GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE I WOULD
LIKE TO, UM CALL THIS COMMITTEE
TO ORDER THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING
AND TUNING IN TO THE COMMITTEE
ON COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCES.
FIRST BILL HEARING IN 2024, AND
I WANT TO INFORM THE COMMITTEE
THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BONTA WILL
BE DELAYED THE COMMITTEE TODAY
AS SHE WAS ATTENDING A FUNERAL
IN HER DISTRICT FOR AN OAKLAND
POLICE OFFICER THAT WAS KILLED
IN THE LINE OF DUTY. SO BEFORE
WE GET BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO CALL
FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND
HONOR OF OFFICER JUAN LES AND
HIS SERVICE TO THE OAKLAND
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TASHA
BURNER. I SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A
SUBSTITUTION TODAY FOR TODAY'S
HEARING. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DIXON
IS SUBSTITUTING FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DAVIES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH REMEMBERED
CHECKSUM JOINING ME ON THE DIET
TODAY IS VICE CHAIR UM PATTERSON
AS WELL AS MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
COMMITTEE. WE HAVE COMMITTEE
MEMBER ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
THREE OF US. DIANE DIXON
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S STEPHANIE WEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, JOSH HOOVER AS
WELL AND I THINK SOME OF OUR
OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE
MAKING THEIR WAY TO THE
COMMITTEE. UM WE'RE ALSO BEING
JOINED BY EMILIO PEREZ, THE
CHIEF CONSULTANT OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE, AND
ELIZABETH DELGADO, THE COMMITTEE
SECRETARY. JOINING US FOR THE
HEARING IS DANIEL BALLON,
CONSULTANT FOR THE REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS POLICY, YOU KNOW? SO
TODAY'S AGENDA HAS TWO ITEMS.
UM, THERE ARE NO ITEMS ON THE
PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR. SO
BEFORE WE START, WE'RE GONNA DO
IT. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION PROCESS. UM BEFORE
WE BEGIN OUR BILL PRESENTATION,
I'D LIKE TO TAKE CARE OF SOME
LOGISTICAL HOUSEKEEPING. IF ANY
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM
WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON A BILL
DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, I
WILL INVITE YOU TO APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE AND APPROPRIATE TIME.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE PUBLIC NOT
TOUCH THE MICROPHONE. YOU CAN
EXIT THE HEARING ROOM ONCE
YOU'RE DONE TESTIFYING OR RETURN
TO YOUR SEAT. NOW LET'S COVER
THE GROUND RULES FOR APPROPRIATE
CONDUCT. THE ASSEMBLY HAS
EXPERIENCED A NUMBER OF
DISRUPTIONS TO COMMITTEE AND
FLOOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS, CONDUCT THAT DISRUPTS
, DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE IMPEDES.
THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE
HEARING IS PROHIBITED. SUCH
CONDUCT MAY INCLUDE TALKING OR
MAKING LOUD NOISES FROM THE
AUDIENCE, UTTERING LOUD
THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE
SPEAKING LONGER THAN THE TIME
ALLOTTED. EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF
MATTERS NOT RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT OF THE HEARING OR BILL
AND ANY OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO
ADDRESS ANY DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT.
I WILL TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS.
IF AN INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR
HEARING PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT
THEM TO STOP AND WARN THEM THAT
CONTINUE. DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING ALSO DOCUMENT ON THE
RECORD, THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED
AND THE NATURE OF THE DISRUPTIVE
CONDUCT. I MADE TEMPORARILY
RECESSED THE HEARING. IF THE
CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP, I WILL
REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
SERGEANTS AND ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. UM. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
SO THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY,
MAYBE NOT TAKE ATTENDANCE. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BOERNER HORVATH PRESIDENT.
PATERSON PATERSON PRESENT BANTA.
DICKSON DICKSON, PRESIDENT
GARCIA HOLD THEM. HOOVER HOOVER
PRESIDENT MAIENSCHEIN. WHEN WHEN
PRESIDENT THREE OF US.
THREE OF US PRESIDENT RODRIGUEZ.
WE HAVE IT FOR, UM WE HAVE A
QUORUM THIS AFTERNOON. WE HAVE
TO BUILD ITEMS TO BE HEARD IN
COMMITTEE NOTICING THE
ABSOLUTELY NO, NO WE HAVE A
QUORUM. SO, UM AH! THERE WE GO.
FIRST BELL FIRST WEEK BO WE HAVE
IS UM, A B 1135 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL
RELATED TO STATE AGENCIES AND
TOLL FREE TELEPHONE LINES.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL, YOU
AND YOUR WITNESS CAN APPROACH
THE DIOCESE. OH THEN IT'S JUST
YOU YOURSELF AND YOU. I HAD TO
ASK MY LEDGE DIRECTOR. DO I HAVE
A WITNESS? THANK YOU, MADAM.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MAYBE 1135 IS
ABOUT SAVING THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA MONEY. MONEY BEING
SPENT RIGHT NOW UNNECESSARILY
UNTIL FREE NUMBERS THAT COULD
EASILY BE REPLACED BY TOLL
NUMBERS WITHOUT ELIMINATING ANY
ACCESS FOR CALIFORNIANS TO REACH
STATE SERVICES. LET'S TALK ABOUT
. WHAT ACCESS ACTUALLY MEANS IN
TERMS OF VOICE TRAFFIC, SO IF
ANY OF YOU ARE MY AGE OR
THEREABOUTS, YOU REMEMBER A TIME
PRE INTERNET WHERE ALL WE HAD
WAS VOICE TRAFFIC. AND TO CALL
SOMEBODY. YOU HAD TO MAKE A
EITHER LOCAL CALL OR A LONG
DISTANCE CALL. AND YOUR PHONE
PLAN CHARGED YOU ON A METERED
BASIS. YOU RECEIVED LONG
DISTANCE CHARGES. PER MINUTE FOR
EVERYTHING THAT YOU DID. AND WHY
IS THAT? BECAUSE PHONE COMPANIES
WHEN YOU CALL FROM ONE PHONE
COMPANY TO ANOTHER HAVE TO PAY
EACH OTHER FOR ACCESS. THAT'S
TYPICALLY DONE BY THE CALLING
PARTY. THE CALLING PARTY PAYS
THE CALLING PARTY MAKES A PHONE
CALL AND THE RECEIVING PHONE
COMPANY RECEIVES A CHARGE BY THE
BY THAT BY THAT PHONE COMPANY.
EXCEPT FOR A TOLL FREE CALL WITH
THE TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER. 1
800 PHONE NUMBER. THE RECEIVING
PARTY PAYS THE ACCESS RIGHT. THE
ORIGINATING COLLAR DOES NOT, AND
THAT USED TO BE A FORM OF RELIEF
FOR CONSUMERS. IT USED TO BE
THAT WHEN YOU CALL THE TOLL FREE
NUMBER, YOU KNEW I WASN'T GOING
TO GET A LONG DISTANCE CHARGE
FOR THIS THAT THE RECEIVING
PARTY WOULD TAKE THAT CHARGE.
AND A LOT OF BUSINESSES.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES WOULD ABSORB
THOSE COSTS. BUT NOWADAYS ALL
THE PHONE PLANS ARE UNLIMITED.
ALL OF THEM ARE UNLIMITED. YOU
PAY ONE PRICE, WHETHER YOU'RE ON
A CELL PHONE OR ON A FIXED LINE
PHONE AND YOU DON'T PAY METERED
CHARGES. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR
AROUND 20 YEARS. SO WHY DO WE
STILL HAVE TOLL FREE PHONE
NUMBERS? OR TODAY, THE MAIN
REASON WE HAVE TOLL FREE PHONE
NUMBERS ARE REALLY FOR VANITY
USE. IT'S JUST NOTES SEEN AS A
NON GEOGRAPHIC NUMBER. BUT WE'RE
IN A TOUGH BUDGETARY CYCLE RIGHT
NOW. THE STATE IS SHORT MONEY,
AND WE ARE SPENDING MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS FOR STATE AGENCIES TO
USE TOLL FREE NUMBERS WHEN THEY
COULD SIMPLY USE THE 916 NUMBER.
MUCH LIKE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY HAVE TO DO RIGHT NOW.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONLY 20% OF
STATE AGENCIES USE A TOLL FREE
NUMBER. 80% OF THEM. DON'T AND
WE DON'T GET COMPLAINTS FROM
CONSUMERS THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD
TO PAY TO CALL THE 80% OF
AGENCIES THAT DON'T IN ITS
ORIGINAL FORM. MAYBE 1135
ESSENTIALLY ENDED THE USE OF
TOLL FREE NUMBERS AND AGENCIES,
AND THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
PUBLIC ACCESS. SO OVER THE
INTERIM, MY OFFICE WORKED WITH
BOTH ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
AND THIS COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS
TO THE BILL THAT ALLOW AGENCIES
AND DEPARTMENTS TO MAINTAIN
THEIR TOLL FREE LINES BUT
REQUIRED THAT THEY ALSO OFFER
NON TOLL FREE NINES. AS A
PRIMARY MEANS BY WHICH A MEMBER
OF THE PUBLIC CONTRACT CONTACTS
THE AGENCY. SO IN OTHER WORDS,
WE'RE SAYING NOW YOU DON'T NEED
TO DECOMMISSION THE 800 NUMBER
THAT YOU HAVE. LIKE THE D M V.
YOU DON'T NEED TO DECOMMISSION
THE 800 NUMBER THAT YOU HAVE BUT
JUST DISPLAY A 916 NUMBER OR A
310 NUMBER INSTEAD, AND ANYBODY
WHO'S STILL HAD THAT 800 NUMBER
OF THE CALLS WILL CONTINUE TO GO
THROUGH. BUT AS THE STATE WE PAY
PER MINUTE. ANY TIME SOMEBODY
CALLS THOSE 800 NUMBERS, SO
WE'LL SAVE A LOT OF MONEY SIMPLY
BY JUST CHANGING THE NUMBER
THAT'S DISPLAYED IN THOSE
AGENCIES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE AMENDMENTS REQUIRE THAT
ANY TOLL FREE LINE THAT IS
CURRENTLY OPERATED BY A STATE
AGENCY MUST CONTINUE TO BE
OPERATED WHEN THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL ARE
IMPLEMENTED, THEREBY
GUARANTEEING CONTINUED ACCESS BY
THE PUBLIC. THIS SOLUTION
ENSURES THAT ANYONE WHO IS
TRYING TO CONTACT AN AGENCY OR
DEPARTMENT VIA TOLL FREE NUMBER
CAN CONTINUE TO DO SO. WELCOME
CURTAILING OVERALL, USE THE
PUBLIC PUBLISHING A NON TOLL
FREE NUMBER. AS THE PRIMARY
MEANS OF CONTACT. I'LL SKIP THIS
PART WHEN SOME STATE AGENCIES
CONTINUE TO USE TOLL FREE LINES
AS THE PRIMARY MEANS BY WHICH
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY CONTACT
AN AGENT TELEPHONICALLY. EVERY
TIME THAT SOMEONE CALLS STATE
AGENCY ON TOLL FREE LINE THE
STATE PAYS FOR EVERY MINUTE OF
EVERY CALL THAT'S RECEIVED ON
ANY GIVEN TOLL FREE NUMBER. IN
OTHER WORDS, NOT ONLY IS THE
PUBLIC PAYING ALL OF US PAYING
FOR THE COST OF OUR OWN MONTHLY
PHONE PLAN. BUT THEN YOUR TAX
DOLLARS ARE ALSO PAYING FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE TOLL FREE LINES
ON THE SAME PHONE CALL. WE'RE
PAYING TWICE FOR THE VERY SAME
PHONE CALL. PER MINUTE. COSTS
VARY DEPENDING ON VENDOR AND
SERVICE, BUT THE STATE IS PAYING
ANYWHERE BETWEEN LESS THAN A
PENNY A MINUTE. AND NINE CENTS
PER MINUTE FOR THESE TOLL FREE
CALLS. THE TOTAL ANNUAL STATE
SPENDING ON ALL TOLL FREE
SERVICES HAS ROUGHLY $7 MILLION
PER YEAR. AS WE FACE BUDGETARY
SHORTFALLS. WE NEED TO LOOK FOR
WAYS TO SAVE MONEY AND REDUCE
AND ELIMINATE UNNECESSARILY
SPENDING IN A B 1135 WILL HELP
THE STATE SERVICE SAVE MONEY.
FINALLY I WANT TO NOTE THAT I'VE
BEEN ENGAGED IN CONVERSATIONS
WITH TURN REGARDING THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL REMAIN
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THEM
TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND
ENSURE THAT WE MAINTAIN THE
BROADEST PUBLIC ACCESS TO STATE
SERVICES. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU, MR
LOWENTHAL. WE'LL MOVE NOW TO AN
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
YOU MAY APPROACH THE MIC WITH
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ONLY PLEASE. OKAY? MOVING ON TO
ANY ADDITIONAL, UH UM WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING ROOM?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, IGNACIO HERNANDEZ ON
BEHALF OF TURN AND WE ARE
REGRETFULLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I WANT
TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND
A STAFF FOR THE ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SPILL.
THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
POINTS OF AGREEMENT THAT WE
HAVE, AND WE THINK THE BILL IS
MOVING IN A BETTER DIRECTION.
BUT WE THINK THAT THERE MAY BE A
BETTER SOLUTION. ONE IS WE
APPRECIATE THE SUNSHINE ON THESE
CONTRACTS AND HOW MUCH IT IS
COSTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WE THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE
ADDITIONAL SUNSHINE. ADDITIONAL
REVIEW OF THESE CONTRACTS
BECAUSE IT MAY BE THEY MAY BE
TOO HIGH NUMBER ONE FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ALSO
BECAUSE THEY'RE SENDING A LOT OF
THESE CALLS TO OTHER STATES. AND
SO THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS
WITH THAT. SO WE THINK THAT
THAT'S ONE AVENUE THAT SHOULD BE
EXPLORED MORE THOROUGHLY. AS FAR
AS ACTUAL COSTS. THERE ARE, UM
RIGHT PAIR. THERE ARE CONSUMERS
WHO DO RELY ON TOLL FREE NUMBERS
WHO DON'T HAVE FREE CALL LONG
DISTANCE CALLING WHO RELY ON
LANDLINES. IT'S A SMALLER NUMBER
THAN IT USED TO BE, UH, YOU
KNOW, ABSOLUTELY, BUT IT'S STILL
A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC THAT NEEDS
TO RELY ON IT. SO WE THINK THAT
A BETTER SOLUTION WOULD BE
INSTEAD OF REMOVING THE ONE HIT
UNDER NUMBER FROM THE STATE
WEBSITES IS TO HAVE BOTH. UM
SIMPLY HAVE A TOLL FREE NUMBER
AND A TOLL NUMBER AND SIMPLY
LIST IF YOU'RE CALLING FROM A
LANDLINE, OR YOU HAVE NO LONG
DISTANCE FREE, LONG DISTANCE
CALLING USED 800 NUMBER FOR THE
OTHER ONE, THEN YOU CAN. I
BELIEVE AS I UNDERSTAND IT'S
NOT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FOLKS
CALLING THE 100 MEMBER WHO CAN
OTHERWISE CALL WITHOUT IT BEING
A COST TO THEM. BUT IF IT IS A
COST TO A CALIFORNIAN, I ASSUME
THE STATE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO
MAINTAIN THAT ACCESS AND
MAINTAIN THAT NO COST FOR THE,
UH, FOR THE CALIFORNIA FOR YOUR
CONSTITUENTS, AND SO WE THINK
THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO GO. WE
THINK THE BILL MAY ALLOW FOR
THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY
THAT THAT WOULD BE THE ROUTE
THAT WOULD BE TAKEN. THERE'S A
POSSIBILITY THAT STATE STATE
WHICH SIMPLY JUST REMOVE THE ONE
HITTER, 1 800 NUMBER. UM I THINK
THAT'S HOW IT'S DRAFTED. AND
THEN IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE IT
108 100 NUMBER YOU COULD CALL IT
BUT WE DON'T THINK THAT REALLY
ACCOMPLISHES THAT. WHAT WAS SET
OUT I'VE SEEN IT WITH. MY LAST
COMMENT IS I'VE SEEN OTHER STATE
AGENCIES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
WHO LIST MULTIPLE PHONE NUMBERS.
