Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call this Committee to order. Thank you for attending and tuning into the Committee on Communications Conveyance's first Bill hearing in 2024. And I want to inform the Committee that Assembly Member Bonta will, will be delayed to 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 begin, I'd like to call for a moment of silence in honor of Officer Tuan Lei and his service to the Oakland community. Thank you. My name is Tasha Berner. I serve as the Chair of this Committee. We have a substitution today for today's hearing. Assembly Member Dixon is substituting in for Assembly Member Davies. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Dixon. Joining me on the dais today is Vice Chair Patterson, as well as my colleagues on the Committee.

We have Assemblymember Luz Rivas, Diane Dixon, Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen, Assembly Member Josh Hoover as well, and I think some of our other Committee Members are making their way to the Committee. 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 Balin, consultant for the Republican Caucus Policy Unit. So today's agenda has two items. There are no items on the proposed consent calendar.

So before we start, we're going to do an overview of the public participation process. 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 at the appropriate time. I'd like to ask that 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 continued disruptions may result in removal from the Capitol Building. I'll also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building.

We have a quorum, so the Committee Secretary may now take attendance. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

We have a quorum.

We have a quorum. This afternoon we have two Bill items to be heard in Committee noticing the absence. Oh, no, we have a quorum. There we go. First Bill. First bill we have is AB 1135 by Assembly Member Lowenthal, related to state agencies and toll-free telephone lines. Assembly Member Lowenthal, you and your witness can approach the dais. Oh, then it's just you yourself and you.

Had to ask my Leg. Director, do I have a witness? Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1135 is about saving the State of California money, money being spent right now unnecessarily on toll-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 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.

So the calling party makes a phone call and the receiving phone company receives a charge by that phone company, except for a toll-free call. With a toll-free phone number, an 800 phone number. The receiving party pays the access, right? The originating caller does not. And that used to be a form of relief for consumers.

It used to be that when you called a 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, and government services would absorb those costs. But nowadays, all of 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? Well, today, the main reason we have toll-free phone numbers are really for vanity use. It's just 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 a 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, AB 1135 essentially ended the use of toll-free numbers in 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 require that they also offer non-toll-free lines as a primary means by which a member of the public 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 DMV, 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 still had that 800 number, the calls will continue to go through. But as a state, we pay per minute anytime 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 while curtailing overall use of 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 a Member of the public may contact an agent telephonically. Every time that someone calls state agency on toll 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 a minute for these toll-free calls.

The total annual state spending on all toll-free services is 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, and AB 1135 will help the state save money. Finally, 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 Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. We'll move now to any additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation and position only, please. Okay, moving on to any additional witnesses in opposition. Are there any additional witnesses in 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 for. I want to thank the Assembly Member and his staff for the ongoing conversations about this Bill. I 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 and additional review of these contracts because 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 are a lot of problems with that. So we think that that's one avenue that should be explored more thoroughly.

As far as the actual cost, there are rate payers, there are consumers who do rely on toll-free numbers, who don't have free long-distance calling, who rely on landlines. It's a smaller number than it used to be, 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 1800 number from the state websites, is to have both 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, use the 800 number. For the other one then you can.

I believe, as I understand, we're trying to reduce the number of folks calling the 1800 number 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 Californian, 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 the state would simply just remove the 1800 number. I think that's how it's drafted. And then if you happen to have the 1800 number, you could call it. But we don't think that really accomplishes what we're set out. I've seen it. My last comment is I've seen other state agencies and federal agencies who list multiple phone numbers, 800 numbers oftentimes, sometimes toll numbers, on which ones to call in which where you live, it 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 if the Bill addressed that, we would be fine. So thank you for the time and look forward to continuing the conversation.

Thank you. Does the Assembly Member want to respond to any of those?

I sure do. With respect to the goals that TURN is trying to achieve, they 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. That would be forging a complaint. And I want to reiterate, calling to an Assembly office, for example, doesn't have a toll-free number calling to utilizing the Internet. While so many state services require constituents to sign up for services via the Internet. The Internet is not free. There is no toll-free 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 TURN is pointing out, that may be suffering in this situation.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition may approach the mic now with name, affiliation, and position only. Seeing none. I'll go ahead and return it now to the Committee for questions or comments. Yeah, Assembly Member Hoover or Dixon.

