room for thirty seven
I'd like to convene
the hearing of the
assembly committee
on communication and
conveyance sergeants
please call the absent
members as we wait for
quorum will go through
a few housekeeping
items please be aware
all witness testimony
will be in person
there will be no phone
test of my testimony
option for this hearing
for the items being
taken up today we will
take no more than two
primary witnesses in
support and two primary
witnesses in opposition
these witnesses will
have two minutes each
all other witnesses
should state their
name their organization
and their position
on the bill only I
also want to note
that we are accepting
written testimony
through the position
letter portal on the
committee's website
for the public in the
room and we'd like
you just approached
of the Mike and let us
know your -- support
we have two bills one
and consent tear today
HR one twenty five
Reyes on communications
and we'll all ask the
author -- Assembly
member Jim Wood
<eps> to come forward
for AB twenty seven
fifty two broadband
infrastructure
infrastructure mapping
for
thank you
just to clarify
we are starting
as a sub committee
go ahead thank you
for reading chair
to present AB twenty
seven fifty two The
bill was amended in
the Senate now simply
clarifies the C.
P. UC's authority to
collect location data
for the purposes of
broadband mapping last
year this Committee
approved another bill
of mine that updated
the state's publicly
accessible maps to more
accurately capture the
realities of broadband
service at a granular
level AB twenty seven
fifty two builds upon
that and furthers
the mission to create
a better and more
meaningful broadband
data reporting
process A. B.
twenty seven fifty
two clarifies at
the key C. P.
UC's current authority
to collect location
data regardless
regarding broadband
access also includes
addresses absent this
more granular data
maps will continue
to misrepresent and
exaggerate basic
broadband access
statewide especially
in rural low income
in tribal communities
although a few
providers remain
actively opposed
majority of internet
service providers in
California are neutral
on this bill and in
fact have already
provided this data to
the CPUC it's really
that simple most
providers including
the larger ones have
complied and provided
the CPC with the
appropriate level of
granular data he got
some her fight in an
issue that we believe
should already been
settled without address
level data are maps
will continue to fail
to capture the reality
of the digital divide
we need twenty seven
fifty two to clarify
it and ensure that we
know where connections
are and where they
are not so we can get
people the service
they need and deserve
I respectfully ask
for your aye vote
chairwoman members up
what you can tell us
on behalf of next Gen
California we join the
California community
foundation common
sense media alliance
alliance for a better
community active San
Gabriel Valley alley
tech and a host of
other organizations
support of this
important legislation
up ultimately access
to data -- -- access
transparency told
an interactive maps
of current broadband
infrastructure and
availability will
reveal which areas need
work and how to use
existing infrastructure
more efficiently AB
two seven five two
which shed light on
the disparities in
broadband adoption
rate internet speeds
affordability and
infrastructure
differences that cause
California's digital
divide identifying
these disparities
is the first step to
fixing them California
needs transparent
and accountability to
begin building access
for all mapping can
expose how selective
discriminatory
investment choices
exist existing
providers made have
left rural tribal
and low income
communities behind
more detailed data
one power local local
public and private
efforts to invest
in communities with
insufficient service
better equipment better
equipping them to bill
twenty first sentry
ready broadband --
we strongly support
this measure in order
to support thank you
for your comments --
with that -- will go
to opposition do we
have any opposition in
the room I do not see
anybody coming up --
and -- without anybody
in the audience that
would like to pledge
support I do not see
anybody else coming
up so without will
bring it back to the
committee any comments
or questions on AB
two seven five two
or seven all right we
have a motion by Holden
when we have a quorum
and a second by --
some member Rodriguez
and we do have I know
I miss Reyes is part
of the committee so
when she comes back we
will have a quorum here
she is so I believe
we have a quorum
now if this Reyes
okay you don't need
need to present okay
all right so we are
just waiting for one
more member we can call
absolutely
thank you
Assembly member
take burning or not
all income we
we have a witness
coming up in opposition
and -- we will let
him give his testimony
I think it's been a
busy day here today
Bernie Orozco the
California cable and
telecommunications
association in
opposition to the
measure -- I want to
point out a couple
things in the Committee
analysis so denounces
says that were
opposed to providing
address level data
we are not so what
we have recommended
and amendments to the
author is that you make
it abundantly clear
in the bill that what
you're requesting is
broadband deployment
data at a serviceable
location and address
serviceable location
is what you want to
know is does that
homes that address have
access to broadband
again this is an
amendment to AB forty
one from last year
was about broadband
mapping in about
serviceable locations
and so without that
clarification what
you're doing is you're
opening up very broad
level of data that the
PC can request beyond
broadband service
locations this is
really contrary to
where the Legislature
the Attorney General
and the governor is
today so right now the
concern at the federal
level is that there
is going to be changes