800 NUMBERS OFTEN TIMES
SOMETIMES TOLL NUMBERS ON WHICH
ONES TO CALL IN WHICH WHERE YOU
LIVE? DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE
OR WHAT YOU'RE CALLING ABOUT.
THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT YOU CALL
SO WE COULD SIMPLY HAVE 800
NUMBER IF YOU HAVE CALLING FROM
A LANDLINE OR NO LONG DISTANCE
FREE CALLING OR FREE LONG
DISTANCE CALLING IF YOU DO HAVE
FREE LONG DISTANCE CALLING CALL
THIS NUMBER. WE THINK THAT'S A
BETTER SOLUTION. I THINK THAT
THE BILL ADDRESSED THAT WE WOULD
BE FINE. SO THANK YOU FOR THE
TIME AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION. THANK
YOU DOES THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THOSE?
I SURE DO. UM BUT WHAT WITH
RESPECT TO THE GOALS THAT TURN
IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THERE
CANNOT QUANTIFY WHATSOEVER. HOW
MANY PEOPLE. IF WE LOOK AT THIS
MADAM CHAIR AS A VENN DIAGRAM.
LET'S LOOK AT WHO THE OVERLAP
IS. PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLING THE
20% OF STATE SERVICES THAT USE A
TOLL FREE NUMBER. NOT THE 80%
THAT DON'T THAT DO NOT HAVE A
CELL PHONE. THAT ALSO DO NOT
HAVE A PHONE PLAN THAT DOES NOT
INCLUDE UNLIMITED LONG DISTANCE
AND THERE ARE NO PLANS IN THE
LAST 20 YEARS LIKE THAT. UH THAT
WOULD BE FORGING A COMPLAINT AND
I WANT TO REITERATE YEAH.
CALLING TO AN ASSEMBLY OFFICE,
FOR EXAMPLE, DOESN'T HAVE A TOLL
FREE NUMBER CALLING TO, UH,
UTILIZING THE INTERNET. WHILE SO
MANY STATES SERVICES REQUIRE
CONSTITUENTS TO SIGN UP FOR
SERVICES VIA THE INTERNET, THE
INTERNET IS NOT FREE. THERE IS
NO TOLL FREE IN THE INTERNET.
YOU MUST PAY TO USE THE INTERNET
IN EVERY SCENARIO. SO THIS
NOTION OF PROVIDING ACCESS FOR
EVERYBODY IS NOT CONSISTENT.
EVERY STATE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T
DO IT RIGHT NOW. AND WE ARE
LOSING MONEY. WE ARE BEING
FLEECED BY THE PHONE COMPANIES
BECAUSE THE WAY THAT TOLL FREE
WORKS. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR EVERY
CALL THAT'S RECEIVED. NOT JUST
FOR THE ONES AS, UH, AS, UH,
TURN IS POINTING OUT THAT MAY BE
SUFFERING IN THIS SITUATION.
THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION MAY
APPROACH THE MIC NOW WITH NAME
OR AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ONLY. SAYING NONE. I'LL GO AHEAD
AND RETURN IT TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. YEAH
SOME OF THEM ARE OVER DIXON. I
COMMEND YOUR EFFORTS TO SAVE $7
MILLION. EVERY LITTLE BIT COUNTS
THESE DAYS. UM IN THE GENERAL,
SAME TIMEFRAME. WE'VE BOTH BEEN
LIVING THROUGH THE CHANGE IN
TALL COMMUNICATIONS. ASIDE FROM
THE, UM COST OF THE STATE, WHICH
IS SIGNIFICANT AS A DIMINISHING
NUMBER OF PEOPLE, BUT THE 800
CONCEPT IS NATIONAL. AND THEN
THERE'S ALSO A 866 OR 888. THESE
ARE TOTAL FREE ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY, AND IT'S IN THE UM, I
PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT THAT IS A
FREE NUMBER. SO WITH THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA WOULD IT HAVE ANY
MORE FREE TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF
PEOPLE? THE LIMITED NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE A LANDLINE
OR HAVE A PHONE THAT THEY HAVE
TO? THEY DON'T HAVE A CELL
PHONE. UM IS THERE ANY WAY TO
STILL REACH A STATE NUMBER FOR
FREE? UM 11 THIS IT'S AN
APPROPRIATE QUESTION. ONCE
AGAIN, ONLY 20% OF STATE
AGENCIES ARE USING A TOLL FREE
NUMBER. SO FOR 80% OF THE PEOPLE
CALLING STATE AGENTS 80% OF THE
AGENCY IS BEING CALLED. THERE IS
NO TOLL FREE NUMBER NOW. NO I
GET THAT. I HEAR THAT. I'M JUST
SAYING ABOUT THE CONVENIENCE OF
ACCESSING THE NUMBER AT 1 800.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE REASON I
POINTED THAT OUT AS WE ARE NOT
GETTING COMPLAINTS AT ALL FOR
THE 80% OF STATE AGENCIES THAT
ARE NOT USING A TOLL FREE NUMBER
NOW, AND THEY'RE USING A NINE
DIGIT NUMBER. THAT 16 PHONE
NUMBER LIKE CALLING YOUR OFFICE.
NO COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS. YOU
HAD A COMPLAINT. OKAY BUT I
APPRECIATE YOU IDENTIFYING THIS
AS A COST SAVING IDEA. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE?
ANYBODY ELSE WANNA MAKE SOMEBODY
MEMBER HOOVER? UM I APPRECIATE
THE PERCENTAGE OF AGENCIES. I
THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY
HELPFUL STATISTIC. DO WE KNOW
THE PERCENTAGE OF BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
THIS DOESN'T UM, APPLY TO
WIRELESS PHONES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT LANDLINE PHONES.
DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF
CALIFORNIANS ARE STILL USING
LANDLINE PHONES? IS THERE ANY
DATA ON THAT THE DATA EXISTS
WITHIN THE STATE, BUT WE CANNOT
ACCESS THAT DATA WITHOUT, UH,
RISKING PRIVACY OF THOSE
CONSUMERS THAT ARE CALLING IN AH
, I'M A 25 YEAR EXECUTIVE IN THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR. SO I
UNDERSTAND THIS SPACE REALLY?
WELL YOU CAN TAKE THE PHONE
NUMBERS THAT ARE BEING CALLED
WHICH THESE AGENCIES HAVE. AND
YOU CAN DIP THEM AGAINST THE
LORD, A DATABASE THAT THAT'S A
ROUTING DATABASE FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS. AND YOU
WOULD KNOW WHETHER IT'S A CELL
PHONE VERSUS THE LANDLINE PHONE.
NOW I WANT TO POINT OUT CELL
PHONES DO NOT HAVE METERED PHONE
SERVICE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE
KIND OF EXCLUDING THEM OFF THE
TABLE. FIXED LINE PHONES RIGHT
NOW ARE NOT BEING SOLD WITH
METERED SERVICE. IT DOESN'T
EXIST ALSO IN THE VENN DIAGRAM.
I DIDN'T EVEN POINT OUT PEOPLE
THAT MAY BE CALLING FROM WORK OR
CALLING FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. UM
WE DON'T GET THAT I'M AWARE OF
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COMPLAINTS ABOUT ACCESS OF
DIALING AT ALL NUMBER FOR ANY
STATE AGENCY AND IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. I'LL JUST
POINT OUT THAT IT SHOWS THAT 2%
OF CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLDS ARE
LANDLINE ONLY. QUESTION. JUST
GETTING DID YOU SAY ALSO THAT
BOTH NUMBERS WOULD BE LISTED.
BUT MAYBE IN LARGER POINT SIZE,
THEY 916 NUMBER WOULD BE LISTED.
I THINK THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TURN HAS HAS ADVOCATED THAT HE
DID NOT BRING THAT UP IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS EARLIER, SO THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HEARD
OF IT. WHAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN
THE BILL HAS BEEN TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE 800 NUMBERS ARE NOT
DECOMMISSIONED. SO FOR EXAMPLE,
IF YOU HAVE THE TOLL FREE NUMBER
THAT'S FOR THE FOR CALTRANS,
THAT'S IN YOUR PHONE ALREADY.
AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
ROAD IS OPEN AND CALTRANS AND
YOU'RE CALLING IT FROM YOUR
FIXED LINE PHONE IN AN AREA WITH
METERED SERVICE AND YOUR 0.0000
WHATEVER PERCENT OF THE
POPULATION THAT'S DOING THAT. UM
IT WILL CONTINUE TO WORK.
CALTRANS WILL SIMPLY BE
DISPLAYING A NEW PHONE NUMBER.
BUT THE OLD NUMBER THE TOLL FREE
NUMBER WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RIVAS. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UH YOU
MENTIONED THAT YOU KNOW, 20% OF
STATE AGENCIES ARE THE ONES
USING THE 800 NUMBER. I'M
CURIOUS IF WE KNOW EITHER. WHY
OR ARE THEY SERVICING THE PEOPLE
THAT THE 2% OF THE LANDLINE, YOU
KNOW, IMAGINE, I DON'T KNOW.
YOU'RE THE I KNOW YOU'RE THE
EXPERT AND YOU'RE YOU KNOW A LOT
MORE ABOUT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF
WHO HAS A LANDLINE, BUT I
SUSPECT THAT THEY MAY BE SENIOR
CITIZENS, YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO
CELL PHONE USERS. AND IF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGING OR SOMEONE
THAT'S SERVICING YOUR CITIZENS
HAS AN 800 NUMBER MAYBE BECAUSE
THAT'S THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC, LIKE
DO WE KNOW THAT? WELL UM, I WANT
I WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW
THINGS. UM, NO, WE DON'T. WE
DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHO IS
CALLING. WHICH AGENCY AND THE
DEMOGRAPHICS ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT WE DON'T WE CAN'T TIE THAT
TO THE PHONE CALLS THEMSELVES.
UM I WAS SIMPLY POINTING OUT
THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT. IN
THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW AT ALL THAT
IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ARBITRARY.
IN THE PAST OF THE AGENCIES THAT
HAVE CHOSEN TO ENTER INTO USING
IT WHEN IT COMES OUT OF THEIR
BUDGET IS ADVOCATING FOR KEEPING
THEIR 800 NUMBER BECAUSE THEY
SERVE A DEMOGRAPHIC THAT MAY
HAVE LANDLINES. THINK TURN IS,
YOU KNOW VERY APPROPRIATELY
WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL
CALIFORNIANS HAVE ACCESS TO ALL
SERVICES. UM I, UH MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ALSO WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS VERY
KEENLY AWARE THAT THERE ARE MANY
, MANY SUBSIDIZED GOVERNMENT
SERVICES FOR FUND SERVICE.
WHETHER THAT'S LIFELINE WITH
THEIR VARIOUS STATE PROGRAMS
ASSOCIATED WITH IT AS WELL. SO
ANYBODY WHO CANNOT AFFORD PHONE
SERVICE AND LIFELINE AND SUCH
ALL INCLUDES TOLL NUMBERS. NO I
AGREE. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S I
KNOW IN MY DISTRICT, LOTS OF
PEOPLE QUALIFY FOR LIFELINE, BUT
THEY DON'T ENROLL RIGHT AND
THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE OVER THE
YEARS. UM, IN MY DISTRICT. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
TODAY. UM, I JUST YOU KNOW,
WANTED TO ASK IF YOU HAVE THAT
INFORMATION AND THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. YES I
WANT TO POINT OUT WHERE WE'RE
JOINED NOW BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
RODRIGUEZ AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GARCIA. LOOK AT THAT. UM AND I
WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THE BILL
ITSELF. THERE'S A PROCESS FOR
APPROVAL OF WHICH, UH, IF THEY
USE A TOLL FREE OR A NON TOLL
FREE, SO I ASSUME IF YOU WERE
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGING, AND YOU
HAVE A TOLL FREE NUMBER, BECAUSE
THAT'S YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC OR YOUR
SERVICE SERVING LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS AND SOME WAY AS A
STATE AGENCY. YOU WOULD HAVE AN
APPROVAL PROCESS, AND THE
DEPARTMENT WOULDN'T SAY WE'RE
GOING TO REMOVE THIS ENTIRELY.
IF WE DO THIS, RIGHT, LET'S
THERE'S A PROCESS IN THE BILL
ITSELF. OKAY, THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIRMAN MIGHT CLARIFY BECAUSE
IT'S COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES
ABOUT OUR POSITION WE HAD, JUST
LIKE 30 SECONDS. JUST CLARIFY,
SO IT'S REAL CLEAR. PLUS WE HAVE
NEW MEMBERS HERE AND I
UNDERSTAND IT WHERE THIS IS
GOING. BUT I JUST WANTED TO
CLEAR THAT THE DISCUSSIONS GO
FORWARD. I WILL MAKE AN
EXCEPTION BUT NORMALLY WE ONLY
HAVE OPPOSITION OR WE HAVE
WITNESSES SPEAK WHEN, UM
QUESTIONS ARE ASKED. BUT GO
AHEAD. UNDERSTAND I APPRECIATE
THAT. JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN
BROUGHT UP JUST TO BE CLEAR. WE
DO APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION THE
BILL IS GOING AS WE READ THE
BILL. THE 800 NUMBER WILL
REMAIN, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO
BE ADVERTISED IN OUR CONCERN IS
THAT WOULD BE A THAT THE PUBLIC
WILL NOT KNOW THAT THERE'S AN
800 NUMBER AND THAT'S WHERE THE
GAP IS GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S
WHY WE ADVOCATED ADVERTISE BOTH
NUMBERS SO THAT YOU CAN THEN
SHIFT PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE 800
BUTTON. SAVE THE STATE MONEY
THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER WAY TO GO
WITHOUT KEEPING IT ADVERTISED
AND ACCESSIBLE. THAT'S ALL.