I commend your effort to save $7 million. Every little bit counts these days. In the general same time frame, we've both been living through the change in telecommunications. Aside from the cost of the state, which is significant, and it's a diminishing number of people, but the 800 concept is national, and there's also 866 or 88. These are toll-free all over the country, and people are aware that that is a free number.

So 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 don't have a cell phone. Is there any way to still reach a state number for free?

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 agencies being called, there is no toll-free number now.

No, I get that. I hear that. I'm just saying about the convenience of just accessing a number at 1800.

I think the reason I pointed that out is 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.

916 phone number, like calling your office.

No complaints?

No complaints. Have you had a complaint?

Okay. But I appreciate you identifying this as a cost saving idea. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else? Anybody else want to make? Assembly Member Hoover?

I appreciate the percentage of agencies. I think that's actually a really helpful statistic. Do we know the percentage of. Because obviously, it's my understanding this doesn't apply to wireless phones. 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 risking privacy of those consumers that are calling in.

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 LERG, a database that's a routing database for telecommunications, nd you would know whether it's a cell phone versus a 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. We don't get, that I'm aware of, in the State of California, complaints about access of dialing a toll 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, did you say also that both numbers would be listed, but maybe in larger point size the 916 number would be listed?

I think that the gentleman from TURN 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 a toll-free number that's for Caltrans that's in your phone already, and you want to make sure that a road is open in Caltrans and you're calling it from your fixed line phone in an area with metered service. And you're point zero zero zero zero, whatever percent of the population that's doing that, 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.

Assembly Member Rivas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You mentioned that 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, the 2% of the landline? I know you're the expert and you know a lot more about the demographics of who has a landline, but I suspect that they may be senior citizens compared to cell phone users.

And if the Department of Aging or someone that serves senior citizens has an 800 number, maybe because that's their demographic, like, do we know that?

Well, I want to point out a few things. No, we don't. We don't know exactly who is calling which agency and the demographics associated with that. We can't tie that to the phone calls themselves. 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. And it comes out of their budget.

We don't have an agency that is advocating for keeping their 800 number because they serve a demographic that may have landlines.

I think TURN is very appropriately wanting to make sure that all Californians have access to all services, Madam Chair and Members. I also want to make sure that everybody is very keenly aware that there are many, many subsidized government services for phone service, whether that's Lifeline, there are 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 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 in my district. I'm going to support this Bill today. I just wanted to ask if you had that information and thank you for bringing this forward.

I want to point out, we're joined now by Assembly Member Bonta and Assembly Member Rodriguez and Assembly Member Garcia. Look at that. I wanted to point out in the Bill itself, there's a process for approval of which if they use a toll-free or a non-toll-free.

So I'd assume if you were the Department of Aging and you have a toll-free number because that's your demographic or you're serving low-income Californians in 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. There's a process in the Bill itself, too.

Madam Chair, may I clarify? Because it's come up a couple of times about our position. May I just like 30 seconds just to clarify? So that's real clear. Plus we have new Members here and I understand where this is going, but I just want to be clear as the discussions go forward.

Thank you.

I will make an exception. But normally we only have opposition or we have witnesses speak when questions are asked, but go ahead.

Understood. 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. And our concern is that would be that the public will not know that there is an 800 number and that's where the gap is going to be.

And that's why we advocated to advertise both numbers so that you can then shift people away from the 800 number and 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 they list only one. They have that process to review in the Bill. Just to be clear. So if you're serving low-income Californians, if a state agency is serving low-income Californians and you have a toll-free number? You could 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 dais or from other Members? Okay. Assembly Member Lowenthal, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. I want to thank the Members for the discussion. I will be supporting this Bill today. I see this as an overall good government Bill that is consistent with consumer trends. As the analysis points out, only 2% of California's households are landline only. While 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.

With 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? We do not have a motion. Do I have a motion? Moved by Nguyen? Second by, who was the second? Bonta. Thank you. The motion on AB 1135 by Assembly Member Lowenthal is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll call].

Members, AB 1135 has passed and we'll leave the roll open so that Members can add their votes. Next we're hearing AB 1588 by Assemblymember Wilson, related to affordable Internet and Net Equity act of 2023. Assemblymember. Sorry, Assemblymember Wilson, you may open.

Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. I'm here to present AB 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.

