE IN CRAFTING THE BOMB ERA
ORDERED YOU TESTIFIED FOR THE
FCC ANYWAY IN THAT.
YES SO I DID TESTIFY IN FRONT OF
THE FCC YES AND I WAS INVOLVED
IN THE IN THAT PROCEEDING.
AND WERE THERE ANY --
POLICIES THAT.
OR THERE THAT DID MAKE IT INTO
THAT ORDER BUT ARE PART OF THIS
BILL LIKE OF THE ORIGINAL OR
AMENDED VERSION.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION --
A LOT OF THE PROPOSALS THAT.
ME AND I AND YOU KNOW I THEN AND
NEUTRALITY PROPONENTS PUT
FORWARD WERE EMBODIED IN THE
ORDER THAT THEY WERE IN THIS
BILL AND THEY WERE CUT LAST WEEK.
SO I THINK THAT SO IF YOU NEED
THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF IT --
ON ZERO RATING ABSENT OF WE NOT
ICING BECAUSE TRY TO SAVE THE
THE BILL PICKS UP WHERE THE
OBAMA F..
LEFT OFF AND I JUST WANNA
RESPOND TO THIS IDEA THAT YEAH
LEGALISTIC WAY I MEAN THERE WAS
THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU WAS
LOOKING AT WHAT YOU WERE DOING
WAS SENDING LETTERS TO YOU.
THOSE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
WERE NEVER FORMALLY BROUGHT TO
AN END BECAUSE THEN THE FCC
CHANGED WHAT DID HAPPEN WAS THAT
THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN
JANUARY TWENTY SEVENTEEN ONE OF
THE FINAL SAYINGS.
THE OBAMA CC DID WAS PUBLISHER
REPORT THAT WAS CALLED.
POLICY REVIEW OF MOBILE
BROADBAND OPERATORS SPONSORED
DATA OFFERINGS FOR ZERO RATED
CONTENT AND SERVICES AND SO
THAT'S WHAT.
SENATE HAVE WE NOT IS REFERRING.
TO SO LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK
FOR A SECOND AND TALK ABOUT WHAT
HE HANDED OUT WHICH WAS.
THIS QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU
TRANSLATE THE ORDER INTO LAW.
I WHEN YOU DON'T WANT THE
REGULATORY AGENCY TO DEAL WITH
THIS KIND OF STUFF.
SO ONE OF THE BIG MARCHING
ORDERS FOR THIS BILL WERE WE DO
NOT WANT A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION TO HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID
LOOK GUYS I AM NOT A REGULATED.
I WON'T BE ABLE TO DO LONG YEAR
LONG PROCEEDINGS TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT ALL THESE THINGS MEAN.
SO TO THE EXTENT PLEASE THAT YOU
CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
ON THINGS LIKE SEWER RATING.
I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE DOT.
AND SO IN THAT SENSE.
THE BILL IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT
DOES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
ON ZERO RATING THAT IS MODELED
AFTER WHAT THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN
OR THAT DID.
ARM YOUR BY DOTS STUDIO --
I THINK OF IT I I I I THINK.
WE HAVE TO BE MORE BRIGHT LINE
IN SOME RESPECTS THAN THE FCC
BECAUSE AND AGAIN IT WOULD BE
EASIER IF WE JUST GAVE IT ALL
AND CENTER DALY OWNS ORIGINAL
BILL.
A HIS ORIGINAL VERSION THAT DOES
IT DOES SAID THAT THE CPC'S HAVE
A PROCEEDING.
AND YOU KNOW ADOPT ALL THESE
RULES AND EVA UTILITIES SAU
REGULATOR.
NO ONE WANTED THAT ON EITHER
SIDE THE PROPONENTS OF WHAT
WE'RE DOING THE OPPONENTS EVER
THAT WAS THE ONE AREA OF COMMON
GROUND --
AND SO THAT WAS TAKEN OUT SO AS
A RESULT --
WERE BECAUSE IT IS BEING --
AND THAT'S IT A CHOICE THAT'S
PRETTY UNIVERSALLY EMBRACED IN
THIS BUILDING AROUND THE CPUC.
A LOT YOU HAVE TO BE --
MUCH CLEARER IN SOME RESPECTS
THAN YOU WOULD IF YOU'RE JUST
SAYING HEY CPUC YOU FIGURE IT
OUT BUT TO BE VERY VERY CLEAR.
THE FCC WAS BEGINNING
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AROUND ZERO
RATING --
THE FCC TOM WHEELER CONFIRMS AYE
CONFIRMS AND IN THE SECOND
LETTER HE SAT.
AND WITH RESPECT TO
INTERCONNECTION IT YOU KNOW IT'S
RIGHT IN THE TEXT OF THE ORDER.
THAT SAYS OUR ASSERTION OF
AUTHORITY OVER INTERNET TRAFFIC
EXCHANGE PRACTICES WHICH IS A
FANCY WAY OF SAYING
INTERCONNECTION.
ADDRESSES THE QUESTION BY
PROVIDING US WITH THE NECESSARY
CASE BY CASE ENFORCEMENT TOLD TO
IDENTIFY PRACTICES THAT MAY
CONSTITUTE SUCH A VISION OF NET
NEUTRALITY.
AND ADDRESS THEM NOT BASICALLY
INTERNET CONNECTION AGREEMENTS
ARE ESSENTIAL THEY'RE IMPORTANT
BUT IF THEY'RE USED TO EVADE
NEUTRALITY PAY ME MONEY OR MY
CUSTOMERS WON'T SEE YOUR WEBSITE
RATHER GREATER TRAFFIC.
AND ON LETTER FROM TOM WHEELER
THAT ARE WE TO SCIENCE.
DOTS Y. IN OUR TWENTY FIFTEEN
OPEN INTERNET ORDER.
THE FCC ASSERTED JURISDICTION
OVER THE DEMANDS THAT BROADBAND
COMPANIES CAN PUT INTO
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS.
IT WAS IN THE TWENTY FIFTEEN
ORDER ABSOLUTELY --
AND AND SO IT WAS IN THERE WE
HAVE --
WE'VE TAKEN SOME EXACT OUT OF
THE ORDER IN TERMS OF OUR
INTERNET CONNECTION --
LANGUAGES SO YOU CANNOT USE THE
POINT OF OUR CONNECTION TO OBEY
NET NEUTRALITY SO NOTHING EVER
ALIGNS PERFECTLY WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING WITH THE FCC VERSUS THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IS ALWAYS
GOOD.
BUT WE WE HAVE REALLY TRIED.
VERY HARD TO TRACK THE TO AND
THERE ARE OTHER AREAS WE HAVE
GOT INTO TODAY I DON'T WANT TO
PROLONG THIS THAT WERE SLICED
OUT LAST WEEK.
WEEP AND ONE EXAMPLE GIVEN ARE
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER AND OUR
BILL PROHIBITED CHARGING ACCESS
FEES TO REACH CUSTOMERS SELF I'M.
AYE NICE P. AND I SAY HEY YOUR
WEBSITE IF YOU WANT MY CUSTOMERS
SEE IT YOU HAVE TO PAY ME A FATE.
THAT WAS BANNED BY TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER WAS BANNED IN A
SPEED --
TWENTY TWO AND THE COMMITTEE
LAST WEEK TOOK THAT OUT THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS LIKE
THAT.
THANK YOU JUST DIED AT METRO
GIVE THE WITNESS CHANCE TO
FINISH OUT WHERE THERE ARE WE
GONNA LIST ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF
THE ZERO RATING WHERE YOU
TESTIFIED FOR THEIR AND DIDN'T
MAKE IT IN VOTES PART OF THE
BILL HERE.
YES SO THE THERE IS ONE ADDITION
ALL --
SAYING WHICH IS THE USER PAID
USER CONTROL QUALITY OF SERVICE.
WHICH IS IN SECTION.
SEVENTY SEVENTY SEVEN A AND THIS
BILL WHAT THIS MEANS IS
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY.
THE ICE FEES HAVE I ASKED FOR
CLARIFICATION IN THE TWENTY
SEVENTEEN PROCEEDING WHEN THEY
STILL THOUGHT.
THE ODD --
THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ANY
CHILD WHO RULES AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL SO WHAT THIS THAT SECTION
OFF THE BILL DOES IS TO SAY
[inaudible]
LOOK.
WHAT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS WHO
GETS TO CHOOSE WHAT KIND OF DATA
AS POTENT A FOSS LANE AND TO
GETS TO PAY?
FOR WE DON'T WANT THE ICE PIECE
TO DETERMINE WHO GETS PRIORITY
ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE THE
INCENTIVES DON'T ALIGN WITH
CUSTOMERS DOTS Y. WE PROHIBIT
THE SLOWING DOWN OF APPLICATIONS
AND CLASSES OF APPLICATIONS.
AND WE ARE WORRIED THAT IF YOU
CHARGE.