AGAIN A DEPARTMENT HAS THE
PROCESS TO REVIEW WHETHER OR NOT
THEY LIST BOTH OR THE LIST. ONLY
ONE THEY HAVE THAT PROCESS TO
REVIEW IN THE BILL. JUST TO BE
CLEAR. SO IF YOU EVER SELF
SERVING LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS,
STATE AGENCIES SERVING LOW
INCOME CALIFORNIANS AND YOU HAVE
A TOLL FREE NUMBER YOU CAN
CHOOSE TO LIST BOTH. THIS BILL
DOESN'T PROHIBIT THAT IN ANY
WAY. JUST LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A
MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL
STATE AGENCIES TO HAVE A TOLL
FREE NUMBER. OKAY? ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM THE DIET OR FROM
FROM OTHER MEMBERS. OKAY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
OKAY I WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS
FOR THE DISCUSSION. UM I LIVE
WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY. I SEE. THIS IS OVERALL
GOOD GOVERNMENT BILL THAT IS
CONSISTENT AND WITH CONSUMER
TRENDS AS THEY'RE NOW POINTS
OUT, ONLY 2% OF CALIFORNIANS,
HOUSEHOLDS ARE LANDLINE ONLY.
WELL THAT IS A SMALL NUMBER.
THESE HOUSEHOLDS ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY LOW INCOME
AND SENIORS. I APPRECIATE THE
WORK THAT THE AUTHOR DID OVER
THE INTERIM TO HELP ENSURE
EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR ALL
HOUSEHOLDS. REGARDLESS OF THEIR
INCOME AND AGE. BUT THE AUTHOR'S
OWN AMENDMENTS HE MANAGED TO GET
THIS BILL INTO A PLACE THAT IS
BALANCING THE NEEDS OF ENSURING
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO STATE
SERVICES FOR ALL WITH INITIATING
A TRANSITION AWAY FROM A NEARLY
OBSOLETE METHOD OF COMMUNICATION
HAS THERE BEEN A MOTION THAT WE
DO NOT HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE
EMOTION. MOVED BY WHEN, SECOND
BY WHO WAS THE SECOND BONTA.
THANK YOU. UM THE MOTION ON A B
1135 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOWENTHAL IS DO PASS AND RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. WILL THE
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
BURNER I BURNER I PATERSON
PATERSON, NÓ. BANTA EYE TO EYE.
DICKSON DICKSON. AYE. GARCIA. BY
GARCIA I. HOLDEN. HOOVER HOOVER.
I MAIENSCHEIN. WHEN I LOOSE
RIVERS THREE OF US I. RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ. AYE. MEMBERS OF A B
1135 HAS PASSED AND WE LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN SO THAT MEMBERS CAN
ADD THEIR VOTES. NEXT WE'RE
HEARING A B L A LOT 1588 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON RELATED
TO AFFORDABLE INTERNET AND NET
EQUITY ACT OF 2023. AND SOMEBODY
MIGHT REMEMBER SO SORRY.
REMEMBER, WILSON, YOU MAY OPEN.
WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT A B 1588 THE AFFORDABLE
INTERNET AND NET EQUALITY ACT.
INTERNET ACCESS IS NOT A LUXURY.
IT IS A NECESSITY AND SHOULD BE
TREATED AS SUCH. THIS BILL WILL
ENSURE VULNERABLE AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE ARE
NOT LEFT BEHIND IN THE 21ST
CENTURY. A B 1588 BUILDS OFF
OVER A DECADE OF PRECEDENTS SET
BY THE FCC AND THE PUC REGARDING
BROADBAND AFFORDABILITY AND
ALIGNS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S 2020
EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHICH DIRECTS
CDT AND COLLABORATION WITH DGS
TO SEEK OPPORTUNITIES TO
LEVERAGE THE STATE'S CONTRACT
AUTHORITIES AS RESOURCES TO
FURTHER STATEWIDE BROADBAND
ACCESS AND ADOPTION. THIS BILL
ALSO ALIGNS WITH THE SECOND GOAL
FOR THE STATE'S BROADBAND FOR
ALL ACTION PLAN, WHICH REQUIRES
ALL CALIFORNIANS HAVE ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE BROADBAND AND THE
DEVICES NECESSARY TO ACCESS THE
INTERNET. WHILE THE STATE HAS
MADE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS
GEOGRAPHIC AVAILABILITY AND
DIGITAL LITERACY TO ENABLE
ADOPTION, THE STATE HAS NOT YET
FOUND A SOLUTION TO
AFFORDABILITY, WHICH IS THE
BIGGEST BARRIER TO LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS SIGNING UP ACCORDING
TO THE P P I, C BROADBAND IN THE
U. S COST $68 ON AVERAGE, WHICH
IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN EUROPE, A
PLACE MORE STRICTLY REGULATED
THAT ONLY COST $45 PER MONTH
WHILE THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
BROADBAND BENEFIT ORIGINALLY
PROVIDED A $50 SUBSIDY TOWARDS
ANY PLAN, THE FOLLOW UP PROGRAM
THE AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY
PROGRAM, WHICH I'LL REFER TO
REGULARLY AS A C P PROVIDES A
LOWER $30. SUBSIDY TOWARDS ANY
PLAN OFFERED BY THE INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS THROUGH A
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WITH THE
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. MOST MAJOR
ICE I C I S P S HAVE AGREED TO
OFFER A SPECIFIC $30 PLAN FOR
120 MEGABYTES PER SECOND THROUGH
THE A. C P. THIS BILL IS
SPECIFIC IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
AS IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE
AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM
IS SET TO EXPIRE EARLIER. EARLY
THIS YEAR AND IS NOT EXPECTED TO
BE RENEWED BASED OFF THE CURRENT
COMPOSITION OF CONGRESS. THIS
WOULD LEAVE ALMOST 3 MILLION LOW
INCOME FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA.
WHO ARE CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN
THE A. C P WITH NO ASSISTANCE
AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO PLAN
THAT IS AFFORDABLE FOR THEM TO
ACCESS WITHOUT A SUBSIDY. THIS
BRINGS US TO A B 1588. A B 5088
IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO A
BILL THAT PASSED THIS COMMITTEE
AND THE ASSEMBLY IN 2022 A B
2751. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE
THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY TO
CREATE THE NET EQUALITY PROGRAM,
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE STATE
AND STATE AGENCIES TO ONLY DO
BUSINESS WITH AN INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDER THAT OFFERS
AFFORDABLE HOME INTERNET
SERVICES. TWO HOUSEHOLDS
PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. THE BILL
WOULD REQUIRE THAT AFFORDABLE
OFFERS COSTS NO MORE THAN $40
PER MONTH PER MONTH AND MEET
SPECIFIED MINIMUM SPEED
REQUIREMENTS OF 25 MEGABYTES PER
SECOND DOWNLOAD AND THREE
MEGABYTES PER SECOND UPSTREAM,
AS WELL AS AGENCY THAT SUPPORTS
DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEGRAPH
SERVICES. NOW WE UNDERSTAND.
MEMBERS HAVE RAISED UP THE POINT
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
ANALYSIS THAT THE AUTHOR MAY
WISH IN FUTURE TO CONSIDER
UPDATING THE THRESHOLDS
ESTABLISHED BY THIS BILL TO AT
LEAST MATCH THE QUALITY OF PLANS
ALREADY EXISTING IN THE MARKET
FOR LOW INCOME CONSUMERS WERE
MORE THAN HAPPY TO INCREASE THE
SPEEDS TO 100 MEGABYTES PER
SECOND TO MATCH THE CURRENT
PLANS AND THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT WITH THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION OR TO LOWER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE CAT.
ADDITIONALLY THE REASON WHY THE
CAP IS AT $40 IS DUE TO THE
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVENIENCE
AMENDMENTS TAKEN FOR A B 2751
THAT MOVED THE PRICE CAP FROM
$20 TO $40 IN ORDER TO MATCH THE
FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY
ADOPTED BY THE PUC. FOR BOTH OF
THESE ITEMS, WE ARE OPEN TO
AMENDING BASED ON THE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. DISCRETION UM ON
INCREASING SPEEDS AND LOWERING
PRICE. MEMBERS. THIS IS THE ONLY
BILL IN THE LEGISLATURE AIMED AT
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF
AFFORDABILITY. AFFORDABILITY IS
CURRENTLY DEPENDENT ON THE
STABILITY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
IT IS IMPERATIVE WE HAVE A
PERMANENT, AFFORDABLE OPTION,
EVEN IF THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES
FROM THE FEDERAL STATE
GOVERNMENT DUE TO THE VOLATILITY
OF BUDGETS AND REOCCURRING
SPENDING. IT IS WORTH NOTING.
PREVIOUS AUTHOR AMENDMENTS
ADOPTED LAST YEAR WERE WORKED ON
WITH SOME OF THE OPPOSITION AND
WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THEM
REMAINING NEUTRAL. WE ALWAYS
REMAIN OPEN TO WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION, AND WE HAVE NOT
RECEIVED ANY ALTERNATIVES FROM
THE OPPOSITION CURRENTLY LISTED
IN ANALYSIS, DESPITE NUMEROUS
REQUESTS AND MULTIPLE MEETINGS
WITH THE OPPOSITE OPPOSITION
LAST YEAR, INCLUDING
CONVERSATIONS IN 20 THIS EARLY
2024 WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE
IS A COALITION THAT HAS SHIFTED
TO AND OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION EARLY THIS WEEK. WE
APPRECIATE THEIR POSITION AND
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE
US TO GO FURTHER WITH THIS BILL.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THEM TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS
LIKE WE WOULD WITH ANY
OPPOSITION AS A REMINDER. OUR
FOCUS HAS BEEN ALWAYS ON THIS
BILL TO CREATE A CEILING AND A
FLOOR UM, FOR PRICE AND SPEED
AND TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A
PERMANENT, AFFORDABLE OPTION. AS
WELL AS ENSURE A STANDARD BY
WHICH, UM INTERNET SERVICES
PROVIDED IN OUR GREAT STATE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TODAY
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE CHAIR
AMENDMENTS AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE TO ENSURE WE HAVE
PROVIDED ADEQUATE, AFFORDABLE
OFFER FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS.
STANDALONE BROADBAND NOW
ENERGIES. TWO OF MY WITNESS,
LETICIA ALEJANDRA, IS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY TECHNOLOGY
FUND. AND MARCO WAS OVER. I'M
GONNA MESS UP THE NAME MARCO
MARCO MARCO, THE WONDERFUL WORLD
OF MARKUP WITH LOCKER
COOPERATIVE. UH CAMPESINA. THEY
CALIFORNIA THAT TELLS YOU THAT I
FELT SPANISH. I DID TAKE THREE
YEARS OF IT, BUT BETTER THAN I
COULD HAVE DONE. REMEMBER
WILSON. THANK YOU. AND UH, YOU
HAVE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU HAVE
FOUR MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS
BILL. UH IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
WILL BE 1588. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON. UM FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP AND YOUR
COURAGEOUS FOR YOU COURAGEOUSLY
STEPPING FORWARD TO LEAD THIS
EFFORT. I'M LETICIA ALEJANDRA IS
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE
CALIFORNIA EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
FUND, THE SPONSOR OF HB 1588. C
T S MISSION IS TO CLOSE THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE. AND MUCH OF THE
PROGRESS HAS MUCH PROGRESS HAS
BEEN MADE IN OUR 15 YEARS, BUT
THERE'S MORE TO BE DONE. MORE
THAN 50 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC
INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
ENDORSED A B 1588 ONLY THREE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER.
INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE
THIS BILL. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO
THE HEARTFELT ADVOCATES WHO HAVE
TAKEN AND OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION BECAUSE THEY HAVE
IDENTIFIED ALL THE KEY POLICY
PROVISIONS THAT CTF ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED, AND CONTINUES TO
SUPPORT TO STRENGTHEN THE BILL.
BUT TODAY IS A TIME FOR ACTION.
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
HAD BEEN TRAILBLAZERS IN
PURSUING DIGITAL EQUITY. PEOPLE
MUST BE ABLE TO AFFORD A HOME
INTERNET SERVICE. MAYBE 1588 IS
THE LAST MAJOR POLICY THAT'S
NEEDED TO BE ADOPTED TO FULFILL
THE PROMISE OF DIGITAL EQUITY
FOR CALIFORNIA. THERE ARE MORE
THAN 5.8 MILLION LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS IN CALIFORNIA WHO ARE
IN NEED OF AFFORDABLE INTERNET.
PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR'S
BROADBAND FOR ALL EXECUTIVE
ORDER. C E T F AND PARTNERS,
INCLUDING THE ISPS HAVE ENROLLED
ALMOST 3 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE FEDERAL FEDERAL AFFORDABLE
KIND OF CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM. A
C P WITHOUT A B 1588 3 MILLION
HOUSEHOLDS. THAT'S MORE THAN 9.
MILLION PEOPLE WILL BE KICKED
OFF THE INTERNET. IMPORTANTLY
THE 3 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS TO BE
REACHED ARE THE MOST NEEDY. THE
HARDEST TO REACH AND ARE NOT
EVEN AWARE OF SCP AND AFFORDABLE
OFFERS. BECAUSE THE I S P S HAVE
DECLINED TO ADVERTISE IN WAYS
THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN
REACHING THEM. THIS BILL. IS THE
ESSENTIAL BACKDROP. AND
BACKSTOP. PLAN TO ENSURE THAT
ALL LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN
CALIFORNIA WE'LL HAVE AFFORDABLE
HOME INTERNET SERVICE,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOES. THE BEDROCK
QUESTION HERE IS, SHOULDN'T I S
P S WHO ARE RECEIVING TAXPAYER
OR RATEPAYER FUNDS BE REQUIRED
TO ASSIST THE STATE AND GETTING
ALL LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ONLINE
SO THAT EVERYONE CAN PARTICIPATE
IN DAILY LIFE. AS WE KNOW IT. I
WANT TO CLOSE BY UNDERSCORING
THAT MAYBE 1588 REQUIRES NO
STATE FUNDS. THERE IS NO GENERAL
FUNDS OR SPECIAL FUNDS
SUBSIDIES. WITHOUT A B 1588 3
MILLION HOUSEHOLDS ARE GOING TO
BE KICKED OFF THE INTERNET, AND
THERE WILL BE NO HOPE OF
CALIFORNIA ACHIEVING DIGITAL
EQUITY. THEREFORE CTF AND 50,
PLUS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
RESPECT RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE TODAY. AND THERE'S ONE
MINUTE REMAINING. I HAVE ONE
MINUTE. LET ME SAY MY NAME IN 30
SECONDS. YOU COULD HAVE THE FULL
MINUTES. OF COURSE I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT A B R 1588. AND I LIKE
TO THANK, UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON AND THE HARD WORK OF THE
TECHNOLOGY FUND THAT THAT EVENT
TO TRY AND CLOSE THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE. CAMPESINA IT'S A FARM
WORK ORGANIZATION, AND WE SERVE
IN AN AVERAGE £153,000 WORKERS
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO WE'RE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
ACCESSIBILITY UM, WE KNOW THAT
ABOUT 51% OF THE RULE HOUSEHOLDS
DO NOT HAVE THEIR ACCESS. AND OF
COURSE, WE'VE KNOWN THAT ALL
ALONG BECAUSE WE PROVIDE
SERVICES TO THOUSANDS AND
THOUSANDS OF FARM WORKERS, AND
IT WAS REALLY SAD AND TRAGIC TO
SEE THEIR IN COVID 19, WHICH, IN
FACT, SOMETIMES I THINK COVID 19
FOR BRINGING ABOUT SO MANY
TRANSFORMATION OF CONSEQUENCES.
