Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for attending and tuning into the Committee on Communications and Conveyance Bill hearing. My name is Tasha Boerner and I serve as the Chair of the Committee. Joining me on the dais today are Assemblymember Nguyen and Assemblymember Davies, and we are going to start as a Subcommittee, so if the sergeant can please call the absent Members, that would be helpful. And we're also joined by Emilio Perez, the Chief Consultant of the Communications Committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, of the Committee's secretary.

Joining us for the hearing is Daniel Ballon, consultant with the Republican Caucus Policy Unit. Today's agenda has six items. Item three, AB 2780 Mckinnor has been pulled by the author from today's agenda. And there are three items on the proposed consent calendar. We have AB four, sorry, item four, AB 2369 Patterson, AB 2708 Patterson. And item six, AB 2905 Low. We can't do that now because we're a Subcommittee, so we can entertain a motion when we have quorum.

But before we begin our Bill presentations, 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 the public comment period, I'll invite you to approach the microphone at the appropriate time. I'd ask the public not touch the microphone, and 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 contact.

The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor procedures in the past few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, 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 discussions 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 will also document on record the individual involved in the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may also temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request assistance from the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building.

Okay, we're waiting for some more Members so we can have quorum, but we could go ahead and start with item number seven. That's a two. That's item number two AB 2765 Gail Pellerin. And I just want to notice that my Vice Chair is here. We have quorum. We're going to go back Assemblymember real quick to establish quorum, so the Committee secretary will now take attendance. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, we have a quorum. So we're hearing AB 2765 by Assemblymember Pellerin related to telecommunication services backup electricity verification. Assemblymember Pellerin, you may open.

Thank you so much. Thank you, chair and members, I will start by accepting the Committee's amendments which changed the Bill to require a detailed report from the CPUC to the Legislature regarding compliance with the resiliency plan submitted. And I want to thank your staff for taking the time to help us out with that. And in 2021, the Legislature passed a requirement for the CPUC to require telecommunications communications service providers to take action to ensure services be maintained in the event of an emergency.

Unfortunately, in 2022, the mill fire swept across Siskiyou county, destroying 118 structures and eventually leading to the death of two individuals. This fire subsequently resulted in the loss of communication lines, equipment, and infrastructure belonging to a telecommunications provider in the area. The ability to communicate in the event of an emergency can be the difference between life and and death.

AB 2765 as proposed to be amended, will require that the CPUC report to the Legislature a description of the inspections conducted to verify that the providers are in compliance with the resiliency plan submitted. Additionally, this report will include a list of violations found, as well as remediating attempts made to fix those violations. By enabling these reporting requirements, we can hold accountable those providers who are not doing their part to ensure all California citizens can use phones in case of an emergency.

With me to testify and support today is Ignacio Hernandez, who is representing the Utility Reform Network.

Mr. Hernandez, you have four minutes.

Great, thank you. Madam Chair, Members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Utility Reform Network, TURN, one of the co-sponsors of the Bill, and also on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District Nine, which covers California, Nevada and Hawaii. Another co-sponsor. I want to thank the Committee for work on this bill and the amendments. A couple of things.

As the author mentioned, there was a long term battle, both at the commission and at the Legislature, to require telecommunications providers to have backup battery power for their facilities and for certain infrastructure. Because otherwise, during certain weather events, wildfires and other situations, telecommunications would be shut off if the telecom providers would not be able to maintain power for at least some period of time. So the Commission did land on a 72-hour rule.

There were some things that were not included in that, despite some of the best efforts of TURN and others. So some of the enforcement mechanisms that we would like to have seen were not included. And as we initially introduced this bill, there was no public information that the Commission was actually doing any work to ensure that there was compliance with the resiliency plans, which means we would only find out afterwards if a provider was not following the rules or doing the proper work.

In working on the spill and through the work of the Committee, we were able to identify and find out that there were, in fact, some evaluations being done and some visits being done by the CPUC. Although that information is not made public and folks are not aware, we don't have access to that.