HOW THE WEBSITES AND SERVICES
FOR A FAST LANE?
DODD WILL PUT EVERYBODY WHO KIND
OF FOR TO PAY FOR THE FAST LANE
SMALL BUSINESSES START UPS --
ACTIVISTS IN SPEAKERS WITHOUT
THE POCKETS THAT WILL PUT THEM
AS A DISADVANTAGE THAT'S WHY THE
FCC ADOPTED THIS BAN ON POPPY
TRADE HAS ASIAN [inaudible]
BUT THOSE KINDS OF CONCERNS
DON'T APPLY IF WE PUT CUSTOMERS
IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT.
SO IF AND I S. P. GIVES US.
THE USERS OF THE INTERNET THE
ABILITY TO SAY PAPER.
TODAY I'M HAVING A SKY CHO WAS
MY FRIEND I DON'T CARE AS MUCH
OF IT IF SO IF.
I HAVE DROPPED CALLS SO I JUST
USE THE NORMAL SERVICE BUT IF
I'M DOING A JOB INTERVIEW ON
SKYPE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE NO
DELAYS SO THAT THE CALL DOESN'T
OFFER AND SO ON SO.
SINCE.
TWENTY TEN BOTH MY NEUTRALITY
OPPONENTS AND NET NEUTRALITY
OPPONENTS HAVE AGREED.
DODD ANOTHER THREE CONDITIONS
LINED OUT IN THE BILL THESE
FORMS OFF WE QUALITY OF CONTROL
GIUSEPPE QUALITY OF SERVICE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE TWENTY TEN
OF CC ALLOW THESE KINDS OF
SERVICES.
I HAD AUGUST ALONG WITH OTHERS
THE SEC TO CLARIFY THAT RATHER
THAN KEEPING THESE ON OF THOSE
GENERAL CONDUCT OR THEY SHOULD
CLARIFY.
THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
THEY DID NOT GET TO THAT.
AND SO GIVEN THE ODDS SO IF
THERE SEEMS TO BE UNIFORM
AGREEMENT THAT THESE ARE.
PRO CON SUMA OFFERING STUD
ALLOWS HIGHEST HE'S TO
DIFFERENTIATE THIS SERVICE AND
INNOVATE AND SO OF TWO NEW COOL
STUFF.
I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A NICE
THING TO PUT INTO THE BILL --
WE HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT I WAS
PART OF THE TWENTY FIFTEEN BUT
ENDED WAS NOT.
BUT IT WAS MEANT AS CLARIFYING
SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY AGREES
IS NOT HARMFUL.
AND I PERSONALLY DO THINK I DO
BELIEVE UNCERTAINTY AND I DO
THINK IF WE CAN.
CHAU ICE PIECE OF THAT THERE ARE
THESE PRO CONSUMER WAYS OF
DIFFERENTIATING THEIR SERVICES
AND INNOVATING AND MAKING MONEY
YOU KNOW CHARGING US FOR THOSE
KINDS OF SERVICES NOW TO GET
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SEEING NINE LET ME --
LET ME ALSO THANK THE AUTHOR.
FOR BRINGING THIS A VERY
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION
FORWARD.
ARE A LOT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE
LAST WEEK ABOUT THIS BILL.
AND WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY --
TO HERE FROM MANY STAKEHOLDERS --
AND CONSTITUENTS IN FACT WE
RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS
AND EMAILS HAVE.
A BULLFIGHT INDIA CAPITOL OFFICE
AS WELL AS THE DID AS WELL AS
THE DISTRICT OFFICE.
AND FACT A NUMBER OF THEM ARE
REQUESTED.
THAT WE ARE THE COMMITTEE THAT
IS SO TRY TO UNDO SOME OF THE
ACTIONS OF THE LAST COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE A
FEW MOMENTS TO BASICALLY.
SHARE MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS ALL
THESE RICH.
OF THESE CONSTITUENTS AND
STAKEHOLDERS.
I AM I THINK THAT FOR THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO WORK
PROPERLY COMMITTEES NEED.
TO OUR LOW FOR ALL AND INTENDED
CONSEQUENCES.
A GIVEN THE STAKEHOLDERS HEAVY
AND PERSONAL STAKES IN ANY GIVEN
ISSUE.
NOW THE PROCESS DOESN'T WORK IF
WE DON'T ALLOW FOR THE INPUT.
ARE THAT THE INSTITUTION IS
DESIGNED TO PROVIDE.
IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT WORK
IF THE EXPECTATION IS THAT
AMENDMENTS OF ONE COMMUNITY.
ARE CAN BE WHOLLY UNDONE IN THE
NEXT.
WE ARE OBVIOUSLY --
THE AUTHOR HAS NOT THEIR ASKS
DIED WE DO THAT TO TODAY.
ARM AS COMMITTEES HOWEVER WE
SHOULD BE EXPLORING THE VARIOUS
OPTIONS ARE FORWARD.
WHILE RESPECTING THE COMMITTEE
PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMITTEE
HAS SO SUCCESSFULLY SUGGESTED A
POSSIBLE POSSIBLE PATH FORWARD.
AYE INDIANAPOLIS'S WE AUTHORED
THE CONSIDER.
ON IF HE CHOOSES TO IN THE
FUTURE.
IT IS ALSO MY BELIEVE THAT THESE
AMENDMENTS WOULD ACCOMPLISH OF
BOTH WHAT THE AUTHOR SEEKS TO
ACCOMPLISH YA AND ALSO WHAT THE
PROPONENTS HAVE ASKED.
NAMELY TO ADHERE TO THE TWENTY
FIFTEEN FCC ORDER.
OUR TO ITS FULLEST EXTENT.
OF BUT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH
THE DIRECTION OF THE LAST
COMMITTEE.
AND THE DESIRE TO ENSURE THAT
THE BILL DOES NOT GO FURTHER
THAN THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER.
I THINK ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF
THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS --
HIS THAT THEY TENDER REMOVE THE
NEED. FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO TRY
TO SYNTHESIZE A LARGE REGULATORY
DOCUMENT THAT IS HOLY REFLECTIVE.
OF THE FCC SELL FOR ACTION.
HI PERSONALLY LEARNED HOW
DIFFICULT THAT IS AND SEEN HOW
MUCH STAKEHOLDERS MAY DISAGREE
AS WE HAVE SEEN HERE TODAY.
AS TO WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE FCC ORDER.
ARM WHEN I ENGAGE IN A SIMILAR
AND HARD FIGHT THAT BATTLE TO
PROTECT PRIVACY RIGHTS OF
CONSUMERS.
A WHOSE PERSONAL INFORMATION IS
COLLECTED AND SOLD BY BUSINESSES.
A PROTECTIONS WHICH WERE
SIMILARLY ROLLBACK --
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST
LAST YEAR.
NOW THAT BEING SAID I'VE --
I'M NOT ASKING THE AUTHOR TO
TAKE THE AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED IN
THE ANALYSIS.
OUR AS A COMEDIAN MEN MEN.
BECAUSE YET THOUGH I THINK THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COPYING.
ALL THREE HUNDRED PLUS PAGES OF
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER.
AREN'T WORTH FORWARD TO INTO
CALIFORNIA LAW.
OUR WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT
THOSE CPUC AS WE HEARD EARLIER.
AND ALSO RE CLASSIFICATION.
AND THE SIMPLE REFERENCE SO
CROSS REFERENCE TO THE LAW AND
TELLING EYES PEAS.
OUR IN CALIFORNIA TO COMPLY
WITHOUT LAW [inaudible]
ARE.
S. WE HEARD FROM THE AUTHOR
EARLY TODAY ARE HE IS WILLING TO
MOVE FORWARD.
OUR IN COMMITTEE WITH THE BILL
AND PRINT --
BUT WISHES TO CONTINUE OUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE THE CHAIR
OF THE PRIOR COMMITTEE.
HOW TO ENSURE FROM THE AUTHOR'S
PERSPECTIVE BUT THE TO THE BILL
IS AS STRONG AS THEIRS TWENTY
FIFTEEN ORDER?
I UNDERSTAND FULLY THAT DESIRE
AND I ASK THAT THE THE ALL.
INCLUDE THIS COMMITTEE.
AS WE GO FORWARD.
SAID THAT WE COULD --
MAKE ALL CONTRIBUTIONS OUT TO
THE EXTENT WE CAN.
SO I WOULD THAT SET UP I'D LIKE
TO ASK YOU.
TO A CLOSE OUR ALLIES THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEES.
AND I ALSO NEED A MOTION TO MOVE
THIS BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN MOVED
BY MISTER A MULLIN EARLIER.
TYPE I NEED A SECOND.