ONE OF THEM WAS THAT WE SAW THE
NECESSITY OF THE AXIS. TO THE
INTERNET FOR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES. OUR KIDS WERE OUT
THERE TRYING TO GET CLOSE TO AN
IN AND OUT BURGER TO A TACO BELL
OR CLOSE TO OUR TO A OF
STARBUCKS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GO
IN THERE AND AFFORD COFFEE, BUT
IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE
THE EDUCATION THAT WAS BEING YOU
KNOW, TRANSLATED THROUGH THE
INTERNET. SO UM, I THINK THAT
WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT THINGS IN
THIS BUILDING, CLOSING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE, WHICH IS
FUNDAMENTAL IN ECONOMIC DIVIDE
IS TWO THINGS. WE'VE GOT TO MAKE
SURE THAT OUR KIDS WILL HAVE
ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND THAT
THEIR PARENTS WILL HAVE ACCESS
TO THAT TELEMEDICINE AND
TELEHEALTH TELEHEALTH THAT IS
GOING TO BECOME MUCH MORE COMMON
AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT
HEALTH AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
TO SO MANY OF OUR POOR PEOPLE. I
ASKED VERY RESPECTFULLY. FOR
YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. UM AND NOW WE'LL MOVE TO
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. YOU MAY APPROACH THE
MIC WITH NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION ONLY. FOR THIS ONE. WE
HAVE TO SUPPORT OH, GOOD
AFTERNOON, ALEJANDRO SOLIS ON
BEHALF OF SOMETHING IN SUPPORT
AND SERVING AS A PROXY FOR THE
FOLLOWING GROUPS. CALIFORNIA
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CASTLE,
DIABETIC Ó CENTRAL VALLEY
OPPORTUNITY CENTER, FIRST DAY
FOUNDATION. PROTESTS. BUT HE
KNOWS ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS, MARVIN PINERA.
I'VE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO DO
A MEETING IN SUPPORT OF THE
FOLLOWING GROUPS THE CALIFORNIA
FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT
LIVING CENTERS, THE CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION.
EVERYONE ON IN SAN DIEGO FOR
EVERY CHILD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR THE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
, MOVING ON TO OPPOSITION. WE
HAVE TWO ORGANIZATIONS THAT
REQUESTED IN ADVANCE TO SPEAK AS
PRIMARY OPPOSITION. SO PLEASE
APPROACH THE BENCH THIS TIME,
AMANDA GOLD AROMA FROM CAL
BROADBAND AND YOLANDA BENSON
FROM US. TELL KHAN HAVE YOU
MOVED DOWN TO THE DO DO DO DO
COME ON HERE AT HOME. AND THEN
MAX. SO YOU'LL HAVE BETWEEN THE
TWO OF YOU FOUR MINUTES. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AMANDA
GUADARRAMA WITH CAL BROADBAND.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE 1588 IS
TRYING TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH
FEDERAL IN ACTIVITY WITH REGARDS
TO THE FUNDING OF THE AFFORDABLE
CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM. A C P TO
BE CLEAR A. C P PROVIDES A $30
PER MONTH VOUCHER TOWARDS
INTERNET SERVICE FOR ELIGIBLE
HOUSEHOLDS. THERE ARE TWO STEPS
TO THE FIRST IS QUALIFYING FOR
THE VOUCHER TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S VERIFICATION
PROCESS, AND THEN THE CUSTOMER
CONNECTS THEIR PREFERRED
PARTICIPATING INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER TO SELECT A PLAN AND
HAVE THAT DISCOUNT APPLIED TO
THEIR BILL. THE CPI IS NO LONGER
FUNDED THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL
INACTION. THE PART THAT GOES
AWAY WILL BE THE VOUCHERS, NOT
THE PLANS. THIS MEANS THAT OVER
2.7 MILLION CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE
RELYING ON THAT $30 VOUCHER TO
LOWER THE PRICE OF THEIR ALREADY
LOW INCOME PLANS WILL NOT HAVE
THAT SAFETY NET. MAYBE 1588 WILL
NOT SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. OUR
MEMBER COMPANIES HAVE OFFERED
HIGH SPEED LOW INCOME PLANS WELL
BEFORE THE WAS ESTABLISHED. WE
HAVE HISTORICALLY DEMONSTRATED A
COMMITMENT TO DELIVERING HIGH
SPEED INTERNET TO LOW INCOME
INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
ATTEMPTING TO RATE REGULATE THE
INDUSTRY DESPITE OUR HISTORY AND
COMMITMENT THROUGH THE
PROCUREMENT PROCESS DOES NOT
RESOLVE FEDERAL IN ACTIVITY AND,
QUITE FRANKLY FRUSTRATES OUR
INDUSTRY'S ABILITY TO DO
BUSINESS WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL IS NOT THE
SOLUTION TO THE STATED PROBLEM
AND CREATES BARRIERS TO ROBUST
PARTICIPATION OF PROVIDERS
WITHIN THE STATE AGENCY AND
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS. FOR
THESE REASONS. CAL BROADBAND AS
OPPOSED TO THE BILL, I'M HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOLANDA
BENSON WITH US TELECOM, THE
BROADBAND ASSOCIATION. WE
UNDERSTAND THE AUTHOR'S
INTENTION WITH THIS BILL, WITH
WITH BEING ABLE TO FILL WITH
THIS SO CALLED AFFORDABILITY GAP
FOR BROADBAND SERVICE REGARDING
THE FEDERAL IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REAUTHORIZED
A C P. AS YOU ALREADY KNOW, THE
HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL
PROGRAM SINCE ITS LAUNCH IN
APRIL OF 2002. AND AS ALREADY
MENTIONED BY CAL BROADBAND. IT
IS THE $30 VOUCHER WITH $75 PER
MONTH FOR TRIBAL LANDS ON TRIBAL
LANDS FOR HIGH SPEED INTERNET
SERVICE. MAYBE 1588 50. THE BILL
WOULD NOT FILL THE GAP LEFT BY
THE LOSS OF THAT GOVERNMENT
SUBSIDY. HOWEVER TODAY THERE WAS
A BILL INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS TO
PROVIDE $7 BILLION TOWARDS THE
CPI AND IN CONGRESS IS WORKING
NOVI PARTISAN MANNER TO GO AHEAD
AND FILL THAT THAT THAT
POTENTIAL GAP WHICH THEY HAVE
UNTIL APRIL OF THIS YEAR, 2024
TO DO SO. AND WE KNOW THAT MANY
U. S TELECOM IS WORKING AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS, BUT WHEN
IT COMES TO AFFORDABILITY, WE
HAVE REPORTS THAT SHOW THAT
BROADBAND PRICES HAVE DECREASED
SINCE 2015 WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
INTERVENTION OR MANDATES. AND
OFTEN AT LOWER COST THAN $40 A
MONTH AND ACTUALLY FOR HIGHER
SPEEDS THAN ARE ACTUALLY IN THE
BILL AS WELL, WHILE PRICES FOR
MOST GOODS HAVE GONE UP,
BROADBAND PRICES HAVE COME DOWN
SINCE 2016 BY OVER 37% AND WE
HAVE A REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT
WAS CERTAINLY WITH ALL THE
MEMBERS. AND ANYONE ELSE WHO
WOULD LIKE IT? UM THE BILL
OFFERS NO ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE
TO CONSUMERS, BECAUSE AGAIN WE
CAN CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE
AFFORDABLE PROGRAMS THROUGH OUR
COMPANY'S IT SEEKS TO SET A RATE
CAP THAT IS NOT AT ALL TRIED TO
WHAT IS RECOGNIZED TO BE AN
EXTREMELY DYNAMIC MARKET, AND IT
HELPS DOES NOT HELP CONSUMERS.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE WANT TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON AND HAVE
DONE SO SINCE THIS IS THE TWO
YEAR BILL. WE'VE BEEN IN
DISCUSSIONS SINCE THEN. WE
REMAIN COMMITTED TO CONTINUING
OFFERING THE LOW INCOME PROGRAMS
THAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND WE
UNDERSTAND THE AFFORDABILITY.
DISCUSSIONS SHOULD GO ON. THANK
YOU. UM ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? YOU
MAY APPROACH THE MIC TESTIFY
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. IN
POSITION. THANK YOU, MADAM.
CHAIR MEMBERS STEVE CARLSON
SETIA, WHERE THE WIRELESS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION. UM
UNFORTUNATELY, UH IN OPPOSITION.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ROXANNE
GOULD, REPRESENTING THE WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION.
ALSO, UNFORTUNATELY IN
OPPOSITION. NICOLE WARD ULLMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN'S
PARTNERSHIP IN AN OPPOSING
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION. THANK
YOU. UM THANK YOU TO ALL THE
WITNESSES. I'M NOW GOING TO
RETAKE THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK
MRS WILSON FOR WORKING WITH ME
AND MY STAFF TO COME UP WITH AN
AGREEMENT ON AMENDMENTS AND
THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS, WHICH, UM, WE HAVE
HAD A LARGE NUMBER OF
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE POLICY ON
THIS BILL. SINCE WE'VE COME BACK
LAST WEEK, AND I'VE EXPRESSED TO
YOU SOME OF MY CONCERNS TO BE
CLEAR. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL. WITH THE AMENDMENTS, BUT I
ALSO WANT TO SHARE SOME OF THE
CONCERNS AND THE INTERESTS OF
TRANSPARENCY. MOST IMPORTANTLY,
I QUESTIONED THE PRECEDENT THIS
BILL POTENTIALLY SETS BY
ESTABLISHING CONTRACTING
REQUIREMENTS ON POTENTIAL
VENDORS, WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF PARTICULAR CONTRACT. MY
BELIEF IS THERE OUGHT TO BE A
NEXUS BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS
WE SET FOR POTENTIAL VENDORS AND
THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT. FOR
EXAMPLE, WHEN WE LOOK AT HIRING
CONTRACTORS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS LIKE ROADS AND BRIDGES.
WELL, WE MAY HAVE PAVILION WAGE.
REQUIREMENTS AND EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS FOR
WORKERS ON THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT
. IT'S NOT TYPICAL FOR THOSE
CONTRACTORS TO ALSO OFFER
BENEFITS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
THAT CONTRACT. I THINK THE
PERSON THERE'S A POTENTIAL
SLIPPERY SLOPE WITH THIS BILL,
WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF, AND I
ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO CONSIDER
THAT MOVING FORWARD SECONDLY,
REGARDING EXISTING AFFORDABILITY
PROGRAMS, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN VERY
IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE MAXIMIZE
PARTICIPATION AND AWARENESS AND
EXISTING PROGRAMS. THIS IS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF OUR LOW INCOME
CONSUMERS WHO ALREADY HAVE A
DIFFICULT TIME BECOMING AWARE.
OF AND ENROLLING IN EXISTING
PROGRAMS. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S
AN ONGOING PUBLIC INFORMATION
CAMPAIGNS AND MARKETING
HAPPENING THAT ARE TIED TO
EXISTING PROGRAMS. I DON'T
BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO RESULT
SOLVE OUR BROADBAND ADOPTION
PROBLEMS BY CREATING A NEW
PROGRAM WITH ITS OWN ENROLLMENT
GOALS AND ITS OWN OUTREACH AND
ITS OWN ADVERTISEMENT
REQUIREMENTS. LASTLY ON THE
SPEED THRESHOLD, I'M AWARE THAT
THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE
ESTABLISHING OF 25 3 IS THE
MINIMUM METRIC I SHARE THAT
CONCERN. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT
MOVING FORWARD. UM BUT I
UNDERSTAND YOUR IDEAS, THE FLOOR
AND THE CEILING. AND ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS IS THAT THE CONTINUED
PARTICIPATION WOULD FULFILL THIS
REQUIREMENT IN YOUR BILL, AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE US COMING TO
THAT AGREEMENT. AND WITH THAT, I
WANT TO OPEN THE MIC OPEN UP THE
CONVERSATION TO QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS FROM OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND I REALLY ENCOURAGE
YOU TO SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY.
SO ANY QUESTIONS COMING?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WHEN THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON
FOR PUTTING THIS BILL TOGETHER
AS YOU WERE SPEAKING AND AS CTF
CAME UP TO TALK, IT TOOK ME BACK
15 YEARS WHEN CTF FIRST STARTED
AND I WORKED DIRECTLY WITH C T F
T. C E T F BECAUSE WE WANTED TO
GET A PULSE ON HOW MANY
COMMUNITY MEMBERS OUT THERE WERE
NOT CONNECTED AND WHAT THE
ISSUES WERE. AND HOW DO WE GET
THIS TO THEM? AND IT GAVE ME A
FLASHBACK OF HOW I DID THAT.
NOW. I DID. THAT WAS IT WAS A
BUNCH OF US THAT GOT TOGETHER
AND A ROUNDTABLE CAME UP WITH
LIKE 50 QUESTIONS AND I HAD A
CLIPBOARD AND WE HAD TO GO
AROUND AND MARK THEM ONE BY ONE,
BECAUSE THAT IT WE DIDN'T HAVE
ALL OF THE DIGITAL STUFF THAT WE
HAVE TODAY. AND ONCE I HAD THE
INFORMATION, I INPUT IT INTO AN
EXCEL AND THEN SAID WHAT
COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND HAVE IT
HOW MANY WE YOU KNOW, PULLED IN
WHATNOT. AND AS WE LOOK TODAY,
INTERNET HAVING ACCESS TO ONCE
UPON A TIME WAS A LUXURY AND NOW
YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS A NECESSITY.