So what this bill will do is fill a gap and ensure that the Legislature is aware that of these checks are being made before an event happens, and also identify where there have been violations and what work has been done to remediate any problems so that your constituents can have confidence that if there's an issue, that the power will remain and telecommunications will remain in effect for a minimum of 72 hours.

So for those reasons, we're very happy to sponsor and co-sponsor this bill and ask for your support.

We have a quorum. Motion by Davies, second by Nguyen. Okay, next we'll move to additional witnesses and support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband. We have an opposed position, but are currently reviewing the Committee amendments. We do believe, just in our limited review, that it's going in the right direction. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Audra Hartmann. On behalf of CalCom, I just want to echo the comments that CalBroadband just gave. So thank you.

Okay, thank you to all witnesses. I'm now taking the floor for discussion. Any questions by Committee Members? Seeing none. Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. First of all, thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin, for working with me and my staff to come up with an agreement on amendments and which you've agreed to accept. I'm pleased that we could come to this agreement on moving this Bill forward that works for the state and works for your district and as your witness pointed out, works for our constituents. And with that, we have a motion. And we have a second. And the Members. There's a motion. A second. The motion is AB 2765 by Assemblymember Pellerin is do pass as amended, and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Bonta? Bonta, aye. Davies? Davies, aye. Garcia? Holden? Holden, aye. Hoover? Maienschein? Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Luz Rivas? Rodriguez? Rodriguez, aye.

That bill is out. We'll leave it open for additional members to add on. Thank you so much. Let's go back to, there we go. File item one, AB 2239. Assembly Member Bonta, would you like to present? So today we're hearing AB 2239 by assemblymember Bonta related to digital discrimination of access. When you're ready with your witnesses, Assemblymember Bonta, you may open.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the chair and the committee for working with my office and very specially thank the staff for putting together such a thoughtful analysis to bring forward to the committee for consideration. I do accept the committee amendments and appreciate the thoughtful contributions in that regard.

AB 2239 addresses a critical issue in our digital age, ensuring equitable access to broadband Internet services for all Californians. As you will hear from my witnesses, Californians that live in areas with predominantly low income residents and people of color are disproportionately disconnected. In light of the increasing reliance on digital technologies for education, work, healthcare and communication, it is imperative that we prevent digital discrimination and promote fairness in access to essential services.

First, AB 2239 adopts the FCC's definition of digital discrimination, which establishes a clear definition for digital discrimination of access. This definition provides a framework for identifying and addressing discriminatory practices and broadband Internet provision. In addition, AB 2239 expressly prohibits Internet service providers from engaging in digital discrimination of access, which is defined as policies or practices that disparately or differentially impact consumers access based on factors such as income level, race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Here to testify is Patrick Messac, Executive Director of Oakland Undivided, and Shayna Englin, the Director of the Digital Equity initiative at the California Community Foundation.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bonta, Chair Boener, Vice Chair Patterson and members of the Committee. I'm Patrick Messac, Director of Oakland Undivided, an equity-based collective impact initiative that unites the city, school district and trusted CBOs in the pursuit of digital equity for Oakland's 37,000 disconnected households.

As my Assemblymember shared, the facts of the digital divide in California are stark. Race and income are the best predictors of whether you have access to the Internet in your neighborhood, how reliable it is and what you pay for it. With low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately on the wrong side of all of those questions, here's what we've seen in Oakland. Wildly disparate quality of service in our lowest-income communities.

After months of inspecting internal wiring and conducting interviews with network experts and community members, a clear theme emerged. Poor communities do not get the reliable broadband connections advertised to them, regardless of how much they pay. OU partnered with Hubble IQ to run nearly half a million speed tests at over 15,000 locations across Oakland, and we found that over 75% of Internet connections we tested never reached the speed threshold to be considered served.