HOPE YOU HAVE TAKE YOU THROUGH I
DO I HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND IT SO YOU MAY CLOSE UP
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
DOT YES WE WILL --
BE WORKING CLOSELY WE ALREADY
ARE BEGINNING THAT PROCESS WITH
MISTER SANTIAGO AND WE STRONGLY
WELCOME THE PARTICIPATION OF YOU
AND YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF SO WE
APPRECIATE.
OUR THAT WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH US.
I YOU KNOW I I I AGREE ABOUT
BRIDGE COMPETITION IS GREAT.
ARE THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES
THAT ONLY HAVE ONE BRIDGE.
THE LOT OF PLACES IN CALIFORNIA
AND ELSEWHERE THAT ONLY HAVE
EFFECTIVELY.
ONE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
MAYBE THEY HAVE --
TO THE BUT OFTEN THOSE ONE SO
IT'S NOT THE KIND OF OUR FREE
RANGING OPEN MARKET --
DIED CAN OFTEN LEAD TO GOOD
OFFER CONSUMERS.
ARE AND SO WHEN YOU DO.
HAVE.
EITHER ONE BRIDGE OR MAYBE OF A
BRIDGE IT'S FAR AWAY FROM OTHER
BRIDGE IS SO IT'S EFFECTIVELY A
MONOPOLY OR MAYBE IT'S A DUOPOLY.
AND THEN THE BRIDGE THAT SAYS
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GONNA BUY A
PRODUCE COMPANY.
BECAUSE I WANT TO DO THAT --
AND I'M GONNA SAY THAT ONLY MY
PRODUCE CUTS ACROSS THE BRIDGE.
THOSE OTHER GUYS THEIR PRODUCE
SOMETHING UP ACROSS THE BRIDGE
OR WIN A CHARGE ON BOAT LOAD OF
MONEY. TO DO IT.
I AND IF THEY DON'T PAY AT AND
THEY CAN'T CROSS THE BRIDGE.
AND I'M GONNA COMPLAIN THAT IF
THEY'RE NOT PAYING US NOT MONEY
OF WERE NOT ALLOWED.
TO GET THE MONEY OUT OF THEM
THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RAISE
YOUR PRICES --
THAT THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE THIS IS ABOUT
WE WANT.
OPEN COMPETITION.
AND YOUR OF OPEN COMPETITION
WHERE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A
MONOPOLY OR A DUOPOLY.
ON WHAT INFORMATION GETS TO YOU.
DON'T HAVE RULES.
TELLING THEM NO YOU CAN'T DO
THAT.
THAT'S ANTI CONSUMER ITS ANTI
INNOVATION IT'S ANTI --
COMPETITION YOU CAN DO THAT AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE IT IS HOT.
THOSE BRIEFS AGROUND OR THAT I
AGREE WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CALDERON YOU THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT UP.
WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY IF THE
SAME PEOPLE OF KIM COMPANIES
OPPOSING THIS BILL HADN'T GONE.
TO THE TRUMP FCC AND SAID PLEASE
GET RID OF THE OBAMA NET
NEUTRALITY ORDER STATE IN SUCH
STOP NOT SAGA THEY PLAYED A KEY
ROLE IN MAKING IT HAPPEN AND
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO DO THAT IT'S
A FREE COUNTRY TO DEMOCRACY IN
THAT.
THAT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD TO
THE POSITION BUT THEN YOU CAN
COME BACK AND SAY.
DON'T HAVE A PATCHWORK THAT
PATRICK WAS CREATED BY THIS.
A VACUUM AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO
SAY AND I'M GOING TO RAISE IT
HERE SHE'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
PASS SOMETHING AND GET THE
GOVERNOR TO DECIDE.
I KNOW THAT IMPLICIT IN WHAT SHE
SAID WAS SOMETHING THAT I
ACTUALLY GOT THE JOB DONE ON I'M
NOT INTERESTED AND I'VE SAID
THIS BEFORE IF THIS BILL REMAINS
THE WAY IT IS TODAY --
I WILL WITHDRAW.
ON BECAUSE IT IS NOT WORTH PASS
AND ACTUALLY GET THE JOB DONE --
AND SO I AM COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH BOTH COMMITTEES --
AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO PASS A
STRONG THAT NEUTRALITY BILL THAT
WE CAN BE PROUD OF AND BE A
LEADER IN THE NATION SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR LIBEL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF A NATION
IS TO PASS --
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL REAL.
MOTION IS DE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CHAO AYE CHAU AYE
KILEY.
KILEY NO BAKER.
BAKER AYE BERMAN.
BERMAN AYE CALDERON.
CALDERON AYE GABRIEL.
GABRIEL I IRWIN --
WHEN I AM MULLIN?
MULLIN I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO [inaudible]
REYES.
YOUR BILL IS HOUSE SEVENTY TWO
WILL LEAVE THE ROAD OPEN THANK
YOU VERY MUCH JOHN THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES [inaudible]
ALL [inaudible] OH SURE
[inaudible]
YEAH.
SENATOR HAS JUST WALKED IN
[inaudible]
OKAY FINE
[inaudible]
ALRIGHT [inaudible]
MARGARET [inaudible]
SELECT CHIU.
WE JUST DIDN'T GO --
OKAY
[inaudible]
HOME [inaudible]
YEAH DOT
[inaudible]
SURE AND WHEN THAT
.
I NOTICE --
SENATOR HILL IS HERE ON AND HE'S
GOING TO PRESENT ON SP ELEVEN
EIGHTY SIX A WELCOME SIGN TO
HELP.
YOU VERY MUCH MISTER CHAIR AND A
IN COLLEAGUES AT THE ELEVEN
EIGHTIES.
SURE IS THAT STATE LAW KEEPS UP
WITH THE LAUNCH WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT ADOPTION
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES.
SURVEILLANCE TACTICS ARE
EVOLVING RAPIDLY AND HAVE
SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS ON
INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
WHILE SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT WE
HAVE NO REASONABLE RIGHT TO
THE BREATH AND PERVASIVENESS OF
SURVEILLANCE TODAY CHALLENGES
THIS NOTION.
THE POLICE WANT TO SEARCH YOUR
PHONE YOUR CAR OR YOUR HOUSE
THEY HAVE TO GET A WARRANT.
BUT MANY AGENCIES HAVE
TECHNOLOGY THE CONTRACT WHERE
YOU GO WHO YOU TALK TO AND WHAT
YOU SAY IN PUBLIC PLACES WITHOUT
ANY SAFEGUARDS.
IN A LANDMARK DECISION LAST WEEK
THE US SUPREME COURT RULED LAW
ENFORCEMENT NEEDS A WARRANT.
IF IT WANTS TO TRACK IN
INDIVIDUALS LOCATION THROUGH
CELLPHONE RECORDS.
WELL THE DECISION NARROWLY
APPLIES TO CELL PHONE LOCATION
DATA THERE ARE THEMES IN THE
COURT'S DECISION THAT ARE
APPLICABLES SB.
ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX WELL THE COURT
NOTES THAT PRIVACY RIGHTS ARE
DIMINISHED WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS
IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN ALL FOURTH
AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS ARE
SURRENDER.
THE OPINION SAYS THAT
INDIVIDUALS HAVE REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE
WHOLE OF THEIR PHYSICAL
MOVEMENTS.
THE COURT ADDS THAT TRACKING
SOMEONE WITH SUCH INVASIVE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OVER
TIME NOT ONLY REVEALS MOVEMENTS
BUT ALSO FAMILIAL.
POLITICAL PROFESSIONAL RELIGIOUS
AND SEXUAL ASSOCIATIONS.
THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY HAVE UNPRECEDENTED
IMPACTS ON OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS IT
CAN CAPTURE A DETAILED LOG OF
YOUR ACTIONS EVERY DAY EVERY
MOMENT AND OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
GEN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
CAPTURES DATA ON EVERYONE IN ITS
PATH NOT JUST THOSE SUBJECT TO
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
IT IS ONLY FAIR.
THAT SUCH SWEEPING ABILITY TO
MONITOR CITIZENS IS DONE WITH
TRANSPARENCY AND RESPECT FOR
PRIVATE PERSONAL PRIVACY SB
ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX WILL REQUIRE
THAT SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES
BE SUBJECT.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND LOCAL
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW.
WITH BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
THE LEGISLATURE ESTABLISHED
TRANSPARENCY RULES FOR AUTOMATED
LICENSE PLATE READERS.
AND CELL PHONE INTERCEPTED VICES
THESE LAWS REQUIRE SIMPLE
DISCLOSURES LIKE THE AUTHOR
RIGHT AUTHORIZED PURPOSE OF
USING THIS SURVEILLANCE.
HOW THE LOCAL AGENCY WERE
MONITOR USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY?
AND HOW INFORMATION WILL BE
STORED AND SHARED.
WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE AND
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS S. B.
ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX APPLIES THE
SAME POLICY IN PLACE FOR LICENSE
PLATE READERS.