IT IS A NECESSITY AND FOR OVER
15 YEARS I WORKED DIRECTLY WITH
AN ORGANIZATION. I OVERSAW AN
ORGANIZATION. THAT PROVIDED
ACCESS TO SERVICES TO LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES THAT
WERE STRUGGLING AND WE SAW
CLEARLY DURING COVID DURING THE
PANDEMIC. HOW MANY FAMILY
MEMBERS DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO
THE INTERNET? BUT IT WASN'T JUST
ACCESS TO THE INTERNET AND
ACCESS TO SERVICE, BUT IT WAS
ALSO ACCESS TO DEVICES AS WELL,
TOO. AND THEN IT WAS. HOW DO
THEY NAVIGATE THE SYSTEM? ONCE
THEY HAVE THE DEVICE, AND THEY
HAVE THE SYSTEM? IN PLACE. AND
WHAT I SAW WAS THAT THERE WERE
SO MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF
PROGRAMS THAT WERE AVAILABLE AND
AS ONE OF THE AS ONE OF OUR
WITNESSES STATED ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS I WANTED TO ASK WAS,
YOU KNOW IF WE'RE TAKING A LOOK
AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
THIS PROGRAM IS IN PLACE. WHEN
DOES THAT DECISION? COME ABOUT
AGAIN WHERE THEY GET TO TELL US
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GOING TO
GET REFUNDED? AND I THINK YOU
SAID APRIL IS WHEN THAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN. AND SO I WONDER. IF
WE CAN WAIT UNTIL APRIL TO SEE
WHAT HAPPENS, AND THEN WE COME
BACK AND THINK ABOUT WHAT BETTER
PROGRAMS OR HOW WE CAN
COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. AND I SEE
THAT ONLY BECAUSE AS SOMEBODY
WHO RAN AN ORGANIZATION THAT
PROVIDED DIRECT SERVICES, I WAS
THE PERSON THAT WAS SITTING
BEHIND THE DESK, FILLING OUT THE
INFORMATION AND LETTING THEM
KNOW THIS IS WHAT YOU QUALIFY
FOR. THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T
QUALIFY FOR. THIS IS WHAT YOU
DON'T QUALIFY FOR BECAUSE YOU
WERE OVER $5 IN INCOME OR
WHATNOT, AND IT DIDN'T
NECESSARILY HELP THEM. SO MY
CONCERN IS THAT THERE ARE SOME
PROGRAMS OUT THERE THAT DOESN'T
COST. THE HOUSEHOLD $5.10
DOLLARS. $40 BUT ZERO HELPED
FAMILY GET ACCESS TO SERVICES
THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PUT ANY
MONEY OUT IN THERE. AND BY DOING
THIS MANDATE DOES THAT TAKE THAT
ALL AWAY? DO THESE FAMILIES NOW
THAT I HAVE SERVED FOR MANY
YEARS NOW, DO I HAVE TO GO BACK
AND SAY SORRY? THERE IS A NEW
MANDATE IN PLACE. THE PROGRAM
THAT YOU HAD BEFORE IS NO LONGER
AVAILABLE. AND NOW YOU ACTUALLY
HAVE TO PAY $40. YOU KNOW, WE
TALKED A LOT ABOUT UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, AND THAT'S WHAT I
WORRY ABOUT IS THAT THIS RIGHT
HERE IS JUMPING BEFORE WHAT WE
CAN ACTUALLY WAIT AND SEE. AND
IF WE HAVE JUST A FEW MONTHS TO
BE ABLE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT
HAPPENS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL,
WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO THAT IS
WEIGHT AND THEN COME TOGETHER
AND FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE PUT
SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT CAN
TRULY HELP OUR COMMUNITIES? UM
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN
COMMENT ON THAT AT ALL.
ABSOLUTELY I WANTED TO BE
RESPECTFUL AND WAIT UNTIL YOU
FINISH. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WHEN FOR YOUR
COMMENTS AND ALSO THANK YOU FOR
THE WORK THAT YOU DID PRIOR TO
COMING TO HERE TO ENSURE
FAMILIES THAT NEED TO BE
CONNECTED. WE'RE CONNECTED AND
HAD THE RESOURCES WHETHER IT BE
INTERNET SERVICE, OR ACTUALLY,
THE DEVICES TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT, UM, PROUD OF THE WORK THAT
YOU DID. UM PRIOR TO BEING HERE,
SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT. AND
SO IN REGARD TO YOUR QUESTION,
THESE TWO THINGS CAN EXIST AT
THE SAME TIME. AND WHEN I SAY
THESE TWO THINGS, I MEAN MAYBE
1588 AS WELL AS THE PROGRAM AS
WELL AS ANY OTHER PROGRAM THAT
EXISTS. ALL THIS DOES IS
REQUIRED. IT'S NOT A NEW PROGRAM
THERE WERE THERE. THE WORD IN
THEIR PROGRAM IS RELATED TO A
PROGRAM AT THE STATE FOR IN
TERMS OF PART OF THE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS, BEING ABLE TO ACTUALLY
CHECK A BOX FOR AND THAT SORT OF
FERGUS PROVIDER. DO THEY HAVE A
PROGRAM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO
THOSE THAT HAVE, UM NEED
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. DO THEY
HAVE A PROGRAM? UM DO THEY HAVE
A, UH, PLAN? THANK YOU. WHOEVER
SAID IT IN MY EAR. DO THEY HAVE
A PLAN THAT MEETS A CERTAIN SET
OF REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE LAID
FORTH IN THE BILL IS $40 AND A
MINIMUM SPEED OF 25 3. THAT'S
ALL IT DOES, IT SAYS. IF YOU
HAVE THAT TYPE OF PLAN, YOU
OFFER THAT PLAN THEN YOU CAN DO
BUSINESS WITH THE STATE. UM AND
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN. UM AND APRIL
WITH OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND
IF, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY
DECIDED NOT TO FIND THE AND
THAT'S NOT INCLUDED, UM, TO THE
OPPOSITION'S POINT, THEY SAID,
WELL, NOTHING CHANGES. WELL,
SOMETHING BIG, JUST CHANGE
BECAUSE THE WAY THAT PEOPLE
ACCESS THAT PLAN UM, THAT $30
PLAN IS VIA THE GOVERNMENT. UM
THAT PLAN NO LONGER EXISTS AT
THAT THERE. THERE'S NO WAY TO
ACCESS IT. HOW WOULD AN
INDIVIDUAL ACCESS THAT PLAN FROM
THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER?
THEY CAN'T GO TODAY TO THE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS SITE
AND GET THAT PLAN. THE ONLY WAY
TO DO THAT IS VIA THE ROUTE OF
BASICALLY THE GOVERNMENT. AND SO
THAT'S WHY I TAKE EXCEPTION WITH
THAT. AND SO THIS ALLOWS THAT
EVEN IF THAT PLAN WENT AWAY UM,
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAVE
SOME TYPE OF PLAN THAT WAS LESS
THAN $40 AND AT LEAST 25 3. IF
THE A C P STAYS AND IT STAYS
FUNDED, OR IF THERE'S NEW
PROGRAMS AT A LOCAL LEVEL OR NEW
PROGRAMS AT THE STATE LEVEL,
HOWEVER, PEOPLE ACCESS THEIR
ABILITY TO GET YOU KNOW,
AFFORDABLE INTERNET WHICH COULD
BE $0, RIGHT, AS YOU STATED IT
SAYS THAT THEY STILL CAN OPERATE
WITH THEY STILL CAN ENTER INTO
PROCUREMENT WITH THE STATE
BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
CHECK THAT BOX AND SAY WE HAVE A
PLAN, AND THAT'S ALL THIS DOES
IS THAT IT CREATES A CEILING AND
A FLOOR AND YOU KNOW, I'M
SENSITIVE TO MARKET NEEDS. UM
YOU KNOW HOW TO HAVE A BUSINESS
BACKGROUND BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR
QUITE SOME TIME. AND SO I
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A PLAN
RIGHT NOW. THAT'S 30 100, SO
THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY. A
CEILING OF 40, A FLOOR OF 25 IS
NOT ACHIEVABLE ACHIEVABLE, NO
MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE
MARKET, I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN
IS THAT YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE
ALREADY PLANS IN PLACE, AND
FOLKS, THEY'RE ALREADY DOING
SUCH A THING AND PUTTING THIS
MANDATE IN PLACE MAY THEN IMPACT
THE PLANS THAT ARE ALREADY IN
PLACE. AND I WORRY. AND I SAY
THIS ONLY BECAUSE BEFORE COMING
HERE. I SAT ON THE OTHER SIDE,
AND THERE'S SO MANY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES THAT HAPPEN THAT I
HAD TO RELATE BACK TO THE
COMMUNITY THAT I SERVED, AND IT
MADE IT SO MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
AND IT WENT AWAY OR IT MADE IT A
LOT TOUGHER OR IT ACTUALLY HARM
THIS COMMUNITY MORE THAN
ANYTHING, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I
HAVE CONCERNS IN ADDITION TO
WHAT THE CHAIR MENTIONED, AND I
DON'T WANT TO DIG DEEP INTO IT
SOME MORE BECAUSE SHE MENTIONED
A LOT OF THINGS THAT I FEEL IS
GOING TO REALLY HAVE SOME
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
FUTURE FOR OTHER STATE ENTITIES
OR OTHER CONTRACTS THAT MAY COME
IN AS WELL. AND THIS MAY OPEN UP
A WHOLE ANOTHER. YOU KNOW BOX UM
AND SO YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SUPPORT
THIS TODAY. I'D LOVE TO SEE WHAT
HAPPENS IN APRIL AND MAYBE WE
CAN COME BACK. BUT YOU KNOW, IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS WHICH I
RESPECT AND I APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU ALL DO FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THAT IS REALLY AN SERVED IN
UNDERSERVED, BUT I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS
NOT GOING TO HARM THEM. EVEN
MORE, AND I SEE THAT ONLY
BECAUSE YOU KNOW FOR OVER A
DECADE FOR 15 YEARS, I WAS ON
THE OTHER SIDE, AND THAT'S WHAT
WE ALL THOUGHT IS THAT WE COME
HERE AND WE MAKE THESE
DECISIONS. WE PASS THESE BILLS,
AND IT'S TO HELP BUT IN REALITY,
IT HARMED US MORE THAN ANYTHING,
AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. I GET
YOUR CONCERN. I DO DISAGREE AND
CONSIDER IT UNFOUNDED. BUT IT IS
YOUR CONCERN AND I RESPECT IT. I
WOULD SAY THAT. YOU KNOW WHEN
WE'RE TRYING TO PROGRESS THROUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE HAVE
BOTH HOUSES TO GET IN. WE HAVE A
PROCESS THAT GETS TO THE
GOVERNOR AND THIS WOULD ALLOW US
TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION.
SHIN DESPITE WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN
APRIL, AND JUST NOTING THAT YOU
KNOW THE ISP PROVIDERS. DO UM,
ONCE ONCE THIS GOES AWAY, THEY
HAVE 90 DAYS 90 DAYS TO KICK
PEOPLE OFF, SO IT IS IMPERATIVE
THAT WE GET THIS DONE AND I'LL
GIVE IT BACK TO THE CHAIR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. REMEMBER, BONTA?
THANK YOU. I WANNA THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
BILL. IT'S CERTAINLY IN
ALIGNMENT WITH A LOT OF THE WORK
THAT THIS COMMITTEE AND LED BY
THE TOUR IS ACTUALLY DONE OVER
THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO
LEGISLATIVE CYCLES PROMOTING
DIGITAL EQUITY TO SAT ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF GOVERNMENT. I
DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THE OTHER
SIDE, BUT CERTAINLY IN THE IN
THE FORM OF DIRECT SERVICE AND
WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES WHO DID
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET
AND FEEL VERY COMMITTED TO THE
FACT THAT WE NEED TO OPERATE
FROM A PERSPECTIVE AT THE STATE
LEVEL, AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL
LEVEL TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
PROVIDING EVERY TOOL IN THE
TOOLKIT THAT WE CAN TO ENSURE
DIGITAL EQUITY. UM I HANDED OUT
TABLETS TO LOTS OF LITTLE BABIES
AND ENSURE THAT THEIR PARENTS
HAD THE ABILITY TO GET ONTO
THOSE TABLETS AND HAVE INTERNET
ACCESS AVAILABLE TO THEM. AND
THAT WAS BEFORE, UM THE
INCIDENTS OF DIGITAL LEARNING
WAS AT THE LEVEL OF NEED THAT IT
IS OR THE INCIDENTS OF DIGITAL
HEALTH IS AT THE NEED THAT IT IS
POST COVID. UM SO TO THE ISSUE
OF WHETHER YOU KNOW WE SHOULD BE
ACTING NOW VERSUS LATER, I THINK
IT IS KIND OF WITHIN
CALIFORNIA'S D N A TO ALWAYS
OPERATE AND ALWAYS BE ON THE
LEADING FRONT AND THE LEADING
EDGE OF ISSUES RELATED TO EQUITY
. UM AS A STATE AND NOT RELY ON
THE WISE AND WHEREFORES OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. UH
CALIFORNIA IS LEADING IN THIS
AREA. WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO LEAD
IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW TO MAKE
HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN, UM IN
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND IN
ENSURING THAT THERE'S EQUITABLE
ACCESS TO INTERNET UM AND WE
SHOULD NOT FORGO AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ENSURE THAT IS THE CASE RIGHT
NOW, BY WAITING WITH OUR HANDS
UNDER OUR FEET WHILE YOU KNOW
UNDER OUR AND OUR LEGS WHILE WE
WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MIGHT DO IN THE
FUTURE, THAT'S JUST NOT THE
SENSE. I THINK THAT CALIFORNIA
TAKES, UM I DO WANT TO KIND OF
POINT TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE
ATTEMPT IS INTENDING WITH THIS
BILL, TOO. SET OF FLOOR AROUND,
UM AROUND ACCESS AND RECOGNIZING
THAT RIGHT NOW IN THIS BILL, WE
HAVE YOU HAVE 25/3 AS THE AS THE
AS THE UPLOAD AND DOWNLOAD
SPEEDS AND THOSE THAT THAT IS
FAR BELOW THE FLOOR. I THINK
THAT IS ACTUALLY FEASIBLE FOR
PEOPLE TO, UM ACTUALLY HAVE
ACCESS TO INTERNET AND THE WAY
THAT THEY NEED TO GIVEN THE USES
AND THE MULTIPLE DEVICES THAT
ARE HAPPENING WITHIN WITHIN A
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY HAD THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT LOOK IN
MY DISTRICT WITH, UH, WITH
PARTNERS. UM UH, SP PARTNERS AND
THE CABLE ASSOCIATION. VERY
RECENTLY. SO I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FLOOR BEING TOO LOW AS
IT SET OUT IN THIS BILL. THE
CHAIR ALLUDED TO THAT IN IN HER
REMARKS AS WELL, UM AND IT IS A
PASSION THAT WE JOINTLY SHARE,
SO I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHETHER, UM
WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO RE
RE EXAMINE THAT SORT. LEAST IT
MATCHES THE CURRENT THRESHOLD OF
100/20, WHERE IN THE PROCESS OF
THIS, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS BILL
MOVE OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE WHERE
YOU WOULD INTEND TO TAKE THAT UP
RIGHT? SO THE 25/3 4 WAS, UM SET
BECAUSE IT WAS ONE DEVICE BEING
ABLE TO STREAM LIKE IF SOMEONE
WANTED TO ACCESS A NEWS PROGRAM,
THEY COULD UM AND BE ABLE TO DO
A GOOD DEAL AMOUNT OF WORK
RELATED AS FAR AS WORD
PROCESSING AND THINGS OF THAT
SORT OR ACCESS THE INTERNET FOR
SEARCHES, AND SO WE FELT LIKE
THAT WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE IN
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION IT HAD BEEN AROUND OF
NOT JUST USING THE PROCUREMENT
PARK IS PRACTICES RATE SETTING,
BUT NOT BEING SENSITIVE TO THE
MARKET THAT THE MARKET CHANGES.