AB 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, in 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 PPIC, broadband in the US costs $68 on average, which is more expensive than Europe, a place more strictly regulated, yet only costs $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 ACP, provides a lower $30 subsidy towards any plan offered by the Internet service providers. Through a voluntary agreement with the Biden Administration, most major ISPs have agreed to offer a specific $30 plan for 120 megabytes-per-second through the ACP.

This Bill is especially important, as it is expected that the affordable connectivity program is set to expire 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 ACP with no assistance and more importantly, no plan that is affordable for them to access without a subsidy. This brings us to AB 1588.

AB 1588 is substantially similar to a Bill that passed this Committee and the Assembly in 2022, AB 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 to households participating in certain public assistance programs.

The Bill would require that affordable offers cost no more than $40 per month, and meet specified minimum speed requirements of 25 megabytes per second download and three megabytes-per-second upstream, as well as a latency that supports distance learning and telehealth 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. We are more than happy to increase the speeds to 100 megabytes per second to match the current plans under the voluntary agreement with the Biden Administration, or to lower the dollar amount for the cap.

Additionally, the reason why the cap is at $40 is due to the communications and conveyance amendments taken for AB 2751 that move 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, 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 or 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 opposition last year, including conversations this early 2024. We do understand that there is a coalition that has shifted to an '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 for price and speed and to ensure that there is a permanent, affordable option as well as ensure a standard by which Internet service is provided in our great state. Thank you for having me today. We'll be accepting the Chair amendments and look forward to continuing to work with this Committee to ensure we have provide an adequate, affordable offer for people to access standalone broadband.

Now I'll introduce two of my witness, Leticia Alejandrez with the California Emergency Technology Fund and Marco. I'm going to mess up the name Marco. Marco. The wonderful world of Marco with La Cooperativa Campesina De California. That tells you that I failed Spanish. I did take three years of it.

Better than I could have done, Assemblymember Wilson. Thank you. And you have between the two of you, you have 4 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present this Bill, in support of this Bill, AB 1588. We are grateful to Assemblymember Wilson for your leadership and for you courageously stepping forward to lead this effort. I'm Leticia Alejandrez. I'm the Director of Policy and Communications for the California Emerging Technology Fund, the sponsor of AB 1588. CETF's mission is to close the digital divide and 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 AB 1588. Only three Internet service provider industry organizations oppose this Bill. We are grateful to the heartfelt advocates who have taken an 'oppose unless amended' position because they have identified all the key policy provisions that CETF originally proposed and continues to support to strengthen the Bill. But today is a time for action.

The Legislature and the Governor have been trailblazers in pursuing digital equity. People must be able to afford home Internet service. AB 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, CETF and partners, including the ISPs, have enrolled almost 3 million households in the Federal Affordable Connectivity Program, ACP.

Without AB 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 and hardest to reach, and are not even aware of ACP and affordable offers because the ISPs 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 will have affordable home Internet service, regardless of what the Federal Government does. The bedrock question here is: shouldn't ISPs, who are receiving taxpayer or ratepayer funds, be required to assist the state in 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 AB 1588 requires no state funds, there is no General Funds or Special Fund subsidies. Without AB 1588, 3 million households are going to be kicked off the Internet and there will be no hope of California achieving digital equity. Therefore, CETF and 50 plus community organizations respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

And there's 1 minute remaining.

I have 1 minute. Let me say my name in 30 seconds.

You could have the full minute.

Of course, I'm here to support AB 1588 and I like to thank Assemblymember Wilson and the hard work of the technology funds that they've done to try and close the digital divide. La Cooperativa Campesina is a farm worker organization and we serve in an average 153,000 farm workers throughout the year. So we're very concerned about that accessibility.

We know that about 51% of the rural households do not have that 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 during COVID-19, which, in fact, sometimes I think COVID-19 for bringing about so many transformational consequences. One of them was that we saw the necessity of the access to the Internet for educational purposes.

All kids were out there trying to get close to an In-and-Out Burger, to a Taco Bell, or close to Starbucks because they cannot go in there and afford the coffee, but in order to be able to receive the education that was being transmitted through the Internet. So I think that one of the important things of this Bill, in closing the digital divide, which is fundamental and 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 the access to the telemedicine and telehealth that is going to become much more common and is going to make that health available and accessible to so many of our poor people. I ask very respectfully for your support of this Bill.