AND CELLPHONE INTERCEPTED BY SIR
TO ALL SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES AN
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE PROVISION
TO ALLOW THE USE OF UNAPPROVED
SURVEILLANCE DEVICES IN
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.
LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS WILL
ARGUE THAT CREATING TRANSPARENCY
PROVIDES A SURVEILLANCE ROAD MAP
TO CRIMINALS.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE THE MERE
KNOWLEDGE OF A POLICE TACTIC
DOES NOT RENDER IT USELESS.
THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS MANDATING
THE DISCLOSURE OF WIRE TAPS AND
LICENSE PLATE READERS AND BOTH
TECHNOLOGIES STILL HELP CATCH
CRIMINALS.
SOME CONCERNS MAY ALSO BE
EXPRESSED BY THE BREATH OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES
COVERED BY THE BILL.
S. B. ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX
RECOGNIZES THE WIDE EVER
CHANGING ARRAY OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES AT THE DISPOSAL OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT NOW AND IN THE
FUTURE.
THE GOAL IS TO BE SPECIFIC
ENOUGH TO CAPTURE THE
APPROPRIATE SURVEILLANCE DEVICES
BUT NOT NARAL NOT OVERLY
PRESCRIPTIVE.
SURE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RUN A
BILL EACH TIME AND NEW
TECHNOLOGIES INVENTED I LIKE TO
MAKE ONE THING VERY CLEAR.
THIS BILL DOES NOT PROHIBIT LONG
FORSMAN FROM USING SICK
TECHNOLOGY SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY TO FIGHT CRIME.
SIMPLY TAKES EXISTING STANDARDS
FOR LICENSE PLATE READERS AND
CELLPHONE INTERCEPTED VICES.
IN APPLIES INTO ALL SURVEILLANCE
DEVICES.
AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS
CONSISTENTLY RULED ARKANSAS
CONSTITUTION SEEKS TO SECURE THE
* PRIVACY'S OF LIFE AGAINST
ARBITRARY POWER.
ADDITIONALLY A CENTRAL GOAL OF
THE FRAMERS WAS TO PLACE
OBSTACLES IN THE WAY.
OF A TWO PERMEATING SURVEY
POLICE SURVEILLANCE.
WE NEED TO KEEP THESE PRINCIPLES%
IN MIND AS NEW TECHNOLOGY FORCES
US TO EXAMINE PRIVACY RIGHTS IN
THIS DIGITAL AGE.
I SUPPORT USING TECHNOLOGY TO
INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY BUT WE
NEED TO SAFEGUARD BASIC CIVIL
LIBERTIES FROM POTENTIAL ABUSES
I DO HAVE WITNESSES AND SOME.
CHAIR THANK YOU FOR THE
INDULGENCE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
OUR LET'S GO TO OUR FIRST
WITNESS PLEASE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS KEVIN BAKER FOR THE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF CALIFORNIA WE ARE IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL IS TO COMMITTEES
ANALYSIS REFLECTS.
THIS IS A BILL THAT'S REALLY
ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL THROUGH
LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS I'M AS
THE BEST WAY TO ENSURE THAT
LOCAL VALUES AND PRIORITIES ARE
REFLECTED IN LOCAL AND PUBLIC
SAFETY DECISIONS.
IN ADDITION TO THE CONCERNS THAT
US UNDER HILL A OUTLINED A JUST
NOTE.
THAT THE COLLECTION OF THIS
INFORMATION HAS.
RAMIFICATIONS IN IT AN EVEN
BROADER WAYS AND SOME. FOR
EXAMPLE WHEN --
THESE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MIGHT
USED LICENSE PLATE READERS FOR
EXAMPLE WE'VE SEEN THAT THE
IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS HAVE
TAPPED INTO THAT DATABASE AND
ARE USING THAT INFORMATION TO
TRACK IMMIGRANTS FOR ENFORCEMENT.
EFFORTS IN --
IN CALIFORNIA --
AND IN OUR EFFORTS TO TRY TO GET
SOME SUNSHINE ON THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ACTUALLY --
FORCED TO SUE A ICE ON FOR
ACCESS TO THOSE PUBLIC RECORD SO
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IS
VERY SENSITIVE AND AND HAS
RAMIFICATIONS OF WAYS THAT YOU
KNOW MAY NOT BE APPARENT --
AT FIRST BLUSH AND WE BELIEVE
THAT THIS BILL IS ESSENTIAL FOR
TRANSPARENCY ACCOUNTABILITY AND
AND PUBLIC TRUST IT'S VERY
SIMILAR TO THE BILL THAT YOU I
SAW AND APPROVED LAST YEAR AND
WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU MY CHAIR NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MY NAME IS CATHERINE
CRIER BUT I'M AN ASSISTANT
CLINICAL PROFESSOR AT BERKELEY
LAW SCHOOL RIGHT DIRECT THE
SAMUELSON CLINIC FOR LAW
TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC POLICY.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB ELEVEN
EIGHTY SIX WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
TO OBTAIN PUBLIC APPROVAL WHEN
THEY ADOPT SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
I AM ONE OF MORE THAN A DOZEN
CALIFORNIA BASED LAW PROFESSORS
AND INFORMATION SCHOOL
PROFESSORS AND AFFILIATES
INCLUDING DEAN IRWIN CHEMERINSKY
TO JOIN A LETTER SUPPORTING THIS
BILL.
AS NEW TECHNOLOGIES MAKE IT EVER
EASIER TO COLLECT RETAIN SHARE
AND ANALYZE INFORMATION ABOUT
PRIVATE CITIZENS WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT AND OFTEN WITHOUT THEIR
KNOWLEDGE.
S. B. ELEVEN EIGHTY SIX WHO PUT
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND
THREW THEM THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
I IN CHARGE OF DECIDING WHEN TO
DEPLOY THESE POWERFUL
TECHNOLOGIES IN CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES.
TODAY'S SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE NOT MARGINAL
IMPROVEMENTS ON EXISTING TOOLS.
THEIR REAL GAME CHANGERS FOR
EXAMPLE WITH AN AUTOMATIC
LICENSE PLATE READER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CAN WITH
LITTLE EFFORT AND LITTLE EXPENSE
LOG MILLIONS OF LOCATION
TRACKING DATA POINTS ABOUT WHERE
INDIVIDUALS TRAVEL ON MASS SCALE
WITH NO SUSPICION.
LICENSE PLATE READERS CAN HELP
COMBAT CRIME.
BUT THEY CAN ALSO IMPLICATE
IMPORTANT AND CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS.
WHEN LONG FORSMAN AGENCIES USE A
LICENSE PLATE READER TO LOG
ATTENDEES AT A MOSQUE AS HAS
HAPPENED IN THE PAST THEY
IMPLICATE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
USE LICENSE PLATE READERS TO LOG
ATTENDEES AS A POLITICAL AT A
POLITICAL PROTEST WHICH HAS ALSO
HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT
IMPLICATES FREE SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY?
AT AND AS MISTER BAKER MENTIONED
IN A WORLD WHERE IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES ARE WELL DOCUMENTED
USERS OF SHARED LICENSE PLATE
READER DATA A STATE THAT HAS
PROCLAIM ITSELF STINKS YOU A
STATE.
OUGHT TO BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL
ABOUT WITH WHOM THEY SHARE THIS
TYPE OF INFORMATION.
DEPLOYMENT OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY RAISES THORNY ISSUES
ABOUT VALUES THOSE VALUES
INCLUDE PUBLIC SAFETY BUT THEY
ALSO INCLUDE FREE SPEECH PRIVACY
AND OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES.
IT TAKES NOTHING AWAY FROM LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO SAY
THAT ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE AN
IMPORTANT VOICE IN DECIDING HOW
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IS
DEPLOYED.
THEY SHOULD NOT BEAR SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING THESE
TRADE OFFS.
THESE SORTS OF IMPORTANT
DECISIONS ARE EXACTLY THE TYPE
OF DECISIONS WE EXPECT LOCAL OF
REP ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO
MAKE THEIR THE RIGHT PEOPLE FOR
THE JOB BECAUSE THEIR BEST
INFORMED ABOUT THINGS.
LIKE THE LEVEL OF LOCAL CRIME
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE
COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITIES
VALUES [inaudible]
UP THIS BILL IS PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF ACTIONS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS MY
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS SPENT BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS --
TO MAKE AID AVAILABLE TO LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES --
TO ACQUIRE POLICE EQUIPMENT AND
MELODY OFTEN IN THE NAME OF
COMBATING TERRORISM BUT THAT
EQUIPMENT IS MORE OFTEN USED BY
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
IN ROUTINE POLICE SURVEILLANCE.
AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT
MONEY HAS LOOSENED LOCAL CONTROL
OVER POLICE SURVEILLANCE THIS
BILL WOULD BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION AND HELPING TO WRITE
THE BALANCE.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING FROM ME
TODAY AND I LOOK FOR TO
ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTER OF THE LEGISLATION
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NONE ARE OPPOSITION LIKE
TO INVITE YOU TO COME UP PER
.