RIGHT AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE
CAME UP WITH THE CAP OF NO MORE
THAN 40. BUT HAVING THIS FLOOR
BECAUSE AT LEAST ONE DEVICE
COULD STRENGTH, UM, GIVEN THAT
THE YOU KNOW THE CURRENT
STANDARD FOR AFFORDABILITY IS
REALLY THE 100/1 2100/20 FOR $30
. YOU KNOW WE ARE COMFORTABLE
WITH THAT, AND WE ASSUMED WHEN
WE PUT IN THE 40 WITH THE 25/3
THAT THERE WOULD BE THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW
THIS BACK AND FORTH NEGOTIATION
ABOUT WHERE THE CAP SHOULD
REALLY BE WHERE THE CEILING
SHOULD BE. AND WHERE THE FLOOR
SHOULD BE. BUT WE SPENT OUR TIME
WITH, YOU KNOW, OPPOSITION AND
OTHERS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE BILL AND
HAD LOTS OF NEGOTIATIONS WHERE
WE TOOK IT OUT, AND WE'RE
HOLDING TO THAT, IN THE SENSE
THAT IT REALLY IS THE DISCRETION
OF THE COMMITTEE IF THEY WANT
THE COMMITTEE. THE CHAIR ALONG
WITH THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO
CHANGE THAT. WE'RE OPEN TO THAT.
THAT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, UM HAVING
A DIFFERENT FLOOR. I'M PERFECTLY
COMFORTABLE WITH AS WE WORK
THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT I DO
WANNA, UM, SAY THAT. YOU KNOW,
THIS IS WHAT THIS PART WAS
NEGOTIATED, SO I'M COMFORTABLE
STAYING THERE AS WELL AND
WORKING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS TO SEE IF THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE BEYOND THAT.
SO I'M OPEN, BUT, UM, I'M YOU
KNOW, ALSO, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH
THE CEILING AND THE FLOOR AND IF
THIS COMMITTEE DETERMINES IN
ORDER FOR IT TO PROGRESS. IT
NEEDED TO BE DIFFERENT THAN I'M
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AS WELL.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE REMARKS?
YES WITH THAT. REMEMBER DO YOU
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. UM SO I ALSO JUST
WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY BECAUSE
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. YOU KNOW
, WE CONCERN OURSELVES WITH
PASSING THINGS OUT OF COMMITTEE
SO OFTEN GIVE AUTHORS THE
ABILITY TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT
THEY COMMIT TO DURING THE COURSE
OF THE HEARING. AH I'M COMMITTED
TO ENSURING THAT, UM WE NEED TO
HAVE 100/20 IN ORDER FOR THIS TO
ACTUALLY REFLECT WHAT
ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS TO BE IN
THIS MODERN AGE AND TO BE
REFLECTIVE OF THE EXISTING
PROGRAMS. ARE YOU COMMITTED TO
SETTING THAT. I AM COMMITTED TO
SETTING THAT IF THAT IS THE
DIRECTION OF THE COMMITTEE IF
THE COMMITTEE'S REQUIRE
COMMITTEE IS UM, DIRECTING THAT.
UM AS WE PROGRESS IF WE WERE TO
COME OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT
WE THAT NEEDED TO BE THE NEW
FLOOR, THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT I
WOULD COMMIT TO, BUT IT WOULD BE
THAT THE DISCRETION OF THE FULL
COMMITTEE YES OR THE MAJORITY OF
THE COMMITTEE. I WOULD SAY SO ON
THAT. LEAVE IT TO THE CHAIR TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO OPERATIONALIZE
THAT. UM AND I'M SURE YOU WILL,
UH, YOU KNOW, SHANE MOST OF MY
OTHER QUESTIONS, OR JUST WANT TO
COMMENT ON THAT. SO PROCEDURALLY
. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS IF YOU
MADE THAT COMMITMENT IN ORDER TO
GET THE BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE
TODAY. BE TAKING THAT AMENDMENT
IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE. WE WOULD
NOT BE DOING IT IN THIS
COMMITTEE. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE
AN AUTHOR AMENDMENT. OKAY,
GREAT. SO THEN WE'RE CLEAR. ON
THAT ONE. IF THE YEAH. YES IF
IT'S PART OF THE I GUESS, THE
MOTION AND SECOND AND GETTING IT
OUT THEN RIGHT OR MY STRANGELY,
WE CAN'T DO THAT. SO
PROCEDURALLY. WE WOULDN'T DO
THAT, HERE IF YOU COMMITTED
TODAY TO THE MEMBERS HERE,
VERBALLY THAT YOU WOULD BE
TAKING THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE
YOU NEED TO GET THIS OUT OF
COMMITTEE YOU WOULD COMMIT TO
TAKE THAT AMENDMENT AND THE NEXT
COMMITTEE, WHICH IS, I THINK
APPROPRIATIONS. I UNDERSTAND
THAT PART. I GUESS I'M LOOKING
TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE IF THAT IS, UM FROM
OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT IS THE
WILL OF THE COMMITTEE. I GUESS
THAT'S WHAT I'M WORKING LOTS OF
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK. SO
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM LOTS
OF PEOPLE, BUT I THINK THE
MEMBER OF ON HAS MORE QUESTIONS.
SO I WANT TO LET HER GO, UH,
MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO TAKE AN
AMENDMENT WITH COMMITTEE AND ASK
FOR IN A MATTER ALIVE AMENDMENT
AND I HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO GET
THERE. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO
GO. SO PROCEDURALLY. THE
COMMITTEE RULES IN ASSEMBLY
RULES REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE BEEN
LAID OUT ON THE TABLE AND
WRITING BEFOREHAND IN ORDER TO
PROCEED WITH THEM IN THIS
COMMITTEE, SO FOR ME, I'M FINE
WITH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON
MAKING A COMMITMENT, SAYING THAT
SHE WAS GOING TO DO THAT,
BECAUSE WE ALL GET TO VOTE ON
THE FLOOR. AND IF SHE DOESN'T
SHE DOESN'T KEEP HER COMMITMENT.
THEN WE DON'T VOTE FOR IT ON THE
FLOOR. THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD
PROCEDURALLY WORK. OKAY UM, THE
NEXT JUST QUESTION I HAD IS
AROUND REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROVIDERS TO ADVERTISE THE
PROGRAM. A LOT OF THE
COMMUNITIES THAT I WORKED WITH.
UM OR LARGELY, UH. AH SPEAKERS
OF NON NON ENGLISH SPEAKERS. UM
I NOTED IN THE, UH IN THIS BILL
AS IT'S EVOLVED, THAT ACTUAL
REQUIREMENT WAS TAKEN OUT. UH UM
, WHICH, IN THEORY WOULD LIMIT
SIGNIFICANTLY THE ABILITY FOR
THERE TO BE THE KIND OF
ADVERTISEMENT AND OUTREACH THAT
IS NECESSARY? UM ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ABOUT ANY COMMENTS
AROUND THAT ISSUE? UM AND THEN
IT WAS A PART OF OUR
NEGOTIATIONS TO GET TO THIS
POINT, BUT REALLY, IT'S ABOUT
BECAUSE THERE IS AN ACTIVE
PROGRAM A C P, UM HAVING THEM
HAVE TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENT BEYOND WHAT THEY
CURRENTLY DO AT BP AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES WHAT A C
P AND THE STATE ACTUALLY DOES
WHAT HE'S UP, UM, FELT IT WAS
NOT NECESSARY. AND THEN, UM,
PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, IF I
RECALL CORRECTLY WAS AROUND THE
FACT THAT, UM ADVERTISING. HMM
THIS WHICH IS A PART OF THE
PROCUREMENT PROCESS COULD
CONFUSE PEOPLE IN TERMS OF WELL
BECAUSE IT'S NOT A NEW PROGRAM.
IT'S JUST AN AVAILABILITY OF AN
OPTION. UM THIS ISN'T EVERY
INTERNET SERVICE WRITER WOULD
HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF PLAN.
CURRENTLY THAT PLAN FOR MOST, UM
IS A C P, WHICH IS DONE
SEPARATELY. AND THEY ARE ALREADY
REQUIREMENTS AROUND THAT. SO
THAT'S WHY THEY ADVERTISEMENT.
UM, PIECE WAS TAKEN IT OUT TO
NOT CONFUSE PEOPLE THAT THIS WAS
A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE PROGRAM.
THE WORDING AND THE LANGUAGE
RELATED TO PROGRAM IS REALLY A
PROGRAM OF THE STATE TO REQUIRE
IT FOR, UM, TO REQUIRE THIS AS A
AS A AS A PLAN FOR THEM TO OFFER
THEIR PLAN. NOT UM, A PROGRAM
FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF,
IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I
UNDERSTAND. ARE YOU COMPLETELY
RESPONDED TO YES, THANK YOU. BUT
THAT WILL MOVE TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PATERSON, VICE
CHAIR PATTIES. UM. I NEED TO
POINT OUT SOMETHING THAT'S
FAIRLY OBVIOUS HERE, AND I'M NOT
SURE WE ARE THINKING MUCH ABOUT
WHERE THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS ON
PROVIDING AFFORDABLE ACCESS AND
PROVIDING THE KINDS OF SPEEDS
NECESSARY. TO SO WHEN YOU SET A
PRICE ON AFFORDABILITY AT $40
THAT'S NOT AFFORDABLE. THERE ARE
COMPANIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE
THAT ARE PROVIDING ACCESS WITH
BETTER SPEEDS THAN THIS LOW
SPEED WE'RE SEEING HERE IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR, AND THEY ARE, IN
FACT ADVERTISING THESE KINDS OF
THINGS. I HEAR IT IN MY
MARKETPLACE IN FRESNO ALL THE
TIME. AND SO THE IDEA THAT WE'RE
BANTERING AROUND WORDS LIKE
AFFORDABILITY WHEN WE PUT A
CEILING AT $40 AND WE PUT A
SPEED THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY
LOWER THAN WHAT SO MANY OF THESE
COMPANIES ARE ALREADY OFFERING
IS TO ME. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY
GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO GET INTO
THE BUSINESS OF PRICE SETTING OR
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS
COMPETITION GALORE. THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES HERE. FOR PEOPLE
WHO NEED THIS SERVICE TO GET IT
AT 1012 $15. I'VE SEEN THOSE
KINGS ADVERTISED IN THE FRESNO
MARKETPLACE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND SO I JUST THINK WE IN IN,
LET'S NOT BE, UM. SO ENAMORED
WITH THE TERM OF FLORIDA BLE.
WITHOUT ASKING OURSELVES. WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN? AND SO WE'RE
SETTING A $40. AND WE DON'T HAVE
THE SPEEDS THAT ARE COMPETITIVE
WITH SOME OF THE OTHER. MEMBERS
UM AND SO I, UH TO HAVE THIS
OTHER CONCERNS THAT OTHER
MEMBERS HAVE DISPLAYED HERE
ABOUT THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT'S BEING
DONE HERE. UH, YEAH. CALIFORNIA
LIKES TO LEAD. BUT I AM
CONVINCED THAT THIS IS NOT GOING
TO LEAD US IN THE DIRECTION THAT
WE ARE LOOKING TO ACHIEVE. I
REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO
BE RESPECTFUL AND APPRECIATIVE
OF WHAT THE PRIVATE MARKETPLACE
IS DOING. THE AMOUNT OF HARD
WORK THAT THEY ARE ACHIEVING
PRESENTLY. IN PROVIDING FOR
AFFORDABLE. AND, UH, RATES BUT
ALSO AT SPEEDS THAT ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE
THRESHOLDS THAT ARE PUT IN HERE.
AND SO I'M SUGGESTING THAT THIS
IS, UH AH AND ATTEMPTED
GOVERNMENT. BUT MY READ OF THE
EFFECT OF ALL OF THIS, UH IS
THAT IT'S. I DON'T THINK IT'S
GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE, AND I'M
NOT CONVINCED THAT IT IS THE
KIND OF SERVICE THAT IS GOING TO
BE NECESSITATED FOR THE
INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF
PRIVATE SECTOR. UH EFFORTS TO
LOWER THE COST. IF YOU DON'T
READ ANYTHING ELSE IN ANY OF
THIS. READ THE STATISTICAL DATA
THAT YOU WERE GIVEN BY THOSE WHO
ARE IN OPPOSITION HERE. THAT'S
STATISTICAL DATA SHOWS. PRICES
COMING DOWN AND SPEEDS GOING UP.
ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANT? THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE GETTING. AND INSTEAD
OF RELYING ON AND APPRECIATING.
THE COMPETITION. THE ROBUST
NATURE OF MARKETPLACES THE
IMPORTANCE OF SERVING
COMMUNITIES. INSTEAD WE'RE
DEFAULTING TO THE GOVERNMENT
PLAN THAT SAYS $40 AND LOW
SPEEDS. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH
FOR THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT, AND
I WILL BE A NO VOTE. SO THE
MEMBER OF WASN'T YOU WANT TO
RESPOND TO ANY OF THAT? BECAUSE
I THINK YOUR POINT ABOUT A FLOOR
AND A CEILING IS THAT YOU'RE NOT
ACTUALLY SETTING IT, BUT YOU
COULD GO AHEAD AND RESPOND.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENT SYSTEM. REMEMBER OR I'M
SORRY. VICE CHAIR, PATTERSON.
UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOTE THAT
IT IT IS A CEILING AND A FLOOR.