Thank you. And now we'll move to additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation and position only.

Chair and members, Marvin Pineda, I've been given permission to do a me too in support of the following groups, the California foundation for Independent Living Centers, the California School Boards Association, EveryoneOn, and 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 at this time. Amanda Gualderama from Cal Broadband and Yolanda Benson from US Telecom. So, you will have between the two of you four minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband. We recognize that AB 1588 is trying to address concerns with federal inactivity with regards to the funding of the affordable connectivity program ACP. To be clear, ACP provides a $30 per month voucher toward Internet service for eligible households. There are two steps to the ACP.

The first is qualifying for the voucher through 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 ACP 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.

AB 1588 will not solve that problem. Our member companies have offered high-speed, low-income plans well before the ACP 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 inactivity 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 is 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 being able to fill with the so-called affordability gap for broadband service regarding the federal if the Federal Government does not reauthorize ACP. As you already know, the ACP 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.

AB 1588, 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 ACP, and Congress is working in a bipartisan manner to go ahead and fill that potential gap, which they have until April of this year, 2024, to do so. And we know that many US 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, certainly with all the members and anyone else who would like it.

The bill offers no additional assistance to consumers because again, we continue to provide the affordable programs through our companies. 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 does not help consumers. We recognize that we want to continue to work with Assemblymember Wilson and have done so since this is a two-year bill. We've been in discussion since then. We remain committed to continuing offering the low-income programs that we have today, and we understand the affordability discussion should go on.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? You may approach the mic to identify your name and affiliation and position.

Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Steve Carlson, CTIA. We're the wireless industry association, unfortunately, in opposition.

Madam Chair and members, Roxanne Gould, representing the Wireless Infrastructure Association, also unfortunately in opposition.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in an opposed unless amended position.

Thank you. 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 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 air some of the concerns in the interest of transparency. Most importantly, I question the precedent this bill potentially sets by establishing contracting requirements on potential vendors which are outside the scope of a 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, while we may have prevailing 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 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 in 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 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 as the minimum metric. I share that concern and would encourage you to continue working on that moving forward.

But I understand your idea is the floor and the ceiling, and one of the amendments is that the continued participation ACP would fulfill this requirement in your bill. And I really appreciate us coming to that agreement. And with that, I want to open up the conversation to questions and comments from other committee members, and I really encourage you to all support this bill today. So any questions? Comments? Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much, Assemblymember Wilson, for putting this bill together. As you were speaking and as CETF came up to talk. It took me back 15 years when CETF first started, and I worked directly with CETF 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 and how I did that was, it was a bunch of us that got together in 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 we didn't have all of the digital stuff that we have today. And then once I had the information, I inputted into an Excel and then said, what community members didn't have it, how many we pulled, and 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 our witnesses stated, one of the questions I wanted to ask was, if we're taking a look at the Federal Government and 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 say 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, $40, but zero. I've 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. We talk 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 wait and then come together and figure out how do we put something together that can truly help our communities. And I don't know if you can comment on that at all.

Absolutely. I wanted to be respectful and waited till you finished. Thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen, 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 were connected and had the resources, whether it be Internet service or actually the devices, to be able to do that. I'm proud of the work that you did 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 AB 1588, as well as the ACP program, as well as any other program that exists. All this does is require. It's not a new program. The word in their program is related to a program at the state in terms of part of their procurement process being able to actually check a box for an Internet service provider.

Do they have a program that is available to those that need financial assistance? Do they have a 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, if you offer that plan, then you can do business with the state.

And this is extremely important because we don't know what's going to happen in April with our Federal Government. And if for whatever reason they decide not to fund the ACP and that's not included. To the opposition's point, they said, well, nothing changes. Well, something big does change, because the way that people access that plan, that $30 plan is via the government. That plan no longer exists. 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 provider site and get that plan. The only way to do that is via the route of basically the government. So I take exception with that. And so this allows that even if that plan went away, they would still have to have some type of plan that was less than $40 and at least 25/3. If the ACP 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 affordable Internet, which could be $0. Right, as you stated, it says that 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 I'm sensitive to market needs. I 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 and 100. So there should be no reason why a ceiling of 40 and a floor of 25 is not achievable no matter what happens in the market.

I guess my only concern is that 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 are so many unintended consequences that happen that I had to relay 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 harmed this community more than anything.