Most alarmingly, connections in our highest income community, with the largest proportion of white residents, were nearly 10 times faster than in our poorest, with the city's largest population of people of color.

A pattern mirroring redlining maps from 1937. The Fresno Digital Inclusion alliance, one of our partners at the California alliance for Digital Equity, a cross-sector collaborative of 30 plus anchor institutions and community-based orgs working to improve digital equity throughout Fresno County and central Joaquin Valley, documented a similar pattern utilizing K-12 student laptops in Fresno Unified and central unified school districts. They have over 15 million speed tests, measurements that echo the same findings in Oakland.

Areas of historic underinvestment continue to show up as the most poorly served broadband consumers. You might assume that these wealthy communities have higher quality connections because they pay more for Internet. But the opposite is true. Poor communities pay more for worse Internet, a fact that Miss Brandy, a single mother living in public housing in West Oakland, paying $150 a month to keep her children online for schoolwork, can attest to.

OU is proud to sponsor AB 2239 because if we are going to eradicate the digital divide and ensure that all of our communities can access the necessities and opportunities available only with fast, reliable, and affordable broadband Internet, we must tackle digital discrimination, whether it is intentional or not. Thank you.

I'm Shayna Englin, Director of the Digital Equity Initiative at the California Community Foundation. We co-convene Digital Equity Los Angeles and the California Alliance for Digital Equity.

I'm here on behalf of both of these coalitions, the list of AB 2239 champions representing on the letter of support we submitted for this committee's consideration, and many of whom are arrayed behind us. In LA, we have documented that the advertised cost of Internet service is systematically higher in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. For example, in a majority white Marina del Rey neighborhood with near nonexistent poverty, nearly universal connectivity, advertised prices range from $40 to $60 per month from the monopoly provider.

We're about 15 minutes away in University Park, where 65% of households live in poverty. The majority of residents are people of color, and four out of 10 people are disconnected. The advertised prices for the exact same service are $10 to $20 per month, and I'll point that the visual aid, these are screenshots taken last week. This is new information. Independent research has verified our findings at scale.

A team at UC Santa Barbara studied more than 35,000 residential addresses in the City of Los Angeles and concluded that, quote, wealthier areas receive more bandwidth for less money. This isn't a phenomenon limited to LA. Last month, our partners at Chinese for Affirmative Action in San Francisco published a report on service in Chinatown compared to nearby San Francisco communities.

One case study from CAA's report, a plan available at a North Beach address, offers maximum speeds that are six times higher than the maximum speeds available at a Chinatown address for the same cost. The two addresses are five blocks apart. We want to be clear. As sponsors and supporters of AB 2239 we're not making any assumptions or accusations about the intent or what's in the hearts of people making decisions at the big ISPs. Instead, we're documenting the lived experience of the people in our communities who remain disproportionately disconnected. And we're elevating the patterns in ISP policies and practices that, regardless of intent, are exacerbating the digital divide. I'll wrap up. Thank you very much for your support, and we're able to answer any questions.

Thank you to the proponents. We also have two primary witnesses in opposition who may approach the desk. We have Amanda Gualderama, Legislative Director, CalBroadband. Did I get your name right?

Okay. And then Pam Loomis from CalCom, and you'll each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband. While we appreciate the goal of AB 2239 we disagree with the method and must oppose the bill. It is important to note that California has enacted extensive anti-discrimination laws. For example, under the Unrest Civil Rights Act, all businesses, including Internet service providers, are prohibited from discriminating against protected classes.

Under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act, video service providers are prohibited from discriminating against or denying access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides. Within the 18 years since DIVCA was passed, there has not been a single enforcement action related to a violation of the anti-discrimination standard.

Putting aside the arguments that the FCC rules already under review by the federal court, that enforcement will begin in September, that there is a preemption question since Congress and the FCC were clear and have enacted in this area, and that the FCC has published a list of ways that states can assist in ensuring that there is no digital discrimination that are not reflected in the bill, I will focus my testimony on what is in the bill.