IT'S NOT SETTING THE RATE. IT'S
SAYING THAT MAX, HERE'S THE
HERE'S THE MOST YOU CAN CHARGE
AND HERE'S THE MINIMUM AND THE
MARKET CAN PLAY WITHIN THAT,
BASED ON A COMPETITIVE MARKET A
LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU SEE THOSE
GREAT COST RIGHT, AND YOU LIKE
IT'S REALLY INEXPENSIVE AND, UM,
AND IT'S GIVING ME THIS RATE A
LOT OF TIMES. THOSE ARE
INTRODUCTORY PRICES, AND
EVENTUALLY IT CHANGES. UM AND
ALTHOUGH I'VE BEEN IN MEETINGS
WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE COST,
UM PER MEGABYTE PER SECOND IS,
UM IS DECREASING EVERY DAY. BUT
STILL, THE OVERALL BILL REMAINS
THE SAME BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER
COSTS. ADDED ON TOP OF THAT, UM,
AND SO THEY WERE TRULY NOT
AFFORDABLE, AND SO WHAT THIS
GOAL IS TO DO IS TO SET
GUIDELINES AND I AM ONE OF THOSE
PEOPLE. I YOU KNOW, MY
BACKGROUND IS IN BUSINESS. I
THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULDN'T MEDDLE IS AS LEAST AS
POSSIBLE WHEN IT COMES TO
BUSINESS, BUT I DO THINK THE
GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE. IN
SETTING GUIDELINES AND SETTING
PARAMETERS AND CREATING A
FRAMEWORK AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
DOING WHEN IT COMES TO
BROADBAND. WE'RE SAYING IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE BROADBAND SERVICE, UM
IN THIS STATE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, THAT AT MINIMUM, YOU
SHOULD BE ABLE TO WATCH A NEWS
PROGRAM TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK. TO
DO WORK. HAD BEEN, UM ONE DEVICE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT, AND
IT SHOULDN'T COST YOU MORE THAN
$40. AND THAT'S REALITY AND
IMPRESSIVE. WITHOUT THIS BILL.
NO ONE NO. BUT IT IS THE PROGRAM
TO ACCESS THE A C P PROGRAM. YOU
CANNOT DO THAT DIRECTLY. I LORI
WILSON CANNOT GO TO ANY OF THE
INTERNET SERVICES PROVIDERS AND
PICK THAT PLAN. THAT'S $30. I
HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SLEEP GOES
AWAY. THE $30 PLAN GOES AWAY,
AND MANY OF THOSE USED THE $30
VOUCHER TO ACCESS EVEN GREATER
INTERNET AS A DISCOUNT, RIGHT
THAT MAKES IT AFFORDABLE FOR
THEIR FAMILY AND THEIR NEEDS SO
THEY ACTUALLY GO ABOVE THE
100/20. THEY ACTUALLY GO ABOVE
THE $30 BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE
YOU KNOW MULTIPLE DEVICES, FEW
PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME THINGS
LIKE THAT, BUT STILL FALL WITHIN
THE LIMITS, AND SO I WANTED TO
BE ABLE TO EXIST. EVEN IF A CPI
DOESN'T EXIST. I WANTED TO
EXIST. WHETHER THERE'S A SUBSIDY
OR NOT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S
PAYING FOR IT. WHETHER IT'S A
SUBSIDY FROM THE GOVERNMENT
SUBSIDY OR THE INDIVIDUAL. THAT
PLAN SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. I WANT
TO ASK THE OPPOSITION TO WEIGH
IN ON THIS AS A COURTESY. THIS
IS THIS IS THE REAL WORLD THAT
DOES THIS DAY IN AND DAY OUT,
AND I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT
IS HAPPENING IN THE MARKETPLACE.
UH AND AGAIN I SEE IT ADVERTISED
IN MY MARKETPLACE. I SEE IT IN
IN IN, UH, DIFFERENT LANGUAGES
AS WELL. UM AND. IT EXISTS, AND
THEN THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING
TO MAKE THIS A GUIDELINE OF 40
ON THE TOP AND THE LOW SPEED AT
AT THE BOTTOM. I THINK TO ME IS,
UH I THINK IT STARTS TO BE A
MAKE BELIEVE GAME HERE THAT
FORTIES, OKAY, BUT AND THE LOW
SLOW SPEEDS ARE OKAY. I DON'T
THINK THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH. AND
I'D LIKE THOSE WHO SUPPLY THIS
SERVICE. TO COMMENT ABOUT THE
COSTS THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE
SPEEDS THAT ARE GOING UP AND THE
. THE FORCES AT WORK APART FROM
GOVERNMENT ARE FAR MORE
EFFECTIVE. THAN SETTING A
GUIDELINE BY BY BY A GOVERNMENT
AGENCY. THROUGH THE CHAIR. YOU
MAY ASK THAT QUESTION. I ASKED
POSITION IF YOU COULD ANSWER
BRIEFLY. THANK YOU. UM SO IT
SOUNDED LIKE TWO PARTS OF THAT
QUESTION ONE THE ARE MEMBERS.
THE INDUSTRY HAS HAD THESE
AFFORDABLE PLANS BEFORE THE EP
AND WE'LL HAVE THEM AFTER THERE
ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOW
INCOME PLANS. ONCE FOR STUDENTS
ONCE FOR A C P OTHER ONES VERY
DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE, UM
COMPANIES WITHIN THE INDUSTRY.
INCOME PLANTS ARE NOT GOING
AWAY. TO YOUR ABSOLUTELY
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. MR VICE CHAIR.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PRICE PER
MEGABIT PER SECOND HAS GONE
DOWN. AH I'M IN 2008. THE PRICE
WAS NOT $9.01 PER MEGABIT PER
SECOND IN 2000. 2018 THAT PRICE
WAS 76 CENTS PER MEGABIT PER
SECOND AND HAS GONE EVEN FURTHER
DOWN NOW, THAT IS 24 2024. UM SO
THE PRICE HAS GONE DOWN, THE
SPEEDS HAVE GONE UP. WE CAN ALL
REMEMBER WHEN WE GOT OUR AOL
DISK. YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE
EARLY TWO THOUSANDS AND WE WERE
NOT. WE WERE LOOKING AT. I THINK
THE HIGHEST ONE WAS 11.5 MEGABIT
PER SECOND LIKE THAT WAS YOUR
SPEED. AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT
ONE GIG. WE'RE LOOKING AT FIVE
G. WE'RE LOOKING AT 10 G. HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. THE SPEEDS HAVE
GONE UP. THE PRICE HAS GONE DOWN
FOR THOSE SPEEDS. THE CAN I JUST
ADD? SO THE A. C P IS ON TOP OF
THE PROGRAMS WE OFFER SO WITH
THE CUSTOMER COMES IN AND SAYS,
I HAVE A $30 VOUCHER FOR THE A C
P AND THIS IS THE PLAN THAT I
WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT TOWARDS
REGARDLESS OF WHAT PLANET MAYBE
THE AFFORDABLE PLANET. MAYBE
SOME HIGHER PLANET MAYBE, YOU
KNOW, YOU KNOW 20 GIGABITS. WE
DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S THEIR
CHOICE TO PUT THAT $30 AND THEN
THEIR CHOICE TO CHOOSE A PLAN.
FOR MANY, THEY CHOOSE THE A, C P
AND THEN THEY CHOOSE A LOW COST
PROGRAM AND OFTEN THEY'RE PAYING
$0 PER MONTH. SO THE A. C P IS
VERY, VERY SEPARATE. PLUS IT'S
ALSO RATE SETTING, WHICH ALREADY
WOULD BE, UM WOULD BE AN FCC
VIOLATION. UM WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PREEMPTION YES,
COURT. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE
LOTS OF MEMBERS WHO WANT TO
SPEAK ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL. SO
NEXT, I'LL CALL ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HOOVER AND THEN THREE OF US AND
THEN SOMEBODY MEMBER BONTA. OH
AND THEN ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
RODRIGUEZ. THANK YOU. I'LL BE
QUICK. YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE WANT
TO ENSURE EVERYBODY'S TALKING.
IT'S EXCITING THING.
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVENIENCE.
GO AHEAD. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
COMMUNICATION TO LET MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES GET THEIR COMMENTS IN
AND QUESTIONS IN, BUT I DO SHARE
THE CONCERN THAT YOU KNOW AND IN
YOUR ATTEMPT TO CREATE A
CEILING. UM ON THE COSTS. I DO
THINK IT COULD POTENTIALLY
CREATE A FLOOR WHICH WHICH IS A
CONCERN OF MINE. UM, I DO THINK
WE NEED TO WAIT AND SEE HOW THE
A C P LEGISLATION WORKS OUT. BUT
I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO GIVE
YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO
THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION ISSUE AND
ALSO JUST THE MORE THE BROADER
QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A
FREE MARKET THAT IS OFFERING
COMPETITIVE PLANS USING
COMPETITION TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE PLANS. WHY DOES YOU
KNOW CALIFORNIA THE STATE
GOVERNMENT NEED TO GET INVOLVED
IN THIS AND WHY DO YOU FEEL LIKE
WHAT THE FREE MARKET IS DOING?
ISN'T ISN'T ENOUGH RIGHT NOW. SO
UM, FOR THE PREEMPTION ISSUE,
THERE WAS SOME PORTION OF THE
BILL THAT WE DID FIND THROUGH
THE SUPPORT OF ALLEGED COUNCIL
AND SUCH THAT HAD A PREEMPTION
RELATED TO IT, AND THOSE PARTS
WERE STRICKEN FROM THE BILL. SO
THE PARTS THAT REMAIN, YOU KNOW,
WE CONSIDER. THEY'RE NOT TO BE A
PREEMPTION ISSUE, BUT WE'RE
WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS TO SEE IF, UM ANOTHER
ATTORNEY SAYS SOMETHING
DIFFERENT. AND, UM, YOU KNOW,
CREATING LAWS. UM SOMETIMES IS
MESSY. AND YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE,
UM I THINK I THINK WE'VE SEEN
HEADLINES WHERE THINGS THAT
WE'VE DONE HAVE AN ISSUE LATER,
BUT THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT
OF DOING THEM AND TO CONTINUE TO
WORK THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS AND EVEN BRING BACK
BILLS LATER. I MEAN, INTRODUCED
NEW BILLS THAT FIX THE BILLS
THAT WE DID BEFORE. I THINK
WE'RE ON GOOD GROUND HERE. AND
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE CONTINUING
TO PROGRESS, AND WE APPRECIATE
THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'VE GOTTEN
ALREADY WHICH CAUSED SOME OF THE
LAW. SOME OF THE BILL LANGUAGE
TO BE STRICKEN RELATED TO THAT
SPECIFIC ISSUE, AND I THINK IT
GOES BACK TO WE DO HAVE A FREE
MARKET, BUT THE FREE MARKET IS
DRIVEN BY PROFITS. IT'S NOT
DRIVEN BY THE CONSUMER IS DRIVEN
BY PROFITS, AND I APPRECIATE
THAT BEEN IN BUSINESS WORKED
FOR, YOU KNOW FOR PROFIT
COMPANIES WORK FOR COMPANIES
THAT ARE PUBLICLY TRADED RIGHT,
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT ABOUT FOR
PROFIT. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING
OUR COMMUNITY, RIGHT, PROTECTING
THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE WITHIN OUR
JURISDICTION, UM, PROTECTING
CONSUMERS. AND SO THIS ALLOWS
FOR A PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS,
AND IT'S SHORE'S THAT WE HAVE AN
AFFORDABLE OPTION, AND THAT'S
WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS
TO ENSURE THAT EVERY SINGLE
RESIDENT AND AN ENTIRE STATE, UM
HAS THE ABILITY TO ACCESS
BROADBAND, NO MATTER WHAT NO
MATTER WHAT THEIR INCOME LOOKS
LIKE. YOU KNOW, I WAS A MAYOR
DURING THE TIME OF THE PANDEMIC.
IT BROKE MY HEART WHEN I WAS
GOING OUT AND I WAS SEEING IT
WAS NOTED IN THE COMMENTS. I
MEAN, I NOTED IN THE TESTIMONY
ABOUT CHILDREN AT STARBUCKS, WE
SAW CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF OUR
COMMUNITY CENTERS, UM, WHICH
RESULTED IN US OPENING THOSE
COMMUNITY CENTERS TO ENSURE THAT
CHILDREN HAVE A SAFE PLACE AND
ACCESS TO BROADBAND IN A SAFE
WAY. AND SO, UM, THAT'S NOT THE
FREE MARKET'S ROLE. THAT'S I
BELIEVE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE AND
THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS
THAT ACCESS ISSUE AND TO ENSURE
THAT THOSE THAT HAVE ISSUES OF
RESOURCE HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ACCESS. UM, THE INTERNET. I'M
JUST GOING TO INTERJECT. I'M IN
ANOTHER COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW AS
WELL. UH APOLOGIES TO MY
COLLEAGUES. UH I AM GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL. RIGHT NOW.
I THINK ONE OF THE CHILD AND ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO IN
POLICY COMMITTEES IS ENSURE THAT
THE AUTHOR HAS CONTINUED
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS BILL. UM I APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO ENSURE THAT
WE CAN WRESTLE WITH THE
PARTICULARLY THE SPEEDS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE WE HAVE A
CEILING THAT IS A FLOOR THAT IS
ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT IS
WORKABLE OF 100/20. WITH THAT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
MOVE THIS BILL. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION. DO YOU HAVE A
SECOND? SECOND BIKERS. MOTION BY
MONTA SECOND BY GARCIA. THANK
YOU, SAM. REMEMBER BONTA, GOOD
LUCK AND ED COMMITTEE. NOW WE
HAVE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
THREE OF US. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHERRY, UH, I KNOW THAT THE
CHAIR THE AUTHOR, COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT, UM, HAVE SPENT A LOT
OF TIME TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY. I KNOW.
ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS ALREADY
ASKED. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A
STATEMENT. AH YOU KNOW, MY STAFF
HAS ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME
ANALYZING AMENDMENTS AS THEY
WERE COMING IN. YOU KNOW, I
REPRESENT A COMMUNITY WHERE
THERE ARE FAMILIES SOMETIMES
DOUBLED OR TRIPLED UP IN ONE
HOUSEHOLD. SO ONE HOUSEHOLD
COULD MEAN FOR FAMILIES, UM, IN
IN MY DISTRICT, AND I'M SURE
THAT'S TRUE ACROSS THE STATE. UM
AND YOU KNOW MANY TIMES IT'S ONE
HOUSEHOLD THAT CURRENTLY EITHER
USES THE A, C P OR THE
CALIFORNIA LIFELINE PROGRAM. UM
YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE FAMILIES IN ONE
HOUSEHOLD ARE DRAWING FROM THE
SAME SPEED. AND SO DURING THE
PANDEMIC, YOU KNOW, WE SAW
STUDENTS GOING TO LOCAL FAST
FOOD RESTAURANTS AND COFFEE
SHOPS TO USE THEIR WIFI. UM FOR
SCHOOL TO BE AT SCHOOL BECAUSE
THEY EITHER DIDN'T HAVE IT OR
PROBABLY WASN'T SUFFICIENT AT
HOME. SO MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU
KNOW PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY
HAVING TO PAY MORE FIRST LOWER
SPEEDS, AND I KNOW OTHER MEMBERS
HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THOSE
CONCERNS. AND UM, YOU KNOW, AS A
FORMER CHAIR OF A COMMITTEE, UM,
I KNOW THAT AS THE BILL LEAVES
THIS COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION.