WELCOME ANYTIME YOU'RE READY YOU
MAY PROCEED.
SURE MEMBERS JONATHAN FELT OF
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION WE ARE IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
I ONE OF OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS IS
THAT.
BY FORCING US.
TO SPEAK ABOUT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES IN FRONT OF A LOCAL
GOVERNING BOARD OF PUBLIC
HEARING.
WHERE ANYONE CAN ASK ANY
QUESTIONS ANYTHING TO BE
DISCUSSED?
ARE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE HAVE
TO DEVOTE SOME OF OUR TACTICS
ARE STRATEGIES BEHIND THE USE OF
THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
ALTHOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRED
OF US IN THE BILL.
I COULD HAPPEN AND BECAUSE THE
BILL SO BROAD AND COVER SO MANY
DIFFERENT TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY
UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS BILLS WHICH
WE HAVE WORKED ON AND A
COMPROMISED ON AND ACTUALLY --
WE'RE PART OF THAT SUCCESSFUL
PROCESS BUT IT WAS A PLACE THIS
ONE IS JUST SO BROAD WE HAVE WE
HAVE.
GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT HAS ON SOME OF
THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S EMERGING
NOW IN SOME STUFF THAT COULD
COME IN THE FUTURE.
WE TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE
PROPONENTS TALK ABOUT THIS BEING
ALL ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL.
THERE'S LOCAL CONTROL INVOLVED
RIGHT NOW ON THE USE OF THIS
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ANY CITY
COUNCIL CAN GO TO THE POLICE
CHIEF AND ASK THEM WHAT ARE YOU
USING HOW ARE USING IT OR SET
SOME KIND OF POLICY IN PLACE
RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS.
PRESCRIBING UPON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT EXACTLY HOW YOU HAVE
TO DO THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY
TYING THEIR HANDS ITS NOT --
GIVING THEM MORE CONTROL IT'S
GIVING THEM LESS CONTROL.
WE TALKED ABOUT --
THE AUTHOR TALK ABOUT THE COURTS
COMING UP WITH A DECISION
LIMITING OUR USE OF CERTAIN
TECHNOLOGY THE COURTS ARE.
WHERE WE HAVE HISTORICALLY SEEN --
LIMITS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT USE.
OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY INTO
THE PRIVATE.
LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS DRAW THE
LINE WHAT WE THINK IS
APPROPRIATE.
WE CANNOT VIOLATE SOMEONE'S
RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
THAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.
AND THE COURTS HAVE BEEN THE THE
BODY THAT HAS HISTORICALLY COME
TO SET THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE
IN PLACE FOR OUR USE --
FOR EXAMPLE I CANNOT COME PARK
OUTSIDE SOMEONE IF I WAS LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAN'T COMPARTO PARK
OUTSIDE OF SOMEONE'S HOUSE WITH
THERMAL RADAR AND FIND OUT WHERE
THEY ARE INSIDE THE HOUSE
WITHOUT A WARRANT.
I CAN'T VIOLATE THEIR PRIVACY
JUST BECAUSE I HAVE SOME
TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD DO IT.
THERE ARE LIMITS IN PLACE IN THE
COURTS OF SET THOSE LIMBS AND
WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME
CONCERNS BECAUSE THE COURTS
AREN'T ALWAYS AWARE OF WHAT WE
HAVE.
AND SO IF THIS IS.
THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT.
US DISCLOSING WHAT TYPES OF
TECHNOLOGY IN SURVEILLANCE WERE
HAVING THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE
CAN HAVE BUT THERE A LOT OF
PROBLEMS WITH THIS BILL.
THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE
EXEMPTION IS IS RIDDLED WITH
PROBLEMS.
IT'S IS THE WEEKENDS ONLY USE
WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY THAT REQUIRE
FOR THAT SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
WHICH I MEAN THESE ARE SOMETIMES
VERY EXPENSIVE PIECES OF
TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU CAN'T JUST
PURCHASE.
FOR A FEW DAYS JUST YOU KNOW.
BECAUSE THERE'S AN EMERGENCY AND
INCOME GIVE IT RIGHT BACK I MEAN
THEIR RETURN POLICY IT'S NOT
NORDSTROM'S --
WHICH CAN ONLY COLLECT
INFORMATION THAT SOLELY RELATED
TO THE EMERGENCY SO IF I'M.
A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT
CLAYTON YOU KNOW ACQUIRE SOME
PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY.
BECAUSE IT THERE WAS A
KIDNAPPING I'M LOOKING FOR
SOMEONE BUT ALONG THE ROUTE I
FIND INFORMATION ABOUT.
A SEPARATE MURDER ARE SEPARATE
RATE OR SEPARATE.
KIDNAPPING I CAN'T COLLECT IN
STORE THAT INFORMATION I'VE TO
JETTISON IT BECAUSE THE BILL
DOES NOT ALLOW ITS TO HOLD.
THE BILL SAYS ONLY [inaudible]
A INFORMATION RELATED TO THAT
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE CAN BE
RETAINED --
AND WE HAVE TO RETURN THE
EQUIPMENT WITHIN SEVEN DAYS ARE
AT THE END OF THE EXHAUSTION
CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO AGAIN YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT
JUST TECHNOLOGY CAN PURCHASE FOR
A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN THE
RETURN --
YOU KNOW FOR ALL THOSE REASONS
YOU KNOW WE WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY IS GONNA.
COME WITH SOME SOME NEW
RESTRICTIONS AND THERE HAS TO BE
CONVERSATION ABOUT LAW
ENFORCEMENT USE ONE OF RELATES
TO PRIVACY BUT THIS TECHNOLOGY
IS GONNA HELP US PREVENT SOME
REALLY BAD INCIDENTS FROM
HAPPENING.
I MEAN FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE THE OTHER TYPE OF
DETECTION SYSTEMS THAT WE'RE
GONNA HAVE ON PLACE.
ARE GOING TO SAVE LIVES AND SO
BY PUTTING RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE
THAT ARE.
OVERLY BURDENSOME ARE
PRACTICALLY.
NOT IMPLEMENTABLE ARGH GUN LIMIT
OUR ABILITY TO SAVE LIVES AND
FOR THAT REASON WE ARE STRONGLY
OPPOSED THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU MUCH NEXT WHEN HIS
PLACE THANK MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
SHAUN OFTEN OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION I
WOULD ECHO ALL OF THE CONCERNS
RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUE --
ALSO POINT OUT IN THE CASE OF
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND SHERIFF'S
WE HAVE CONCERNS.
ABOUT THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THIS
LEGISLATION AND GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION TWENTY FIVE THREE A
THREE WHICH IS VERY EXPLICIT IN.
THAT IT SAYS THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT
THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION OF
THE SHERIFF AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.
WE BELIEVE THAT GIVING A BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS THE A FORTY TO
SAY YES OR NO ON OUR USE OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
VIOLATE SECTION TWENTY FIVE
THREE A THREE I UNDERSTAND THAT
THE BILL SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE
BILL SHALL BE.
SHALL LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF
TWENTY FIVE THREE THREE BUT THEN
IN THAT CASE WERE BEING REQUIRED
TO ASK FOR PERMISSION THAT THEY
CAN'T DENY SO WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WHAT THE
BENEFIT WOULD BE OF DOING THAT.
I SP TWENTY ONE WENT THROUGH
LAST YEAR THAT PROVISION WAS
REMOVED WE HAD TO HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE WE DEPLOY ANY
SORT OF A SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
BUT IT DID NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL
FROM A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS --
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT.
AT LEAST ADDRESSES THE TWENTY
FIVE THREE AND THREE ISSUE WOULD
STILL HAVE CONCERNS --
WITH WITH SORT OF THE THE ROAD
MAP ISSUE THAT --
THE MY COLLEAGUE ALLUDED TO BUT
WE BELIEVE AS DRAFTED THIS BILL
VIOLATES THE AYE INDEPENDENT
AUTHORITY OF THE SHERIFFS AND
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION TWENTY
FIVE THREE A THREE FOR THOSE
REASONS WERE OPPOSED.
I CAN MUCH YEAH ADDITIONAL ON
INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION THAT A
BILL PLEASE COME FORWARD GOOD
AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
RESOLUTION MUCH LARA AT THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCATION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU AN EXPLICIT.
BRADY PARA THERE AGREED
DISSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF POOR
ACTUAR OPPOSED I CAN MUCH NEXT
PLACE.
CHAIRMAN MACHINE LEVINE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CESSATION FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICER
ASSOCIATION SACRAMENTO DEPUTY
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION SO
SURCHARGE COUNTY DEPARTURES
DROPS OF I CAN MUCH NEXT PLACE.