AB 2239 places a standard of disparate impact with regards to liability for a violation of digital discrimination. This means that ISPs can be held liable even if they are not intentionally withholding quality Internet from a protected group. Many, if not most, longstanding uniform business practices or decisions based on multiple factors could be seen to have differential impacts on consumers.

Also, this bill is silent regarding the procedural requirements, which should include the inclusive community Supreme Court precedent that requires certain hurdles for the government to demonstrate that disparate impact is tied to a specific policy or practice, and liability would only attach if our artificial, arbitrary, or unnecessary barriers are included. Currently, California has the benefit of being the seat of investment for the technology sector, including broadband infrastructure. Policies such as disparate impact standards will have a chilling effect regarding growth, upgrades and innovation.

Ensuring universal access to broadband infrastructure is an important issue to everyone, which is why our Members pride themselves on deploying ubiquitous service throughout their territories. Yes, thank you. I'm gonna pass it on to Pam.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Pam Loomis and I'm testifying in opposition to AB 2239 today on behalf of the small rural companies that are Members of the California Communications Association, or CalCom for short.

These small companies have been serving some of the most remote and rugged areas of the state for over 100 years. They build and operate broadband capable networks in sparsely populated, historic communities. And because their customers want access to the Internet, they have created affiliates to provide broadband service, often at an economic loss.

These companies have been at the forefront of closing the digital divide in rural California in their communities, and this is thanks in large part to public funding from both the federal and state high cost subsidy programs. We are a testament to the benefits of addressing the digital divide through public-private partnerships rather than the punitive approach of AB 2239. This bill would expose us to potential costly litigation and enforcement by the Attorney General.

It will instill investment and increase the cost of doing business which will be ultimately passed on to our customers. We absolutely support the goal of affordable broadband for all. We are committed to that goal. We would ask the Legislature to help us achieve it through reducing regulatory and permitting burdens and reforming the lifeline program to allow customers to opt to use their credit for broadband service. However, today the CalCom Members cannot support AB 2239 and we ask for your no vote.

Okay, we'll move to any additional witnesses and support. You may approach the mic with your name, affiliation and position only.

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund, in support. Thank you.

Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Media Alliance, in support.

Adriana Sanchez Ochoa, Chief Deputy Director of NextGen policy and a member of CADE, co-sponsor and strong support.

Cristal Mojica, manager of the Digital Equity initiative at the Michelson Center for Public Policy, in support.

Thamar Pena, United Parents and Students as well as Digital Equity LA, in support.

Lindsey Skolnik, here with the California Alliance for Digital Equity, in support

Maddie Ribble, with the Children's Partnership co-sponsor, here in support.

Alyssa Mohamadzadeh, with the Community Clinic Association of LA County, in support.

Sophia Hesseltine, co-chair of the Oakland Youth Commission, in support.

Bryce Hunt, with the Oakland Youth Commission, in support.

Sophia Sandoval from Communities in Schools of Los Angeles, in full support.

Jorge Rivera with the Healing and Justice Center and Digital Equity LA Coalition in support.

Good afternoon. Erika Cervantes with Alliance for Better Community and the Digital Equity LA coalition in support.

Miguel Angel Segura, Parent Institute for Quality Education, in support

Ulises Zatarain Executive Director for Tech Exchange in Oakland and part of the California Alliance for Digital Equity, support.

Claudia Garcia, Director of Programs from Tech Exchange, in support.

Chao Jun Liu, legislative associate at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support.

Amy Cortina, with UNITE-LA in support.

Kevin Miller, board chair of Fresno Coalition for Digital Inclusion, in support.

Katie Liang, with the Oakland Youth Commission, in support.

Olga Gonzalez, with Innovate Public Schools, in support.

Caleb Cuffusi, with the Oakland Youth Commission in support.

Georgia Savage, Oakland Undivided co-sponsor in strong support.

Norma Fernandez, CEO of EveryoneOn, strong support.