And so 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 also 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 'nother box. And so I can't support this today. I'd love to see what happens in April and maybe we can come back.

But 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 unserved and underserved. But I want to make sure that what we're doing is not going to harm them even more. And I say that only because 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 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 despite what may happen in April. And just noting that the ISP providers do, once this goes away, they have 90 days. They have 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. Assemblymember Bonta.

Thank you. I want to 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 Chair has actually done over the course of the last two legislative cycles, promoting digital equity. I too sat on the other side of government.

I don't know if it's on the other side, but certainly 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.

I handed out tablets to lots of little babies and ensured that their parents had the ability to get onto those tablets and have Internet access available to them. And that was before the incidence of digital learning was at the level of need that it is, or the incidence of digital health is at the need that it is post-COVID.

So to the issue of whether we should be acting now versus later, I think it is kind of within California's DNA to always operate and always be on the leading front and the leading edge of issues related to equity as a state and not rely on the whys and wherefores of the Federal Government. 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 our infrastructure and in ensuring that there's equitable access to Internet. And we should not forego an opportunity to ensure that is the case right now by waiting with our hands under our feet, under our legs while we wait to see what the Federal Government might do in the future. That's just not the stance I think that California takes.

I do want to kind of point to the fact that you are intending with this bill to set a floor around access and recognizing that right now in this bill you have 25/3 as the upload and download speeds, and that is far below the floor. I think that is actually feasible for people to actually have access to Internet in the way that they need to, given the uses and the multiple devices that are happening within a particular community.

Had that opportunity to have that look in my district with ISP partners and the Cable Association very recently. So I am concerned about the floor being too low as it's set out in this bill. The Chair alluded to that in her remarks as well, and it is a passion that we jointly share. So I'm curious about whether we would have the ability to reexamine that. So at least it matches the current threshold of 100/20. And where in the process of this should this bill move out of this committee where you would intend to take that up?

Right. So the 25/3 floor was set because it was one device being able to stream. Like if someone wanted to access a news program, they could 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 conversations with the opposition, it had been around of not just using the procurement practice as 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 stream, given that the current standard for affordability is really the 100/20 for $30. 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 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 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 having a different floor. I'm perfectly comfortable with as we work through the process. But I do want to say that 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 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, then I'm comfortable with that as well. Do you understand the remarks?

Yes, with that. Assemblymember, do you have more questions? Go ahead.

Thank you. So I also just want to kind of clarify because I think it's important we concern ourselves with passing things out of committee often give authors the ability to make the changes that they commit to during the course of the hearing. I'm committed to ensuring that 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 is directing that as we progress, if we were to come out of this committee, that that needed to be the new floor, then that would be what I would commit to. But it would be at the discretion of the full committee, yes.

Or the majority of the committee I would say.

Okay.

So on that, I'd leave it to the Chair to figure out how to operationalize that. And I'm sure you will. Should I move to my other questions?

I 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, you would be taking that amendment in the next committee. We would not be doing it in this committee.

Okay. Because that would be an author amendment.

Okay, great. So then we're clear on that one?

Yes. If it's part of, I guess, the motion and second, and getting it out, then. Right.

Procedurally, we can't do that. So procedurally, we wouldn't do that here.

How would I?

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 in the next committee, which is, I think, appropriation.

I understand that part. I guess I'm looking to hear from members of the committee, from other members, if that is the will of the committee. I guess that's what I'm more than.

We have lots of people who want to speak, so you're going to hear from lots of people. I think Assemblymember Bonta has more questions, so I want to let her go.

There is a mechanism to be able to take an amendment with committee and ask for a live amendment, and I hope we don't have to get there, but that's another way to go.

So, procedurally, the committee rules and Assembly rules require them to have been laid out on the table in writing beforehand in order to proceed with them in this committee. So for me, I'm fine with Assemblymember Wilson making a commitment, saying that she's going to do that because we all get to vote on it on the floor. And if she doesn't keep to her commitment, then we don't vote for it on the floor. That's how that would procedurally work.

Okay, the next just question I had is around requirements for providers to advertise the program. A lot of the communities that I worked with were largely speakers of non-English speakers. I noted in this bill, as it's evolved, that actual requirement was taken out, which in theory would limit significantly the ability for there to be the kind of advertisement and outreach that is necessary. Any questions or comments about any comments around that issue?