CHAIRMAN MORAL MARSHALL ON
BEHALF OF SHERIFF BILL GORE IN
THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE LIEUTENANT
SHIRLEY SO WILLIAM SAMBAR MEDINA
SHERIFF'S ON BEHALF OF JOHN
MCMAHON.
IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
NEXT PLEASE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN IS NOT THE
CYBERLINK WE HAVE OF THE
ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES
DEPUTY SHERIFFS IN THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE
BOTH THE POST THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MATCHA COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS MISTER OBERNOLTE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR OF
SENATOR I SHARE YOUR CONCERN
ABOUT [inaudible]
PRIVACY AND I AM VERY BADLY WANT
TO GET THERE WITH YOU HERE ON
THIS BILL.
A BUT I'M I'M STRUGGLING A SO.
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO SENATOR
LENO HAD THE ELECTRONIC MICHIGAN
DUPLICATION PRIVACY ACT.
AND I WAS A STRONG SUPPORTER OF
THAT I WAS FLOOR MANAGER OF THE
BILL IN THE ASSEMBLY WAS A HEAVY
LEFT I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT IT
ON CALL.
TWICE BEFORE WE GOT IT --
PASSED THROUGH THE ASSEMBLY ARE
FOUGHT FOR THAT BILL SO I AM A
BELIEVER IN WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO DO --
WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH HERE IS
THAT?
THIS BILL WORDS SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY SO BROADLY.
THAT I THINK IT COVERS A LOT OF
SITUATIONS WHERE.
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR POINT YOUR
YOUR ATTENTION WAS TO PAINT THIS
ISSUE WITH A BROAD BRUSH SO WE
DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
INTERPRETED REINTERPRETED
EVERYTIME WE'VE GOT NEW
TECHNOLOGY.
RELEASED BUT I'M AFRAID THAT
WERE CAPTURED.
PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT AND SAY --
YOU KNOW THAT'S THAT IS A
REASONABLE USE OF TECHNOLOGY HOW
WE ARE TO BE COUPLE EXAMPLES OF
IF SOMEONE.
I'VE TAKES A PICTURE OF A PERSON
IN A BATHROOM STALL WE WE WE THE
COURTS HAVE RULED WE CAN WE ALL
AGREE.
THAT THAT IN A BATHROOM STALL
YOU HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY IF SOMEONE TAKES A
PICTURE OF YOU WALKING INTO A
RESTAURANT.
I THINK THAT PEOPLE WOULD SAY NO
YOU DON'T HAVE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY THERE
YOUR CARS IN THE PARKING LOT OF
MANY PEOPLE SAW YOU WALK IN
THERE PEOPLE IN THE RESTAURANT
THE TO SING DOWN EATING THEIR
DINNER.
THAT SAW YOU SIT DOWN --
YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S NOT
REASONABLE FOR YOU TO EXPECT
THAT THE FACT THAT YOU WERE
THERE.
IS NOT PUBLIC INFORMATION SO
WHEN YOU'VE GOT A TECHNOLOGY
THAT PUTS A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA
ON A A STREET LAMP FOR EXAMPLE.
AND PERHAPS USES FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY TO
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE WALKING
INTO A RESTAURANT I DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK YOU HAD.
A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY IN THE FIRST PLACE IN
THAT SITUATION SO THE QUESTION
IS I MEAN WHAT.
I TELL ME THAT I'M WRONG THERE
TELL ME WHY ASH I I SHOULD HAVE
AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
WHEN THERE ARE MANY OTHER FORMS
OF LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY
SOPHISTICATED SURVEILLANCE THAT
WOULD REVEAL THE SAME
INFORMATION I GUESS IF I COULD
MISTER CHAIR THROUGH A THROUGH
THE CHAIR ON THIS THIS?
THIS ISSUE I THINK THE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IS NOT
WHEN YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE
STREET IN THAT CAMERA THAT BLUE
LIGHT THAT YOU SEE DOWN THE
STREET HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
IS TAKING A PICTURE OF YOU BUT
IT'S WHEN THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN
THEN THE ONE AT THE NEXT CORNER
TAKEN THE NEXT CORNER TODAY AND
FIND WHERE YOU PARK YOUR CAR
WHERE YOU GET OUT OF THE CAR
TAKE YOUR FACIAL RECOGNITION
WHAT YOU GOING TO THE STORE.
COME OUT THEN TAKE YOUR PICTURE
DOWN THE STREET AND AND HAS A UP
A MAP OF WHERE YOU SPEND YOUR
LIFE.
THEN THEY CAN USE THAT
INFORMATION FOR HOWEVER THEY
WANT TO USE IT THAT'S THE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY HAVE WHEN
WHEN YOU'RE.
IT JUST IS GPS USE IS NOT FOR A
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOLLOW YOU INTO
TRACK WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE WHEN THEY
USE THAT INFORMATION AND THAT'S
WHY THE POLICIES IMPORTANT HOW
THE UC INFORMATION HOW LONG THEY
KEEP THAT INFORMATION WHO HAS
ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION AS WE
SAW WITH LICENSE PLATE READERS
WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST BASIC
FORM.
OF THAT TYPE OF SURVEILLANCE
BECAUSE IT GETS YOUR VEHICLE AS
IT DID WHEN I GAVE A PRIVATE
INVESTIGATOR MY WIFE LICENSE
PLATE NUMBER AND SURE ENOUGH THE
FOUNDER.
CAR WHERE SHE GOES APPEARED AT A
GYM ON WEDNESDAY SO I MEAN IT
CAN BE TRACKED AND USED IN A WAY
THAT IS.
IS NOT WHAT WE WOULD WANT LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO USE IT FOR NOT
THAT THEY WOULD DO IT BUT IT'S
JUST HOW LONG IT WOULD BE HAPPY
TO DO IS I'D LIKE TO ASK ASK MY
WITNESS OF THEY HAVE ANOTHER.
A BIT OF INFORMATION THAT COULD
I THINK THE ARGUE THAT POINT
MISTER VOTE NO TO I WOULD ONLY
POINT OUT THAT THE BILL DOESN'T
PROHIBIT ANY KIND OF
SURVEILLANCE IT ALLOWS THESE
DECISIONS TO BE MADE AT A LOCAL
LEVEL.
AND IN FACT YOUR COMMUNITY MAY
DECIDE THAT IT WANTS TO EMBRACE
ALL OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AND USE
IT WITHOUT LIMITATION AND THAT'S
PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE UNDER THE
BILL.
OKAY I'D I RESPECT THE ANSWER
THAT WE COMPLETELY AGREE.
WITH THAT WERE IN FURIOUS
AGREEMENT AS EIGHT SAY --
EXCEPT FOR THIS YOU KNOW I I
AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT'S THE WAY
THAT THE DATA IS THAT'S
AGGREGATED THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME
TROUBLING PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS.
THE PROBLEM IS THE WAY THAT THE
BILL IS WORDED THE SITUATION
THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT WOULD
BE OKAY WITH YOU THAT THE
SURVEILLANCE CAMERA WITH THE
BLUE LIGHT.
AND JUST YOU KNOW THE ONE
INSTANCE IF YOU WALK INTO A
RESTAURANT THAT ALSO WOULD
REQUIRE DISCLOSURE.
UNDER THE BILL AND SO IF IF IT'D
BEEN WORDED IN A WAY THAT WAS A
LITTLE BIT MORE SELECTIVE I
THINK I'D BE ABLE TO GET THERE
BUT AFTER RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
AND IS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD IF
IT IF IT EVER GETS NARROWED TO
THE POINT WHERE.
WHERE I THINK THAT YOU KNOW YES
A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SAY
YOU DO HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY UNDER THE CONDITIONS
WHICH COVERS ARE BE HAVING TO
SWITCH OVER TO SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MUCH ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR WITNESSES THE MISTER
CALDERON.
THANK YOU MISTER SENATOR THAT
YOU BRING THE BILL FORWARD --
IMAD THINK IN TERMS OF PRIVACY
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT
OPPOSITION TO HAVE --
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMITTEE
AND WHAT WE WORK ON HERE --
YEAH I THINK IN SUPPORT OF
OVERALL THE CONCEPT OF WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD I
WOULD JUST SAY THAT MOVING FOR
MY CONCERN IS GONNA BE.
OUT TO GUYS I I HAVE BOTH --
CITY SO I AM PLEASED TO FIVE
CITY POLICE OFFICERS TO HANDLE
BOTH THE CITY OF WHITTIER CITY
SANTA FE SPRINGS AND MY DISTRICT
AND ALSO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFER
THE REST MY CITIES.
AND I AND I AND I WHAT I DON'T
WANT AND I THINK WE DO AT TIMES
HERE IN SACRAMENTO HAT WE LIMIT.
OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO
CONTINUE TO KEEP US SAFE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES AND AND YOU KNOW AND
WHEN WHEN I APPROACH.