Alysia Bell, Unite LA, support.

Katherine Patricia Callejas, with the Healing and Justice Center in full support.

Cinthia Diaz, director of community impact with Oakland Undivided, in support.

Salvador Diaz, with APC, and strong support.

Thank you, everybody, for the witnesses and support. Moving on, are there any witnesses in opposition? You may approach the mic with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Roxanne Gould, representing the Wireless Infrastructure Association. Our members build, develop, own, and operate the nation's wireless infrastructure. We advocate on behalf of responsible and timely deployment. And for the reasons stated by CalBroadband, we must oppose.

Ben Golumbeck with the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Okay, bringing it back to Committee.

Do we have any questions? Yes, Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I know that she's such a huge champion for communities of color, especially those that are unserved and underserved. So I understand why this bill is being brought forward. I do have a couple of questions, and it might be for both. But I heard that opposition says there's already a policy in place around discrimination and if there was discrimination in deployment of any of these programs.

So I was wondering if you know about that policy or if there are any questions or concerns about what's already in place. And then I think they have some charts here, and they talked about witnesses, talked about how there are certain areas five blocks away where there's discrepancies or whatnot. I was wondering if you can speak on that. I also know that there are already programs in place for low income communities, low income families and whatnot.

I'm wondering if maybe you can talk how this would impact that or what the difference is. And then, you know, one of the things that I worry about also is that some.

Assemblymember Nguyen, can we maybe, because you're asking all the things together, unless you're asking like one big question. We go through the chair, and then we could ask for response from both sides.

Yeah, I'll stop there. Okay. Well, thank you.

No, we could go back to more questions. There's always time for more questions.

Potentially, well on the overall kind of like whether there are existing policies that this would fall under. I just, I would point you to a history in the United States, and particularly which California has participated in, being very clear to set established guidelines around the difference between disparate impact and disparate intent.

No, no, we'll stop so they can. Because then it might generate even more questions.

For the most part through whether you're talking about education, health care, employment, housing, we've always had to be very clear about the way in which our essential utilities and quite frankly, our civil rights are impacted in any particular area. This legislation is outlining very clearly that there should be a disparate impact analysis applied to discrimination within the context of broadband.

So while I appreciate that there are existing laws on the books that kind of override a sensibility around making sure that we are careful not to discriminate, the reality is, as you've heard from the witnesses, and I love that I had a McClymond student here and an Ojai student here, and we could have had students from your district or, or elders from your district coming forward, essentially say, despite whatever has been put in place, including, to your second question, existing programs that have attempted to lower the cost, which is one issue we still have at the end of the day, a serious access problem.

And if you dig in a little deeper about where that access problem is happening, it is happening largely in Low income communities, rural communities, places where that have continually been disenfranchised, including communities of color. And so we absolutely need to be clear in the state of California and in the state of California, not just relying on the Federal Government, quite frankly, in the state of California, that we need to ensure that we are opposed to discrimination within the context of such a vital resource like broadband.

The opponents would like to also answer the question.

So, I'm sorry, I was trying to follow all of your questions regarding those standards that are already in place. Just again, there's been no enforcement action against us, stating that we have been in violation of any anti-discrimination laws, whether it was unre or the DIVCA statute. With regard to your question on the poster board, unfortunately, I was on the other side of the poster board.

And again, I am also with the association, not necessarily a specific member company, but our member companies do take any accusation seriously and have proven to be willing to sit down with these groups, with members of the Assembly and discuss and even go to particular households and to see what is exactly happening, whether it's a technology issue regarding their Wi-Fi, what have you. So always, that's always an open-door policy and hope to continue that conversation.

I think the other question I asked about was just some of the programs, and I think the Assemblymember did talk about some of these programs. I've not, and I know you said that there were some students and maybe some senior communities that were from my district. I've not had anybody reach out to say that they've had issues.