And it was a part of our negotiations to get to this point. But really it's about because there is an active program, ACP, having them have to have that additional requirement beyond what they currently do at ACP. And the Federal Government does what ACP and the state actually does with ACP, felt it was not necessary.

And then part of that discussion, if I recall correctly, was around the fact that advertising this, which is a part of the procurement process, could confuse people in terms of, because it's not a new program, it's just an availability of an option. This isn't every Internet service provider would have to have some type of plan. Currently, that plan for most is ACP, which is done separately, and there are already requirements around that.

So that's why the advertisement piece was taken 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 this as a plan for them to offer their plan, not a program for people to take advantage of if that makes sense.

Understood.

Are you complete, Ms. Bonta?

Yes, thank you.

Ok. With that, we'll move to Assemblymember Patterson. Vice Chair Patterson.

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 do what we're asking them to do or requiring them to do. 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 10, 12, 15 dollars.

I've seen those things advertised in the Fresno marketplace over and over again. And so I just think let's not be so enamored with the term affordable 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. And so I, too have the other concerns that other members have displayed here about the unintended consequences of what's being done here.

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 rates, but also at speeds that are substantially above the thresholds that are put in here. And so I'm suggesting that this is an attempt at government.

But my read of the effect of all of this is that 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 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 statistical data shows prices coming down and speeds going up. Isn't that what we want? That's what we're getting. Instead of relying on and appreciating the competition, the robust nature of marketplaces, the importance of serving communities. Instead, we're defaulting to a 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.

Assemblymember. Wilson, do 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 comments, Assemblymember or, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Patterson. I would note that it is a ceiling and a floor. It's not setting the rate. It's saying that 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 costs, right, and you're like, it's really inexpensive and it's giving me this rate.

A lot of times those are introductory prices, and eventually, it changes. And although I've been in meetings where they talk about the cost per megabyte per second is decreasing every day, but still the overall bill remains the same because there's other costs added on top of that. 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. My background is in business.

I think that the government should meddle 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 work. And that's what we're doing when it comes to broadband. We're saying in order to provide broadband service 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. At minimum, one device should be able to do that, and it shouldn't cost you more than $40, and that's a.

Reality in the present world.

No, but the program to access the ACP 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 ACP. If ACP goes away, the $30 plan goes away. And many of those use the $30 voucher to access even greater internets as a discount. Right. That makes it affordable for their family and their needs. So they actually go above the 100 over 20.

They actually go above the $30 because they might have multiple devices, a few people working from home, things like that, but still fall within the limits. And so I want it to be able to exist. Even if ACP doesn't exist, I want it to exist. Whether there's a subsidy or not. It doesn't matter who's paying for it. Whether it's a subsidy from a 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 the real world that does this day in and day out. And I think we need to hear what is happening in the marketplace. And again, I see it advertised in my marketplace. I see it in different languages as well, and it exists.

The idea that we're going to make this a guideline of 40 on the top and the low speed at the bottom, I think to me is, I think it starts to be a make believe game here, that 40 is okay, but then the low 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 forces at work, apart from government, are far more effective than setting a guideline by a government agency.

Through the chair you may ask that question. The opposition, if you could answer briefly. Thank you.

So it sounded like two parts to that question. One, our members, the industry has had these affordable plans before the ACP and will have them after. There are different types of low income plans. One's for students, one's for ACP, other ones very different between the companies within the industry, low income plans are not going away. Two, you are absolutely right, Mr. Vice Chair. You can see that the price per megabit per second has gone down.

In 2008, the price was $9 and one penny per megabit per second. In 2018, that price was 76 cents per megabit per second and has gone even further down now that is 2024. So the price has gone down, the speeds have gone up. We can all remember when we got our AOL disk back in the early 2000s, and we were looking at, I think the highest one was 1 to 1.5 megabit per second. That was your speed. And now we're looking at one gig, we're looking at 5g, we're looking at 10g. Here in California, the speeds have gone up. The price has gone down for those speeds.

Can I just add. So the ACP is on top of the programs we offer. So when the customer comes in and says, I have a $30 voucher for the ACP, and this is the plan that I would like to put it towards, regardless of what plan it may be, the affordable plan, it may be some higher plan, it may be 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 ACP and then they choose a low cost program, and often they're paying $0 per month. So the ACP is very separate. Plus it's also rate setting, which already would be an FCC violation with the Federal Government. There's a preemption. Yes.