OUR LOCAL ON FORCE AND LIKE THE
POLICE CHIEF AFTER THE CITY OF
WHITTIER THE ISSUE USUALLY TENDS
TO BE WHAT WE DON'T HAVE A SET
OF RESOURCES.
IN ORDER TO HOT SETTLE YOUR FIX
YOUR ISSUES AND SO WHEN I MOVED
INTO A COMMUNITY IN UPTOWN
WHITTIER --
I NAY BECOMING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
WATCH CHASING PEOPLE DOWN OR
CHASE PEOPLE OUT OF OUR
COMMUNITY WITH MAG LIFE ASSET
FLASHLIGHT --
BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT THE
CAPACITY FOR THAT FOR OUR LOCALS
AS CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE
ABLE TO HANDLE IT I THINK
SURVEILLANCE IS.
IS SOMETHING THAT ARE A LOT OF
THE FOLKS WHO LIVE MY COMMUNITY
WOULD BE APPRECIATIVE OF WE HAVE
IT -- AT THE
KIND OF THE WAY GETTING PART OF
OUR COMMUNITY WHEN WE INSTALLED
THE CAMERA OUR SELVES GET THE
COLLECTED INFORMATION AND SO I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE
MOVE FORWARD NOT TAKING TOOLS
AWAY.
OFF FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE
ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB TO KEEP US
SAFE BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE
FOUNDATIONS THAT WE ALL SHOULD
BE UP HERE. TO TO MAINTAIN IS TO
KEEP PEOPLE SAFE AND PROTECTED
AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAVE THE TOOLS TO TO
BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND THEN ALSO WHEN IT COMES TO
BE ABLE TO THAT BEING ABLE TO
DISCUSS INFORMATION --
PUBLICLY I YEAH I I THINK THAT
THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT MORE
INPUT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN
IT COMES TO THE DECISIONS THAT
ARE BEING MADE DAILY ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES LOCALLY.
ARE AND THEY SHOULD BE TRUSTED
AND IF THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED IN
THEIR CHECK THAT CHANGE NEEDS TO
BE MADE AYE AND WE CAN ALWAYS BE
THE ONES MAKING THAT CHANGE FOR
THEM --
BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD
SOMETIMES IT'S BAD NONE THE LESS
WERE ALWAYS TAKEN --
THE NONSENSE FOR IT --
BUT I TIMES AYE I THINK AS WE
MOVE FORWARD.
I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT IN
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION TO
SEE IF THERE ARE TIMES WHERE A
CONVERSATION ARE NOT IN THE
PUBLIC SPHERE.
IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE.
BY THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
BECAUSE IT.
IT IN CONCEPT YOU ARE SPEAKING
TO THE THE THE PUBLIC WHEN YOU
ARE SPEAKING TO AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
BECAUSE THEY ARE ELECTED BY THE
ELECTORATE. TO TAKE CARE OF
THESE TYPES OF ISSUES WAS OTHER
COUPLE THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE
IN THE THING MOVING FORWARD I'D
REALLY APPRECIATE ATTENTION IN
ADDRESSING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT WE'VE BEEN.
BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT IN
THE THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT
HAVING.
THIS IN CLOSED SESSION FOR A
LOCAL FOR A CITY COUNCIL OR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE
CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS WE KNOW
WHAT THE BROWN ACT.
THIS DOES NOT FIT WITHIN ONE OF
THOSE -- FOR
BROWN ACT CLOSED SESSION
CONVERSATIONS AND SO WE'RE STILL
LOOKING AND TRYING TO FIND THE
SWEET SPOT FOR THAT AS WELL AND
I AGREE WITH.
WITH YOU ON ALLOWING AND AND
MAKING SURE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAS THE TO HAVE THE TOOLS THAT
ARE AVAILABLE.
THE ONLY CONDITION AND THE ONLY
REASON FOR MOVING THIS AND I
THINK ASSEMBLY MEMBER OBERNOLTE
IS CONCERNED IS THAT WHICH ONE
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THAT THE
CIVILIAN BODY MAKES THOSE
DECISIONS THAT AND UNDERSTANDS
AND KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE
UTILIZED IN USING WHO HAS ACCESS.
TO IT HOW LONG WE KEEP THE DATA
WHAT WOULD CHECKS AND BALANCES
ARE IN PLACES THAT THERE AREN'T
THE ABUSES THAT WE HEAR ABOUT
EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE AND
CERTAINLY I DON'T BELIEVE IT%
OCCURS ON A ON GOING BASIS
ANYWHERE.
BUT IT'S THAT FEAR THAT I THINK
WE HAVE ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES THAT.
THAT WE DON'T KNOW OF YET AND IN
WOULD YOU KNOW THAT THE THE
OPPOSITION WAS TALKING ABOUT A
COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT.
I THOUGHT WERE WERE --
INTERESTING ONE YOU KNOW
MENTIONING THAT UP --
IT WASN'T JUST THE ONE ISSUE
WHICH HAPPEN WELL ANYTHING COULD
HAPPEN IN THAT IN IT'S NOT
MENTIONED IN THE BILL AND IN.
EVERY WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT TYPE
OF TECH.
YOU KNOW THEY DIDN'T MIND IT WAS
LICENSE PLATE READERS FOR THEY
WERE OPPOSED THERE DIDN'T
SUPPORT THE BILL CERTAINLY BUT
THAT THEY WEREN'T IS.
ADAMANT ABOUT IT WITH LICENSE
PLATE READERS OR CELL INTERCEPT
TECHNOLOGY.
BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S
A REAL FEAR AS I GUESS WOULD
WOULD GETS ME GOING A LITTLE BIT
IS.
WHAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY DO THEY
NOT WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT?
AND SHOULDN'T WE KNOW ABOUT THAT
TECHNOLOGY.
I UNDERSTAND WE WANT WE KNOW
WHAT THE BAD GUY TO BE ABLE TO
UTILIZE CENTER NOTE BUT THEY'RE
PROVIDENCE AHEAD OF US AND WHAT
WE KNOW BUT THAT'S THE FEAR I
HAVE.
IS WHAT IS THE TECHNOLOGY NOW
THAT THEY MAY NOT WANT US TO
KNOW ABOUT.
THAT THEY'RE USING TO THAT COULD
ACTUALLY AG I'M I WAS MORE
NERVOUS AFTER THE TESTIMONY
TODAY THAN I WAS BEFORE.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF ITS
GOODNESS REYES FOLLOWED BY MISS
IRWIN AND AND MISTER BERMAN.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
[inaudible]
OUT
IT TO TO AREAS THAT I WANTED TO
DISCUSS SENATOR ONE IS DE I I
THINK WITHOUT A DOUBT THERE HAS
TO BE THIS BALANCE. OH WE DO
WANT THAT.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY BUT WE
ALSO WANT TO BE SURE THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS THE TOOLS THEY
NEED TO PROVIDE THAT PROTECTIONS.
TO ALL OF ITS RESIDENTS --
AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE WORKING
TOWARDS THAT AND AYE I SUPPORT
YOU IN THAT.
ARE THE OTHER IT HAS TO DO WITH
OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
ARE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
DA AND THE SHERIFF THOSE ARE
BOTH ELECTED.
AND THEY ARE INDEPENDENT AND TO
HAVE TO HAVE THEM NOW COME
BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS.
IF THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE --
AND SO FINDING LANGUAGE THAT
ALLOWS THEM THAT INDEPENDENCE
PRESENTING IT TO THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AYE I THINK
WOULD BE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
BUT TO SEEK THEIR APPROVAL.
DOES NOT ALLOW THEM THE
INDEPENDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CODE.
INTENDED FOR THEMAS ELECTED
OFFICIALS SO THOSE ARE THE TWO
AREAS THAT YEAH THAT NOT ENOUGH
TO CAUSE ME. TO TO VOTE AGAINST
IT I DO WANT THAT YOUR YOUR BILL
TO MOVE FORWARD BUT I DO WANT TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
A WATCH THAT CONVERSATION TO
CONTINUE AND I'VE REALLY GOT
ESTA -- TO
RAISE IT WE WE'VE WE'VE SEEN.
DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT
CERTAINLY THE THE THE THE
OPINION IN THE LIST OF IN THE
ANALYSIS TODAY --
SURLIS CONTRARY TO WHAT WE WERE
JUST TALKING ABOUT AND SO I
THINK WE NEED TO TO RELIEF HAVE
FINE TUNE THAT AND AND HONE IN
ON THAT THAT DEFINITION AND TO
MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY
DON'T WANT --
THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS SHARE FOR
D. A TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
THAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LAW
REQUIRES THEM TO DO --
AND WE RESPECT THEIR
INDEPENDENCE AND AND IT SHOULD
BE INDEPENDENT AND SO WE WILL WE
WILL.