I know that when they come from communities where they can't afford access to that we would sign them up to programs that would allow them to have access to broadband or whatnot. My fear is that, would that in any way impede in some of these programs that are already available to these communities? The other question that I wonder is that would this then open it up for anybody's claiming discrimination when really there clearly isn't?

I think about things like, I'm going to give an example, if a new provider comes in and they're a brand new provider and they're coming into town in a certain area and they're going to provide a special, right. They're going to provide a special rate with all kinds of goodies or whatnot if you sign up.

Would that then, because they're not offering it to the adjacent neighborhood, be then considered like you're discriminating because you're not offering this exact same service to a low income community that is adjacent to this neighborhood? You know, I'm just using that as an example of what I could see happen. And I'm not sure if you could talk about that or if you can talk about that, but that's kind of how I view it.

I, you know, and again, like, I love that you are such a champion for ;ow income communities and whatnot, and that's what we both did for decades. And so my fear is that this would take away from some of the things that in my district that we really utilize and we look forward to and that I was able to sign up a lot of community members and families for.

The fear is that some of that goes away or the fear is that it's not as great as it is now from what my districts are used to enjoying.

Would the author or the proponents like to answer that question?

I would first say that just to kind of address the assertion that there haven't been any violations reported. My understanding is that there isn't an adequate complaint mechanism for those violations to be reported.

So if you're not allowed to complain, really allowed to be able to, or have a vehicle to be able to do that, it's likely that you're not going to have any issues with enforcement.

There is a mechanism to complain, and it's within the CPUC and the CPUC reviews, at least on the video services side, our franchise and any accusation of if the CPUC.

One more time. Sorry, there isn't? I thought that there is a complaint?

It's the same infrastructure.

We are not on the video services side, though, of the shop, we are on the broadband side of the shop. Right.

I would like the author to answer this question if that's okay.

So I'll just continue with my scenario that you offered, which is essentially, first, the fact that we are provided by private actors discounts essentially belies that idea that it's something that is within our control to be able to continue to hold a secret right.

The idea of ensuring that we have a very clear definition of what digital discrimination means is that we are declaring that it is our right to have to be digitally connected, and it is the public's responsibility to ensure that in the sharing of those services, that people are not discriminated against based on the categories that we know are covered within the equal protection clause. So I'm not concerned about programs coming to existence or not.

I'm always concerned about that because it's not within our power to be able to control that. What is within our power as a state Legislature is essentially to be very clear about when there is a differential in terms of the kinds of services that are available, in terms of accessibility and the quality of the service that's being provided. Secondarily, we need to make sure that we have an opportunity to be clear that this legislation does not create a situation.

This legislation dictates that if the policy or practice is not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that needs to essentially have a burden of proof on the ISP providers to demonstrate that it's not discriminatory. So essentially, if we have these exemptions around for ISP providers, it's technically infeasible or it's economically infeasible to be able to provide the service, then this ruling of discrimination would not apply.

Okay, any other questions? Assemblymember Davies.

If I can go to opposition, I've heard the word safe harbor provisions. Can you explain that to me?

Sure. This bill does not include any of the procedural protections that most anti-discrimination laws include, including UNRA and DiPCA. And that means a safe harbor for instances where things are not where business decisions need to be made that are non discriminatory right.

And then it also does not include the natural defenses that we are that are normally included in the anti discrimination laws. And I know we have been talking with the author's office regarding some kind of language, and we are hopeful that after this, we know this bill was going to be amended. We just got the language. We're hoping to continue those conversations regarding those important procedural safeguards, including safe harbors, including defenses and procedural requirements regarding the complaint process.

So those are procedures that you would like to see in there? Okay. And first of all, I want to say thank you for bringing this bill up. I completely understand the intent. I think we've saw, you know, so much of this during COVID and why it was so important, especially when it came to our kids in education. And I'm so glad that you guys have been talking about that. Are there any of these, I guess, exemptions or provisions that you guys.