Thank you. So we have lots of Members who want to speak on this important bill. So next I'll call Assembly Member Hoover and then Luz Rivas and then Assembly Member Bonta and then Assembly Member Rodriguez.

Thank you. I'll be quick. I know we want to.

Everybody's talking. It's an exciting day. Communications and conveyance. Go ahead, Assembly Member Hoover.

I want to let my other colleagues get their comments in and questions in, but I do share the concern that in your attempt to create a ceiling on the cost, I do think it could potentially create a floor, which is a concern of mine. I do think we need to wait and see how the ACP 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 broader question of we have a free market that is offering competitive plans, using competition to provide affordable plans. Why does California, the state government, need to get involved in this? And why do you feel like what the free market is doing isn't enough right now?

So for the preemption issue, there was some portion of the bill that we did find through the support of Leg counsel and such that had a preemption related to it, and those parts were stricken from the bill. So the parts that remain, we consider there not to be a preemption issue, but we're willing to go through the process to see if another attorney says something different. And creating laws sometimes is messy.

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, introduce 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 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. It is driven by profits. And I appreciate that. Been in business, worked for 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, protecting consumers.

And so this allows for a protection of consumers and ensures that we have an affordable option. And that's what's most important to me, is to ensure that every single resident in the entire state has the ability to access broadband no matter what, no matter what their income looks like. 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, noted in the testimony about children at Starbucks.

We saw children outside of our community centers, which resulted in us opening those community centers to ensure that children had a safe place and access to broadband in a safe way. And so 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 the Internet.

I'm just going to interject. I'm in another Committee right now as well. Apologies to my colleagues. I am going to be supporting this bill right now. I think one of the things that we do in policy committees is ensure that the author has a continued opportunity to continue to work on this bill. I appreciate your commitment to ensure that we can wrestle with particularly the speeds, to make sure that we have a ceiling that is a floor, that is actually something that is workable of 100 over 20. With that, I'd like to make a motion to move this bill.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Motion by Bonta, second by Garcia. Thank you, Assembly Member Bonta. Good luck in Ed Committee. And now we have Assemblymember Luz Rivas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that the chair, the author, Committee consultant have spent a lot of time to address the concerns that we've heard today. I know one of my questions was already asked, so I'm just going to make a statement.

My staff has also spent a lot of time analyzing the amendments as they were coming in. I represent a community where there are families sometimes doubled or tripled up in one household. So one household could mean four families in my district. And I'm sure that's true across the state. And many times it's one household that currently either uses the ACP or the California Lifeline Program, where all of the members of the families in one household are drawing from the same speed.

And so during the pandemic, we saw students going to local fast food restaurants and coffee shops to use their Wi-Fi for school, to be at school, because they either didn't have it or it probably wasn't sufficient at home. So my concern is that people in my community having to pay more for slower speeds, and I know other Members have already addressed those concerns.

And as a former chair of a Committee, I know that as the bill leaves this Committee's jurisdiction, so goes like, our ability to negotiate in the process or be comfortable with the form, the bill. I know we're like let's do that in appropriations. Let's do that in another Committee or something. We always run out of time, but we are at the beginning of a session, too, where this bill could be reintroduced and if necessary, and continue.

But 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 is part of the negotiations in terms of the speed and cost and other concerns from the opposition, too. And so I would like to see them resolved, and I'll support the bill now. And I reserve my right on the floor 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 it's happened in my own former Committee, and I don't want to go through that. It's not fun. And 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 agree to.

So like I said, I'll support it as is with the way the chair has amended it. 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, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Maienschein.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This meeting has gone on, this issue has gone on a long time. So I'm not going to belabor some of the points that have been made. Some of the questions that I had have already been asked and answered. I'm very supportive of the goal of this. I think this is something that's essential in my district and is essential in all 80 of our districts. So I'm very supportive of that. Obviously have some issues. I've raised them to you.

I appreciate the discussion we've had, but I want to be mindful of the work that 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 work the chair has done. We've had a number of discussions both in the building and at the airport on this issue and appreciate the great work that she has done as well. So I am going to support it today.