LOOK AT THAT A LOT CLOSER IN THE
NEXT -- IF
THE BILL MOVES TODAY ROOM TO
MAKE SURE THAT'S PART OF THAT
CONVERSATION THANK YOU SENATOR.
RESERVOIR.
YES I AM VOTED ON THIS BILL I
THINK WAS TWO YEARS AGO AND AT
THAT TIME THERE HAD BEEN A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TAKEN
INCLUDING I BELIEVE THAT THE
SHERIFFS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT AND
AND I DO AGREE WITH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RAY HAS SAID.
THEY ARE US.
INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED OFFICIALS
THE DA AND SHERIFF
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.
AND I DON'T THINK IT IS FOR ME
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE THAT THEY
HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS SO.
I THINK THIS IS THAT BALANCE
THAT -- A
NUMBER OF MEMBERS HAVE MENTIONED
IS VERY IMPORTANT BUT UNLESS THE
SHERIFF'S.
DAYS ARE --
TAKEN OUT OF THE BILL LIKE THEY
WERE THE LAST TIME I VOTED FOR
THE BILL I'M NOT GONNA BE
SUPPORTING IT ON THE FLOOR BUT
AS I MENTIONED I WILL SUPPORT
TODAY.
REGULAR IMAGES.
AREN'T MISTER BERMAN FOLLOWED BY
THIS TO GABRIEL.
THEORY MUCH US SO THREE YEARS
AGO OR SO.
A FORMER STAFFER OF YOURS WHO IT
WHO WAS A COLLEAGUE OF MINE AT
THAT TIME ON THE PULSE OF CITY
COUNCIL.
A CAME TO ME WITH THIS IDEA --
AND THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT I
THOUGHT.
I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND SO
HE AND I OTHER COLLEAGUE WORK TO
CREATE THIS POLICY FOR THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO --
WHO I THINK IS STALLED --
GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
DETERMINING EXACTLY.
WHAT THAT POLICY WOULD BE --
I WAS HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR UP AS
SOME OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE
MENTIONED IT WAS IF THERE WAS
DIFFERENCES --
AND SOME PARTS ABOUT THIS BILL
ARE BETTER IN SOME PARTS ABOUT
THIS BILL OR WORSE --
WHICH RELATED TO BUY SOME
COLLEAGUES SAID THIS ONE I THAT
ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP ON WORKING
ON SOME OF THOSE DETAILS --
I LIKE THE VERSION LAST YEAR
BETTER --
AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY
AND BUY IT PRE* YOU CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION AND FIND
WAYS TO THAT AND YOU KNOW MAKE
IT MORE APPLICABLE SAID --
FOLKS THAT AREN'T --
THEM SO [inaudible]
MR GABRIEL THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN THANK YOU SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FOR I DO HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE OPPOSITION AND
I I I APOLOGIZE I'M NEW HERE SO
I DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT
THE HISTORY OF THE FOLKS ARE
SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE WHO
VOTE ON THIS.
PREVIOUSLY AND SO UNDERSTAND
SOME OF THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS
YOU RAISED AROUND EXIGENCY
ARKHAM STANCE AS THE GOVERNMENT
CODE I GUESS WE WOULD CALL SORT
OF REVEALING SOURCES AND METHODS.
MY QUESTION ARE IS IF SOME OF
THOSE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED IS
THERE ANY VERSION OF THIS BILL
THAT YOU BE COMFORTABLE
SUPPORTING [inaudible]
YEAH -- SO
TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THE BILL WAS
INTRODUCED THAT THROUGH THE
CHAIR.
I WE BASICALLY CAME IN AND SAID
LOOK THERE'S THERE'S ROOM FOR US
TO WORK WE WORKED ON THE LICENSE
PLATE READ A BILL WE WORKED ON
THE STING RAY BILL WITH THE
AUTHOR --
BUT THAT THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS
A NON STARTER SO WE CAN MOVE
PAST THAT THEN THERE'S ROOM FOR
US TO START NARROWING THE
DEFINITION AND WORKING ON
EVERYTHING ELSE BUT WE'VE.
WE'VE YET TO BE ABLE TO GET PAST
THAT HURDLE.
SO THE THE FACT THAT THERE IS
STILL A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED
YOU KNOW WE TALK ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING CITY
COUNCIL MAY BE CITY MANAGER
WEIGH IN ON THE POLICY BUT YOU
KNOW THAT WAS THAT WAS THE FIRST
HEARD ON WE HAVE A CLEAR TO GET.
SPEND YOU KNOW YEAR AND A HALF --
AND THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THAT
WAS A NON STARTER FOR THE POLICE
CHIEFS AND UNTIL UNTIL THAT
MOVES.
YOU KNOW WHAT I THOUGHT THE LIKE
I SAID IF THIS WAS ABOUT KNOWING
WHAT TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE
BEEN KNOWING.
YOU KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE SO
THAT.
THERE PUBLIC AWARE OF IT IN THE
COURTS ARE AWARE OF IT AND THEY
CAN HELP SET THE BOUNDARIES
AROUND IT.
WHERE WE THINK THAT DISCUSSION
IS APPROPRIATE?
NO ABSOLUTELY THAT'S WHERE THE
CONVERSATION BUT UNFORTUNATELY
NEVER CLEARED THE FIRST HURDLE.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS QUESTIONS.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS OF
SCOTT GRETCHEN SORRY JUST TED
JUST IF TO FINISH EVER SO I AM
YOU KNOW I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO
IT TO THE CONCERNS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT RIGHT I DO THINK
THAT -- AS A
NUMBER OF MEMBERS HAVE ALLUDED
TO THAT THAT THE QUESTION HERE
IS BALANCE AND AND WHO IS THE
APPROPRIATE DECISION MAKER TO
STRIKE THAT BALANCE SO.
AM I AM GOING TO BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL TODAY BUT BUT I'M
INTERESTED IN.
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH WITH
FOLKS ON ALL SIDES OF THIS AND
I'M GONNA RESERVE MY VOTE ON THE
FLOOR [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH IT SEPARATE
CLEAR THAT --
WE NEED TO FINE TUNE THIS
ABILITY TO PAY MORE.
AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING A TODAY'S
AND I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE
AUTHOR TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION.
MOVING FORWARD --
I I SUPPORTED THE YOUR BILL LAST
SO TIME AS WELL.
AND IS SO QUICK DELIVERS THE
MOST OF AND IT'S ALWAYS A FOR A
TOUGH TASKS IT'S ALWAYS A
BALANCING TELL US IN ON THE ONE
HAND YOU HAVE.
YOU HOW OF TRANSPARENCY AND THEN
YOU HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH
PRIVACY OUR LOCAL CONTROL OF
BEING PART OF THE EQUATION.
ARE IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO DO
ANYTHING THAT WOULD HINDER LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM ENFORCING THE
LAW.
SO IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH WHEN TRY
TO BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS
AND THAT'S A TOUGH JOB SO.
ARE AYE AYE ONE ENCOURAGE YOU TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE AS WELL IF --
TO THE EXTENT WE CAN WE WILL TRY
TO HELP OUT AS WELL SO --
DIE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION
TO MOVE THE BILL ALONG.
DO I HAVE A SECOND.
GOOD ARE MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
KALRA.
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS HOW WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE OUR OWNERS RESPECT
REASSURE AYE VOTE AND I AGREE
AND WE WILL CONTINUE THAT WORK.
BECAUSE THE IT WOULD BE NICE TO
FIND THAT SPOT THAT WE CAN COME
TOGETHER ON THANK YOU.
PERFECT YET FOR MY BOOK.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAU
AYE AYE CHAU AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO BAKER.
BAKER.
NO.
BERMAN.
BERMAN AYE CALDERON.
CALDERON AYE GABRIEL.
GABRIEL I IRWIN.
IRWIN AYE MULLIN.
MULLIN AYE OBERNOLTE NO
OBERNOLTE NO REYES [inaudible]
REYES I THE BILL IS OUT ITS --
SEVEN TO THREE THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES VERY MUCH I THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE TOM.
LET'S GO THROUGH THE SURE.
AND THIS TIME I LIKE TO OPEN THE
ROLE OF ON ITEM NUMBER ONE SP A
TWENTY TWO PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS.
THAT'S ANA WIND A BILL.
SP EIGHT TWENTY TWO REYES.
REYES AYE [inaudible]
THERE'S WELL [inaudible] EIGHT
THE VOTE COUNT AS A TWO TWO ON
S. B. A TWENTY TWO LET'S GO TO
ITEM NUMBER TWO S. B. ELEVEN
EIGHTY SIX WE JUST HEARD.
AND ITEM NUMBER THREE SB TWELVE
OR ONE JACKSON PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS [inaudible]
BAKER.
BAKER AYE CALDERON.
CALDERON AYE BILLS.
THAT THE VOTE COUNT IS TEN ZERO
THAT BILL IS HOW AS WELL.
WITH DATA THE MEETING IS
ADJOURNED