That you two think you would be able to help out? To me, a perfect, you know, we have good bills, but as legislators, we like the perfect bill where there isn't any opposition, where we know people come together for the greater good, which would be, you know, connectivity and for the good of those having the communication. Are there any of these that they're talking about that you think you might be working after we leave this room?

Certainly after we leave this room, I will say that my staff has met with the opposition on several different occasions. We've requested language on what a compromise would look like on at least three different occasions and provided the opposition with the author amendments before they went into print.

Furthermore, while I appreciate the introduction of the notion of safe harbor, which we are, as you know, Ms. Nguyen, more than anyone else, know that we work hard on our bills to make sure that they come into a place where they are good policy. And we are happy to continue to entertain those conversations and be in conversation with the opposition around that language, both around that and any kind of procedural language.

But I would certainly ask that our office sees that language first, which has not been the case. I appreciate that.

One second, if I can just interject. I just want to make clear that we did not get any amendments from the opposition for safe harbor when it came to this Committee. I'll say something by closing around enforcement, and so I think there is some work to do. There you would want a process to be clear where people know where they're crossing the line.

And I mean, Assemblymember Bonta is so knowledgeable about this and so thoughtful about this that I trust those conversations will continue on.

No, and I appreciate that. Right now what I'm going to do is I'm going to hold off on this bill to support it because I know that you guys can come together.

And again, I may be looking for the perfect Bill, but I know that, I'm hoping that we can come together because obviously there is economic point where if it's not feasible, which I appreciate that, that it just can't be done. You're not trying to expect something that's not obtainable. That's important because we don't want to watch the small companies go under. But I thank you very much for this.

I do understand the importance of it and I hope that I can get to the point to support it. Thank you.

Any other questions? Holden?

Not so much a question. I'd like to move the bill. I think that the author has worked very hard with the committee to address some of the issues that were threshold in terms of this committee's jurisdiction. I know, I believe it goes to judiciary afterwards. And so there's other elements or other bars to try to address and get over.

But in terms of where we are and the amendments that have been accepted and the conversations that will continue, I'm happy to move the bill.

Motion by Holden. Do I have a second? Second by Rivas. Assemblymember Rodriguez?

Yes, thank you. I just think some of my questions already been answered, but I want to thank the author for bringing this bill, for it. Obviously, it's a very complex issue, a lot of different moving parts.

Hopefully we can get a better place with opposition, continue working together to address these issues that we're talking about regarding the billing issues. And obviously there is still a lack of access in some of our communities. Right. How do we get there? The sooner rather than later. But I think this is something we need to continue working on to get in a better place.

And once again, I encourage you to work both sides together, and hopefully I can find some better place for I'll support it now as a courtesy to continue that process, but reserve my right, see what happens if it comes on the floor, that hopefully gets in a better place. So thank you both.

Thank you. Assemblymember Maienschein?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've reviewed the materials on this. I appreciate you bringing it.

I know it's something that's important to you also would reflect what my colleague had said, too. I hope you'll continue to work with those that are in opposition. I do think there's some issues there. I'll be happy to sit down with you too, and kind of reflect what I've been hearing from folks kind of in my neck of the woods and in San Diego. I do want to allow you the opportunity to continue working on it.

So if necessary, if, you know, to help you move that along the process, I'd be willing to do that. But same thing, I'd reserve my right down the road if some of these issues continue to be a problem, to not support the bill. But I know you do work with other people, and so for that reason, to continue to move what's an important discussion down the road, I'll do that. But I do urge you to continue to work with the opposition on this. Thank you.

Another lively C and C hearing. Any other questions? Okay with that? So, Assemblymember Bonta, would you like to close?

Chair, who would have thought that you would have been the, the center of so much, you know, intrigue? You know, this issue is not only important to me and my district, but it's important to every single California. We in the State of California, stand up for democracy. And we stand up to ensure that we are shunning any discriminatory action.