I also, too, want to see what form this ends up and may or may not down the road. We'll see what happens down the road. But today, to get to continue to work through this, I think it's important. I, too, am mindful of the fact of. Thank you. Now I can see you . No, but I, so I will support it today. 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 or that number, that's always problematic to me because I would say that whether it's Members being 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. I take them home and read it, and I want to have that opportunity to do that. So I'm supportive today.

Give you all the opportunity to continue to work on this. Thank you, all of you. And the chair for the work that they've done so far. And I will be voting yes today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Maienschein. Now we have assemblymember Rodriguez.

Yes. Also just wanted to voice some 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 maybe from the beginning with the supporters of the bill where it said, if this bill doesn't go through and the ACA doesn't get funded, 3 million people will lose Internet. Is that a fair statement to say that?

That's a fair statement to say. And the reason is because they would lose the voucher. Right. And then there's not a plan for them to go to with the company. They'd have to go to whatever plans that regularly exist for the average person that access each one of these companies.

Now, if I can ask opposition.

Oh yes, go ahead.

Is that true that, is there a plan in place that if this is true, right. This bill doesn't go through, the ACA doesn't get funded, there are 3 million people or families that will not have access to Internet.

You may ask that question also through the chair.

I'm sorry, Chairwoman.

Thank you. That is not true. You can apply now without the ACP for some of these low income plans. And those low income plans will still be there. So it's not that almost 3 million people will be dropped from their service provider if the ACP is not funded and there's no funding in April. 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 ACP and will continue after. It's not that these people are going to be dropped. That is not a correct statement.

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 and the discussion, I live across the street from a park and there is a community center. Probably about 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, where it's $40, $20, whatever, these families can't even afford that.

So as I look at what you're doing, Assemblymember, with this bill to make sure that there is, in a sense, affordability and accessibility for Internet service throughout the state. Right. But unfortunately, with some families, whatever that case may be, they can't 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.

Hopefully that you can get in better place with the opposition 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 going to go ahead and support it as is. And hopefully there's those 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 gets this bill in a better place with everybody, that I may not vote for it at that time. But for now, let's continue discussion, because at the end of the day, we need to make sure that's affordable and accessible across the state. So, with that, those are my comments and concerns. Thank you.

Okay, we have exhausted everybody who's raised their hand. Unless I missed Mr. Garcia. He's good. He seconds the motion. So with that, let me make sure where I am. Assemblymember Wilson, would you like to close?

Thank you, chair. I appreciate the robust and lively discussion. It always warms my heart when there's a lot of back and forth in a Committee and glad that it's on my particular bill.

I would say this, though, that it's 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 participate in. What we're supposed to do as government is to provide a framework and good guidelines to ensure the market works in the best interests of our consumers. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And willing to continue conversations with the chair to ensure that the guidelines that we set, which is the $40 cap and the 25 over three speed, is in the spirit of the comments that we heard today before it comes to a vote in another part of our body.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson, and thank you for working with us on the amendments. This was a really good discussion. I think all the Members who spoke recognize the work that you and previously Assemblymember Garcia, have done on this bill. The work specifically that you've done to improve this bill. And 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. The motion on AB 1588 by Assemblymember Wilson is do pass as amended and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Members, this bill still needs a few more votes. The bill is on call. We can do add ons. Let's do that. Secretary, please call the roll on AB 1135.

[Roll Call]

We are lifting the call on AB 1588.

Hoover? Hoover, no.

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 going to do AB 1588, Wilson. Will the Secretary please call the roll?

This is for 1588. Bonta? Bonta, aye. Holden?

I wanted to make qualified aye, so that the issues that I have and concerns that I have, I'd like to see that those and I've shared them with others that they can be addressed going forward. But for today I would be prepared to, as I say, a qualified aye if I can. It's an aye, but understand it to be qualified.

And the Assemblymember knows what your concerns are, I assume? Or do you want to state them for the record?

I'll state them.

Okay, cool. Just making sure. We had a very robust discussion. Wanted to make sure.

I know you did.

So Holden is an aye.

AB 1588 is out, 7 to 3. And then we also have AB add ons for AB 1135. Well, Secretary, please call the roll.

Holden? Holden aye.

AB 1135 is out, 10 to 1. Oh. Members at Large, listening on the TV, this concludes the work of the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance today. We are adjourned.