that would preempt
California's privacy
protections so in that
same vein this bill
fails to recognize two
major key provisions
for consumer protection
here in California SB
six three seven point
five which has been
on the books since
nineteen eighty four
way before privacy
protections was very
popular and what that
code section says
is that cable and
satellite operators
may not share any
subscriber information
to any government
agency for any service
provided beyond video
could be medical could
be broadband it could
be telephone service
you cannot provide any
services to government
entities without one
a subpoena or to the
consent the express
consent of the consumer
so this bill fails
to recognize that we
suggest an amendment
to the author he
has chosen not to
take that amendment
we have to suggest
an amendment to the
author that would say
this is for broadband
level data only at
a service will level
and he has chosen not
to take that a moment
either so without
those two provisions
we potentially come
into conflict with
this penal code section
sixty seven point
five we also come in
conflict with -- The
federal cable Act which
also says that we may
not provide subscriber
information to any
government entity
without a subpoena
and the customer has
the right to challenge
that subpoena so
before we even give
the information if we
do receive a subpoena
from the a government
agency that we first
allow that consumer
the check The ability
to challenge the the
subpoena so we're not
opposed to address
providing address level
data it just has to
be anonymous it has to
be there's no question
about any information
being shared about
the consumer -- this
bill if I have a just
one more minute the
genesis of this bill
when you first heard
this bill earlier in
the year this was about
middle mile deployment
and it was about --
inter inter connection
location points we had
no issues with that
bill -- The bill then
later became a question
of in AB forty one from
last year as if you
see was attempting to
develop a inter active
publicly accessible
broadband map of the
available brought
the availability of
broadband that was
our goal in the summer
of this year they
attempted to get more
information about
subscriber data and so
what they're reporting
to the Legislature
was a cable is not
providing information
that's necessary to
develop these maps
that is not true
that is actually not
true the analysis
says that there was a
resolution to this the
resolution was the P.
you see stop asking
for consumer privacy
protection protected
data so this is where
the the the genesis
of the bill came and
that they need more
detailed data at an
address level we're
not opposed to that
we're willing to do
that you just cannot
have information about
consumers and for these
reasons were oppose
thank you -- without
testimony -- we will
go back to the author
to see if you have
any comments you very
much and first of all
the question being as
does this does this
bill -- force providers
to violate penal
code announcer is now
absolutely not this is
a misrepresentation --
by the opposition and
has been throughout
the entire time since
we introduced this
language the pap fact
is that personal --
personal identificado
informational
information is clearly
is defined very clearly
the law includes
information such as
a person's credit
score who they're
making phone calls to
with cetera this bill
is about deployment
information information
it's about two things
does that person live
here or second as a
percent of access to
broadband services I
do go back in and point
out again that a lot of
providers that provide
have already given
this information we
have some that simply
choose not to and so
that's the purpose of
this bill -- I think
you're hearing the
same smokescreen that
didn't didn't prevail
well in the Senate The
bill passed forty to
zero I don't always
agree with the Senate
but I do this time I
respectfully ask your
about thank you and
I think we're gonna
move to roll call
Quirk-Silva here
Quirk-Silva present
Patterson yeah
Patterson president
Boerner Horvath
present me a Bonta
mia Bonta presence
that amount this said
about this present
Davies Garcia Holden
Holden present Low
Maienschein Rodriguez
Rodriguez present
Valladares Dr Weber
and with that we had
a motion and a second
to a if we have no
additional comments
will go head to move
forward with the vote
C. No comments our
hands up let's go ahead
and vote the action
is with recommendation
that Senate amendments
to be concurred in
and referred to the
committee on privacy
and consumer protection
Quirk-Silva hi Chris
cook Quirk-Silva
I Patterson Pat
Patterson not loading
Boerner Horvath
Boerner Horvath hi mia
Bonta mia Bonta I said
I want this said about
this I Davies Eduardo
Garcia Holden Holden
I Low Maienschein
Rodriguez Rodriguez
hi Valladares Dr Weber
I next to move forward
with the motion
for consent care --
calendar and will
hold the vote open
for five minutes
after our session
the motion and a second
our consent calendar
consent calendar is H.
R. one twenty five be
adopted to consent to
calendar Quirk-Silva
hi Quirk-Silva I
Patterson Patterson
I Boerner Horvath
Boerner Horvath I need
a Bonta yeah Bonta I
said I want this month
despite Davies Eduardo
Garcia Holden Holden
I Low Maienschein
Rodriguez Rodriguez
hi Valladares Dr Weber
all right with that
will leave the role
open for five minutes
if we want to
we will fund
however on quality
all right -- our first
bill is on call we do
need authors to come
back we have AB two
seven five two that
is on call not author
sorry those who have
not voted to come in
we are lifting the
call on AB two five
two seven five two
and we have Assembly
member low here
low low I mean consent
calendar H. R.
one twenty
five low low I
and that's it
AB twenty seven
fifty two is out
five seven zero and the
consent calendar H.
R. one twenty five is
out with eight zero