We already have laws on the books to be able to very clearly say that we won't allow for disparate impact and discrimination in the areas of employment, education, healthcare. What we don't have right now is a firm stance from this state of California around ensuring that there is no discrimination of access as it relates to an essential service of broadband and connectivity. My office will continue to work with the opposition on this bill.

At the end of the day, we all serve to ensure that we are moving forward with legislation that will ensure that every Californian is provided the need that they have. We want to be able to ensure that our ISP providers have the comfort that they need in order to be able to do their business. But we also need to make sure that every Californian has the basic right to broadband. We will continue to work this bill. You have my commitment around that. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion by Holden, second by Rivas. I want to thank Assemblymember Bonta for working with me and my committee staff so constructively on this bill and getting to the place where we are now. I support what you're doing to address the digital discrimination, and it will supplement the work we're doing in other areas, including infrastructure funding and digital equity work.

Regardless of what's happening at the level of the FCC, California has been a leader in the broadband space, and I think your bill continues that tradition. Moving forward, I do think there's room for a thoughtful discussion about what enforcement looks like and will continue to look like in California. But then, nonetheless, you've proven your commitment time and time again with working with people on this bill.

As I was mentioning earlier, I think there needs to be a bright line for every company about when they're crossing it. And in my district, currently, I don't see a lot of digital discrimination. But I have the district that probably doesn't see that. In my old district, which includes part of Assemblymember Davies' district, Oceanside and Vista, we saw it more and more. There weren't pictures of kids at Taco Bell or Mcdonald's in Encinitas and Carlsbad. They were in Oceanside, Vista.

And the issue of the I'm too old to read any of the posters you brought. I tried really hard if you saw me squinting, but I would like to see that data for other parts of the state, because higher costs with lower speeds is unacceptable. And I don't think any of us. No, that's not snap. Let's all hold it to the end. Anyways, higher costs and lower speeds are unacceptable. And I don't think any of our good actors intend that.

And so I really hope you do do the tours with CalBroadband and our ISP's so that they can fix the problem. Because I think if it existed, it's a historic private market expansion that existed. In Encinitas, we have multiple ISPs that serve my house. There aren't not multiple ISPs that serve every part, especially in low income areas. So anyways, I've gone off on why I was really happy to work with you on this bill. So obviously I'm supporting the bill. We have a motion.

We have a second. The motion on AB 2239 by Assemblymember Bonta is do pass as amended. And we refer to the committee on Judiciary. They're probably the better people to handle the enforcement part than me, you know, not a lawyer. Would the secretary please call the roll?

Boerner? Boerner, aye. Patterson? Patterson, no. Bonta? Bonta, aye. Davies? Davies, no. Garcia? Garcia, aye. Holden? Holden, aye. Hoover? Hoover, no. Maienschein? Maienschein, aye. Nguyen?

I'm gonna save my vote for the final product on the floor. So I'm not gonna vote on it today.

Okay, that goes out seven ayes, one not voting, three nos. Is that correct? Okay, thank you very much, Ms Bonta. And thank you to everyone in the room. If you would like to applause or snap now, this is the time. There you go. Okay, we're gonna move it back to the consent calendar.

Nguyen not voting. Luz Rivas? Luz Rivas, aye. Rodriguez? Rodriguez, aye.

Do we have a motion? Moved by Nguyen, second by Rodriguez. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Will the secretary please call the roll on the consent calendar. We have AB 2639 Jim Patterson. Item five, AB 2708 Jim Patterson. And item six, AB 2905 Low.

[Roll Call].

For the consent calendar. AB 2369. Do pass and rereferred to Committee on Appropriations. AB 2708 Jim Patterson. Do pass and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. And AB 2905 Low, do pass as amended, and rereferred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call].

Okay, that consent calendar is out unanimously. And now we're going to lift the call on AB. Which one is it? AB 2765. Will the secretary please call the roll.

AB 2765 is out. 11 to zero. Okay with that the Committee is adjourned.