SO GOES LIKE OUR ABILITY TO BE
TO NEGOTIATE, UM IN THE PROCESS
OR BECOME HERBAL WITH THE FORM
THE BELL. I KNOW WE'RE LIKE, OH,
LET'S DO THAT IN APPROPRIATIONS.
LET'S DO THAT. ANOTHER COMMITTEE
OR SOMETHING, AND, UM, YOU KNOW
AND WE ALWAYS RUN OUT OF TIME.
BUT WE ARE AT THE BEGINNING OF A
SESSION TO WHERE THIS BILL COULD
BE REINTRODUCED IN AND IF
NECESSARY. UM AND CONTINUE, BUT,
UM, YOU KNOW, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY, BUT I
HOPE THAT THE CHAIR AND THE
AUTHOR ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE
WORKING, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
LEAVING THIS COMMITTEE THAT THE
CHAIR STILL AH IS PART OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS IN TERMS OF YOU
KNOW THE SPEED AND COST AND
OTHER CONCERNS FROM THE
OPPOSITION. UM TO AND SO, UM,
YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THEM RESOLVED AND YOU KNOW, I'LL
SUPPORT THE BILL NOW AND YOU
KNOW, I RESERVE MY RIGHT ON THE
FLOOR. UM DEPENDING ON WHAT
HAPPENS AND WHAT WE SEE LATER,
BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A
COMMITTEE WHERE WE'RE THROWING
OUT AMENDMENTS AND NEGOTIATING
RIGHT HERE WITHOUT SEEING IT IN
WRITING. AND UM YOU KNOW, IT'S
HAPPENED AND MY OWN FORMER
COMMITTEE, UM AND I DON'T WANT
TO GO THROUGH THAT. IT'S NOT FUN
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE NO
IDEA WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR,
BECAUSE THERE'S PAPERS AND
PIECES OF PAPER WITH WRITING AND
SOMEONE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. I
THINK THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT THE CHAIR AND THE AUTHOR
CONTINUE TO DO, AND THEN AGREED
TO. SO LIKE I SAID, I WAS
SUPPORTED, AS IS WITH THE WAY
THE CHAIR HAS AMENDED IT. YOU
KNOW, I DON'T WANT US TO GET
INTO AMENDING. ON THE FLY HERE
AND NOT KNOWING WHAT I'M VOTING
FOR RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SAM. REMEMBER? REMEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
, MADAM CHAIR THIS IS YOU KNOW,
THIS MEETING HAS GONE ON. THIS
ISSUE HAS GONE ON A LONG TIME,
SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE LABOR.
SOME OF THE POINTS HAVE BEEN
MADE UP SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT I HAD HAVE ALREADY BEEN
ASKED AND ANSWERED. I APPRECIATE
THAT. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE
GOAL OF THIS. I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT'S ESSENTIAL. YOU
KNOW, IN MY DISTRICT AND CENTRAL
AND IN ALL 80 OF OUR DISTRICT UM
, SO I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT
. OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME ISSUES
HAVE RAISED THEM TO YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION WE'VE
HAD, BUT I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF
THE WORK THAT YOU YOU ALL HAVE
DONE YOU'VE DONE AND ALL THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE WORKED ON
THIS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. I
WANT TO BE MINDFUL AND
SUPPORTIVE OF THE OF THE WORK
THE CHAIR HAS DONE. YOU KNOW,
WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF
DISCUSSIONS. YOU KNOW, BOTH IN
THE BUILDING AND AT THE AIRPORT
ON THIS ISSUE, AND I APPRECIATE
THE GREAT WORK THAT SHE HAS DONE
AS WELL. SO I AM GOING TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. UM I ALSO TO
WANT TO SEE WHAT FORM THIS ENDS
UP. UM AND MAY OR MAY NOT DOWN
THE ROAD. WE'LL SEE WHAT WE'LL
SEE WHAT HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD,
BUT TODAY TO GET TO CONTINUE TO
WORK THROUGH THIS, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT. UM I, TOO AM MINDFUL
OF THE FACT OF, UM THANK YOU.
NOW I CAN SEE YOU, UH, YEAH. UM
NO. BUT I, UH SO I WILL SUPPORT
IT TODAY. UM I WANT TO SEE THE I
TOO WOULD WANT TO SEE THINGS IN
WRITING, SO I'M ALWAYS A LITTLE
WHEN WE HAVE KIND OF LET'S
CHANGE THIS NUMBER. THAT NUMBER
THAT'S ALWAYS PROBLEMATIC TO ME,
BECAUSE I WOULD SAY THAT WHETHER
IT'S MEMBERS BEEN CONFUSED ON
WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON OR
CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT'S AGREED TO
AND I JUST THINK IT'S ALWAYS
BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR
MEMBERS. TO HAVE THINGS IN
ADVANCE THAT WE CAN REVIEW. I
READ THEM AND TAKE THEM HOME AND
READ IT AND I WANT TO HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. SO I'M
SUPPORTIVE TODAY, UM, GIVE YOU
ALL THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THIS. THANK YOU, ALL
OF YOU AND THE CHAIR FOR THE
WORK THEY HAVE DONE SO FAR. AND
I WILL BE VOTING YES TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. REMEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN. NOW WE HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RODRIGUEZ. YES
ALSO JUST WANTED TO VOICE THEM
COMMENTS CONCERNS. OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A LOT OF
WORK DONE IN THIS ARENA FOR THE
PAST TWO YEARS NOW, BUT THERE
WAS A COMMENT MADE UP. MAYBE
FROM THE BEGINNING WITH THE
SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL OR SAID,
IF THIS BILL DOESN'T GO THROUGH
IN THE A C A DOESN'T GET FUNDED
3 MILLION PEOPLE WILL LOSE IT.
WE'LL LOSE INTEREST. IS THAT A
FIRST STATEMENT? TO SAY THAT
THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THEY
WOULD LOSE THE VOUCHER RIGHT AND
THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE.
THERE'S NOT A PLAN FOR THEM TO
GO TO, UM WITH THE COMPANY.
THEY'D HAVE TO GO TO WHATEVER
PLANS THAT ARE REGULARLY EXISTS
FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON THAT
ACCESS EACH ONE OF THESE
COMPANIES. NOW, IF I CAN ASK
OPPOSITION, YES. GO THROUGH
THAT. IS THERE A PLAN IN PLACE
THAT IF THAT THIS IS TRUE, RIGHT
, THIS BILL DOESN'T GO THROUGH.
THEY SAY IT DOESN'T GET FUNDED.
THERE ARE 3 MILLION PEOPLE ARE
FAMILIES THAT WILL NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO INTERNET. YOU MAY ASK
THAT QUESTION. ALSO THROUGH THE
CHAIR. I'M SORRY. YES THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THAT IS THAT IS NOT
TRUE. YOU CAN APPLY NOW WITHOUT
THE FOR SOME OF THESE LOW INCOME
PLANS, AND THOSE COMPLAINTS WILL
STILL BE THERE. SO IT'S NOT THAT
3 MILLION ALMOST 3 MILLION
PEOPLE WILL BE DROPPED FROM
THEIR SERVICE PROVIDER. IF THE A
C P IS NOT FUNDED, AND THERE'S
NO FUNDING IN AH, APRIL THAT
THAT FUNDING IS THE VOUCHER
FUNDING. IT'S NOT THAT THE
PROGRAMS ARE GOING TO STOP
AUTOMATICALLY. THESE LOW INCOME
PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE
BEFORE THE A. C P AND WILL
CONTINUE AFTER IT'S NOT THAT
THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE
DROPPED. THAT IS NOT A CORRECT
STATEMENT. OKAY? AND JUST ONE
MORE THING, OBVIOUSLY. LISTENING
TO ALL THIS AND KIND OF BRINGS
BACK TO HOME AS I THOUGHT ABOUT
MORE ABOUT THIS BILL IN THE
DISCUSSION. I LIVE ACROSS THE
STREET FROM A PARK AND WHERE
THERE IS A COMMUNITY CENTER,
ALIBABA, TWO DOZEN KIDS GO
THERE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, SOME
OF THOSE KIDS, THEY GOT TO GO TO
THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO HAVE
ACCESS TO INTERNET BECAUSE
WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WITH
$40.20 DOLLARS, WHATEVER THESE
FAMILIES CAN'T EVEN AFFORD THAT.
SO AS I LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE WHAT
YOU'RE DOING, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WITH THIS BILL TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE IS IN A SENSE OF
AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
FOR INTERNET SERVICE THROUGHOUT
THE STATE, RIGHT, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, SOME FAMILIES,
WHATEVER THAT CASE, MAYBE THEY
CAN EVEN AFFORD IT. THEY HAVE TO
GO TO A COMMUNITY CENTER.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK BEING
DONE, AND I WANT TO CONTINUE
THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. UH
HOPEFULLY THAT YOU CAN GET A
BETTER PLACE WITH THE OPPOSITION
AND BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU
GUYS CAN STILL COME TOGETHER AND
COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL
PLANS OBVIOUSLY DEPENDS WHAT
HAPPENS IN APRIL AS WELL. BUT
RIGHT NOW, I THINK I'M JUST
GONNA GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT IT AS
IS AND HOPEFULLY THERE'S THE
DISCUSSIONS BUT ALSO LIKE SOME
OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID I'M GOING
TO RESERVE MY RIGHT AS IT COMES
BACK TO US IF THERE HASN'T BEEN
SOMETHING THAT GET THIS BILL IN
A BETTER PLACE WITH EVERYBODY
THAT I MEAN I VOTE FOR IT AT
THAT TIME. BUT FOR NOW, LET'S
CONTINUE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE
END OF THE DAY WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT'S AFFORDABLE
ACCESSIBLE ACROSS THE STATE. UH
WITH THAT THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS
AND CONCERNS. THANK YOU. OKAY WE
HAVE EXHAUSTED EVERYBODY WHO'S
RAISED THEIR HANDS UNLESS I
MISSED MR GARCIA. HE'S GOOD.
HE'S SECOND. THE MOTION. SO UM,
WITH THAT, UM, LET ME MAKE SURE
I AM SOMEBODY MEMBER WILSON.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU. CHAIR UM I APPRECIATE THE
ROBUST AND LIVELY DISCUSSION IT
IT ALWAYS WARMS MY HEART WHEN
THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH
AND A COMMITTEE, UM AND GLAD
THAT IT'S ON MY PARTICULAR BELL.
I WOULD SAY THIS, THOUGH, THAT
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENSURE THAT THERE IS AN
AFFORDABLE PERMANENT OPTION. FOR
THE RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA THAT
WE AS A STATE, UM, PARTICIPATE
IN WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AS
GOVERNMENT IS TO PROVIDE A
FRAMEWORK AND GOOD GUIDELINES TO
ENSURE THE MARKET WORKS AND THE
BEST INTERESTS OF OUR CONSUMERS.
AND SO WITH THAT, UM I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
AND WILLING TO, UM, CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHAIR
CHAIR TO ENSURE THAT THE
GUIDELINES THAT WE SET WHICH IS
THE $40 CAP AND THE 25/3 SPEED
IS IN, UM AS IN THE SPIRIT OF
THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD TODAY
BEFORE IT COMES TO A VOTE IN
ANOTHER PART OF OUR BODY. THANK
YOU REMEMBER WILSON? UM AND
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US ON
THE AMENDMENTS. THIS WAS A
REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION. I THINK
ALL THE MEMBERS WHO SPOKE
RECOGNIZED THE WORK THAT YOU UM
AND PREVIOUSLY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GARCIA HAVE DONE ON THE SPELL
THE WORK SPECIFICALLY THAT
YOU'VE DONE TO IMPROVE THE SPELL
YOU GIVE IN. YOU'RE GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS
WORK BY MOVING THIS BILL
FORWARD. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
BONTA. WE HAVE A SECOND BY
GARCIA. UM THE MOTION OF A B
1588 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON
IS DO PASS AS AMENDED AND RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BURNER I BURNER I PATERSON
PATERSON, NO, BONTA. DICKSON
DICKSON. NO GARCIA GARCIA. I
HOLD THEM. HOOVER. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. I WIN INTENTIONS.
TOO MANY CONCERNS. I CAN'T VOTE
FOR IT NOT VOTING. WHEN NOT
VOTING. LOOSE RIVERS, RIVERS I.
RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ. AYE.
UH MEMBERS. THIS BILL STILL
NEEDS A FEW MORE VOTES. THE
BILLS ON CALL. YEAH, WE CAN DO
ADD ONS. LET'S DO THAT. NO.
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON A B 1135. YES MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
HERE. OKAY? I STILL CAN'T PIECE
YOU KNOW, BABY, DO IT AGAIN. I'M
SORRY. I NEVER I ALWAYS TRY TO
CALL BACK FOR YOU. LIKE. CALL
YOU CAN'T LEAVE. ALL OF THEM.
FROM TIME.
TO
MHM. WE ARE LIFTING THE CALL AND
MAYBE 1588. HOOVER HOOVER NÓ.
THANK YOU. THAT BILL STILL NEEDS
SOME VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON
CALL.
OKAY WE HAVE A BILL ON CALL. WE
HAVE TWO BILLS ON CALL. FIRST
WE'RE GONNA DO A B. 1588 WILSON
WILL THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? THIS IS FOR 1588.
BONTA BANTER. I HOLDEN. I WANTED
TO MAKE QUALIFIED. I SO THAT THE
ISSUES THAT I HAVE CONCERNS THAT
I HAVE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT
THOSE, UM AND I SHARED THEM.
WITH OTHERS THAT THEY CAN BE
ADDRESSED GOING FORWARD, BUT FOR
TODAY, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO AS
I SAY, A QUALIFIED I IF I CAN.
IT'S AN EYE, BUT IT'S UNDERSTAND
IT TO BE QUALIFIED. AND THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S KNOWS WHAT YOUR
CONCERNS ARE ASSUMED, OR DO YOU
WANT TO STATE THEM FOR THE
RECORD? UM, OFTEN. I'M SURE.
OKAY, COOL. JUST MAKING SURE WE
HAD A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION
WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL
DAY. SO HOLD THEM IS A I. UH
MAYBE 1588 IS OUT 7 TO 3. AND
THEN WE ALSO HAVE A B ADD ONS
FOR A B. 1135 SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. FOR THEM, ALL
RIGHT? HOLDEN. AYE. A B 1135 OUT
10 TO 1. OH,
MEMBERS AT LARGE LISTENING ON
THE T V. THIS CONCLUDES THE WORK
OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
COMMUNICATIONS CONVEYANCE. TODAY
WE ARE ADJOURNED.